Tiger Forces Move on Israeli Proxies

I don't present anything as anything. People can think for themselves. State ownership is not a reason to dismiss content. BBC is state-owned. Posting a video is not an endorsement of everything an outlet puts out either.

If you have reason to believe the video I posted is "complete trash" or "bullshit" then simply debunk it.

Have you even looked into who's behind Southfront?

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/South_Front

https://syria.liveuamap.com/

That's a good quesion. No. I don't think you should trust anything at face value. You should use your own brain and always be aware of the agenda of what you're watching, whether state, corporate or political. Strictly state-directed media can be some of the best because the agenda can be the most detectable. BBC is state-owned but the UK has a mixture of media controls at play - lobby groups, pressure groups & of course PR from the various ministries, so BBC, while having high production standards & generally high journalistic standards, is still guilty of deception. Sometimes it can be extremely blunt eg. the "Assad used CW against Syrians civilians" debacle.

Long answer....

Fact-checking and other skills are required if you want to know what's going on. I'll still look at BBC etc. on topics I know they're lying about because I want to know what the UK government strategy looks like. In recent cases re: Syria/Russia using CW/poisons I think BBC has shown itself to be a blunt propaganda tool of the state which is cause for concern & it says something about the desparation of the West right now - a willingness to paint Syria/Russia as the bad guy at all costs. Sucks to lose in a conflict I guess.

IMO, the most deceptive outlets are privately owned US media & state-owned BBC. Both are very sophisticated re: deception. The BBC is the world's largest news org & has a lot of good shows but on the topics I'm most interested in (conflicts & foreign affairs), the BBC is often garbage - a result of the fact that the UK & their allies act illegally in conflict zones, decades of experience & the huge money/political power involved. The deception is not always motivated by the UK's best interest either, it's succeptable to who pulls the strings politically in the UK, including lobbying & pressure groups.

The US corporate media is a complex apparatus of lies but regardless of political affiliations it always tells the same lies re: foreign affairs, sometimes with a political spin (pro-Trump & anti-Trump being the main dishes on the menu right now). US media is financially tied to the arms industry and is reliant on Whitehouse/State Dept access so it can't stray too far from certain narratives. The result of all this pressure is the ultimate sin in journalism - self-censorship.

I've found that if you watch news from all over the world you can get a clearer picture of what's going on, so long as you know what agendas are at play. PressTV & RT are both in countries that the US consider adversaries/enemies but both have very different agendas at play. Dispite the propaganda in the US, Russia is not a boogeyman, nor is Iran. Every country has domestic political concerns and a different voice on the world stage & this will come through in the agenda of their state-owned media. It's interesting to see the way in which each uses modern media to have a say. RT actually does a lot of reporting on US domestic issues. It has high production values & so for issues that do not concern Russia, this can be a good outlet to get a balanced view on something controversial that happens in the US. Eg. a gun rights debate.

My biggest peeve with RT is that they're a bit aggressive re: muck raking on US domestic issues. There's an audience for this stuff but it undermines their better shows.

Based on comments from US journalists who switch to RT, the editing/producing on RT is very loose compared to the US where it's highly manicured to stay on message. It's why I quietly laugh when people talk about RT as though it's 100% Kremlin propaganda. It's more free than anything in the US establishment media space on a lot of topics. At the end of the day it's all about the choice of guests & the person whispering in the host's ear. I've seen way more cases of a guests' opinions being talked over the top of on US media than any other media in the world. They just cut the connection when it gets off message or "cut to commercial" if the host can't smash the interiew into submission.

To simply say "RT is crap because it's a Putin mouthpiece" is very shortsighted & thinking this way will liimt the information you have access to. It all just takes time if you use your own brain.