America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ wasn't removed, just rebranded | RT

[Phoenyx]

Saying that RT is a questionable media source is a stance that we don't share, at least when it comes to the war in Ukraine. RT is hardly the only state financed news outlet. The U.S. has its NPR, the U.K. has its BBC, and Canada has its CBC. And honestly, I've seen no indication that the mainstream corporate media is better. As a matter of fact, I suspect it's frequently worse.

Please provide evidence that NPR is owned by the US government.

You really need to read what I say more carefully. I didn't say that the NPR was owned by the U.S. government. I said that NPR was -financed- by the U.S. government.

Provide evidence that the US government controls what and how NPR reports on stories.

Where do I say that the U.S. government controls what and how NPR reports stories?

Please provide evidence that the BBC is owned by the British government. Provide evidence that the British government controls what and how the BBC reports on stories.

Again, I made no such claim above. However, there is certainly evidence that the BBC is involved in pushing government propaganda. Some articles with evidence of this:

Reuters, BBC, and Bellingcat participated in covert UK Foreign Office-funded programs to “weaken Russia,” leaked docs reveal | thegrayzone.com

As leaks expose UK op to ‘weaken’ Russia, suppression of Grayzone reporting backfires | thegrayzone.com

BBC assault on antiwar academics was apparent product of UK intel plot | thegrayzone.com

Please provide evidence that the CBC is owned by the Canadian government. Provide evidence that the Canadian government controls what and how the CBC reports on stories.

Again, I made no such claims above. However, there is certainly evidence that the CBC has been used as a propaganda tool by the Canadian government in the past, apparently by your namesake, Richard Saunders:

The CBC’s “Voice of Canada”: Weapon of Cold War propaganda | canadianpatriot.org

There's also evidence that the propaganda there continues to this day:
CBC Journalist Quits; Admits Network Is ‘Deep State’ Propaganda | newspunch.com

RT was required to register as a foreign agent under FARA because it is owned/controlled by the Russian government. BBC and CBC have not been required to register.

Ofcourse not. They are pro western news outlets. Russia clearly isn't.

Russia has labelled a BBC reporter, as well as the Bellingcat news outlet as foreign agents as well:
Russia labels reporters foreign agents after Nobel award | BBC


It stands to reason, doesn't it?

[Phoenyx]

Found an article I found quite interesting on RT that was published yesterday detailing the rebranding of the U.S.'s "Disinformation Governance Board" into the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA for short. An excerpt from RT's article is below...

**
America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ hasn't gone away: Official Washington didn't abandon its plan to ​​control social networks

Leaked documents reveal the ‘paused’ ‘Disinformation Governance Board’’ is back online

The US Department of Homeland Security is secretly ramping up its efforts to censor and suppress information it considers dangerous - in other words, it's focussed on inconvenient, but true, facts. A body originally created to defend Americans from terror is now threatening free speech everywhere online - and doing so with the active help of major tech firms.

This is all revealed in leaked documents obtained by journalists Ken Klippenstein and Lee Fang. Perhaps the most worrying papers are those that show that the highly controversial and widely condemned DHS (or “Disinformation Governance Board”) – and the serious threat it poses to free speech – hasn't gone anywhere.
**

Full article:
America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ hasn't gone away: Official Washington didn't abandon its plan to ​​control social networks | RT

Is there something wrong with the government having a way to evaluate the truth of information put out by foreign adversaries?

No, ofcourse not. The problem is when the government is -censoring- the truth in the name of censoring disinformation.

[Phoenyx]

I am brand new here but not to debate. I found this site through this thread, which is quite an eye-opener. I am currently in the process of checking out this NEW Truth Ministry which will take lots more time because I generally don't rush to judgment. But what I have found so far is that it is stacked with not just average liberals, but extreme far-left ones who hate Trump and by extension, anyone who supports him, ie. conservatives.

In answer to the post above, it is a flat-out LIE that Russia interfered with our elections by hacking the DNC computers. The lie was exposed and the DNC made it appear their computers were hacked but that wasn't possible. As to Russia posting there is little evidence of that either and the best anyone can find is that they posted some nonsense on Twitter and it was against both Trump and Hillary.

Humans are lied to all the time by our own government and information is withheld. The Hunter laptop being one and recently Chris Wray says the whistleblowers are wrong that the FBI is targeting and getting rid of conservatives. To every question, he says he cannot comment.

So, to Jarod, who is it that decides if a post is from a foreign government and the post is incorrect? The people on this new commission The FBI? Why should we trust known liars that set up Trump for Russian collusion and people like Schiff who lied repeatedly or the spy Swalwell. The PEOPLE should decide what is false and not allow idiots in government who are controlling is to do that.

Hey Paradoxical, nice to finally see you here :-). I agree regarding Russiagate, and also agree that people should be allowed to determine for themselves what is true and what isn't, or risk more true information being censored.

[Paradoxical]

Hey Paradoxical, nice to finally see you here :-). I agree regarding Russiagate, and also agree that people should be allowed to determine for themselves what is true and what isn't, or risk more true information being censored.

Phoenyx, if we don't allow people to post criticisms of others no matter their color, job, ethnicity, sex, political or religious beliefs, or things that are false we become a race that is stifled, afraid, and controlled by the elites. People who are in power not because they were ever elected, but because they have influence and connections such as George Soros, Klaus, the new dictator of Canada, President Xi, Dimon (head of Chase Bank) along with a whole host of other people we don't know, some of whom are interested in some new World Order where "We will have nothing and be happy" and we will all do what we are told instead of what we want to and no criticisms can ever be levied against anyone. Unknown and unseen people will be operating in the background deciding what we should see and hear and not see and hear.

Disagreements and challenges to "authority" and harsh criticisms are needed for change and improvement. For instance, it has become taboo to call someone "fat" when they obviously are and we are now told that fat is beautiful and you will hurt the person's precious feelings. As a result, we now have a human population that is grossly obese which then results in diabetes, and heart problems and that group had one of the highest rates of death from Covid. But, we can't point that out nor can we tell someone they are fat and eventually some "Truth Council" will determine that to call someone "fat" is hate speech.

One of the people on that Commission is a guy named Bobby Chesney, a Trump hater based on his postings, and also a Elon Musk hater. His podcasts now deride Musk and he and his buddy are moving over to Mastodon. I doubt many here know what Mastodon is. They are a new site where people communicate. BUT....if you post the slightest slur or criticism of anyone, you are banned, no questions. They want to keep the debate "civil". As a result, what you have there is a bunch of crybaby snowflakes who are watching every word someone says. Now, the people that cannot handle different opinions and criticism love it as their haven and solace but how do they ever learn any new ideas and thoughts? It's like being a Muslim and having your own little room where no one can ever criticize Allah or question how Mohammed could fly to heaven on a winged creature. You just have to accept and believe and be quiet.

With these commissions stacked with only people of like mind that we all need to go green right now no matter the cost, that people should be vaccinated and wear masks because health officials claim they "work" (they don't) or who are silent when China locks peoples doors from the outside resulting in the deaths by fire of men, women, and children ARE the problem. Humanity should not accept these kinds of commissions that are there to control speech and demonstrations like Trudeau and Xi and Biden.

[Phantasmal]

Phoenyx, if we don't allow people to post criticisms of others no matter their color, job, ethnicity, sex, political or religious beliefs, or things that are false we become a race that is stifled, afraid, and controlled by the elites. People who are in power not because they were ever elected, but because they have influence and connections such as George Soros, Klaus, the new dictator of Canada, President Xi, Dimon (head of Chase Bank) along with a whole host of other people we don't know, some of whom are interested in some new World Order where "We will have nothing and be happy" and we will all do what we are told instead of what we want to and no criticisms can ever be levied against anyone. Unknown and unseen people will be operating in the background deciding what we should see and hear and not see and hear.

Disagreements and challenges to "authority" and harsh criticisms are needed for change and improvement. For instance, it has become taboo to call someone "fat" when they obviously are and we are now told that fat is beautiful and you will hurt the person's precious feelings. As a result, we now have a human population that is grossly obese which then results in diabetes, and heart problems and that group had one of the highest rates of death from Covid. But, we can't point that out nor can we tell someone they are fat and eventually some "Truth Council" will determine that to call someone "fat" is hate speech.

One of the people on that Commission is a guy named Bobby Chesney, a Trump hater based on his postings, and also a Elon Musk hater. His podcasts now deride Musk and he and his buddy are moving over to Mastodon. I doubt many here know what Mastodon is. They are a new site where people communicate. BUT....if you post the slightest slur or criticism of anyone, you are banned, no questions. They want to keep the debate "civil". As a result, what you have there is a bunch of crybaby snowflakes who are watching every word someone says. Now, the people that cannot handle different opinions and criticism love it as their haven and solace but how do they ever learn any new ideas and thoughts? It's like being a Muslim and having your own little room where no one can ever criticize Allah or question how Mohammed could fly to heaven on a winged creature. You just have to accept and believe and be quiet.

With these commissions stacked with only people of like mind that we all need to go green right now no matter the cost, that people should be vaccinated and wear masks because health officials claim they "work" (they don't) or who are silent when China locks peoples doors from the outside resulting in the deaths by fire of men, women, and children ARE the problem. Humanity should not accept these kinds of commissions that are there to control speech and demonstrations like Trudeau and Xi and Biden.

Well, welcome to the forum. Please be sure to review our rules, enjoy.

[Jarod]

No, ofcourse not. The problem is when the government is -censoring- the truth in the name of censoring disinformation.

That would be a problem.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It's you who's misread what I said. Where did I say that NPR gets -direct- federal funding? I said it was federally funded, full stop.

Local public stations are not NPR. CPB contributes no money to NPR. It contributes money to local stations. Local stations buy some programs from NPR. How many times do I have to point out these simple facts.

NPR is NOT a radio station. It is a production company that provides content to radio stations. Your quote only shows that local stations and NOT NPR get money from CPB. Local stations often produce their own content above and beyond what they purchase from other sources.

CPB does not produce programming and does not own, operate or control any public broadcasting stations. Additionally, CPB, PBS, and NPR are independent of each other and of local public television and radio stations.
https://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb

Your attempt to claim they are federally funded is bullshit. It is like claiming they are federally funded because someone donates their tax return to NPR.

Their funding is enforced by the government and I imagine it's collected by them too. There's also plenty of evidence that they're involved in doing the government's dirty work propaganda wise, which is even more important.

What you imagine and reality are 2 very different things. All companies in England and the US have laws that prevent people from stealing their products. That doesn't mean the government owns or controls the companies.
The license is paid to BBC through the BBC trademarked TVLicensing.
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/who-we-are-AB4

It's a fee on anyone who has a TV in the UK, regardless of whether they're a BBC customer or not, enforced by the government and possibly collected by them as well. As to the government preventing them from charging huge fees, sure, but let's not forget that it's the same government that created this monopoly to begin with. Now, to be honest, if all the BBC did was provide quality news, I wouldn't mind in the slightest. But being strongly involved in government propaganda is where they cross the line.

ROFLMAO. So you simply make up "facts" and then demand that we accept them? That would be propaganda on your part.

I'm going to assume that you're referring to RT. I will say this, there are some claims that RT has made that I don't agree with. The same is true for pretty much any mainstream publication I've ever seen. The difference between RT and other mainstream publications, however, is that RT does -not- have an anti Russian bias and they frequently say things regarding the Russian perspective that I don't see anywhere else.

Propaganda is not about whether you personally agree or disagree with it. It is about how the story's facts compare to original sources. Let me give you an example. Nowhere on RT will you ever find a story that says Russia invaded Ukraine or that Russia is at war with Ukraine. RT adheres to the official government position of it is not a war. There has been fighting on the ground between 2 countries for over 6 months. Do you consider that a war?

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Agreed. However, as I already mentioned, the author I chose had links to evidence.

Which links do you think led to actual evidence? Linking to stories in the NYTimes is now evidence?
If anything the NYTimes story doesn't support the claim that other media refused to publish it. The link is a story about how the reporter that wrote the story for the Post refused to put his name on it so the Post cited the story as having been written by someone that had never done a previous article for the Post. That would point to the Post story being suspect since reporters at the Post thought it wasn't well researched.

No. In this day and age, where honest reporters like Julian Assange are persecuted relentlessly, it makes sense that some reporters would wish to become anonymous.

Reporters do actual reporting. They talk to sources. The piece you linked to has no source other than other media stories. It is an opinion piece. AMAC is not a news organization. It is an advocacy 501(c) non profit. AMAC lists all their authors as columnists. That means they write opinion pieces.
https://amac.us/columnists/

As if using one's real name ensured that a source was reliable. I've found that most mainstream news outlets generally aren't even worth the time to read that much.

Then you will always be ill informed. That is certainly your choice to make but it reveals you to be an intellectual light weight when you tell us you don't read any mainstream news. Mainstream news is the only news that at least attempts to be unbiased.

PRS, you've just made a trap for yourself. You say not to trust people who don't use their real name. You don't use your real name. So why in the world should I trust your opinion as to what is an opinion piece?

I didn't ask you to trust me as to whether it is an opinion piece. I asked you to use your brain that you seem determined to not use under any circumstances. There are criteria for objectively deciding for yourself whether something is an opinion piece. That you refuse to even consider any of that criteria speaks volumes about your ability to conduct critical thinking.

And right there is the flaw in your reasoning. You seem to think that everyone would agree with what you consider to be reputable sources. I strongly suspect that many of the sources you consider reputable are -not- the sources that I would consider reputable. Feel free to list some and I'll let you know.

I have already stated that I rely on primary sources whenever possible. I read court filings and court rulings. Just as an example, the news stories on the 11th circuit court ruling are not complete. I went and read the actual ruling. My primary news sources are probably the NY Times and the Washington Post but I use several other aggregators and don't rely on one source. The NYTimes and WaPo often have links to original sources. How exactly is it a flaw in my reasoning to read the NYTimes story on the the 11 circuit ruling and then go read the original ruling? I am skeptical of sources (NYTimes) and check their "facts" with other sources (the actual ruling) that I consider reputable. Feel free to point to the flaw you think exists. I look forward to debating it with you.

I frequently do the same.

Really? When did you go look at the NPR financials that were linked to? If you bothered to go read the link for the CPB, you would have seen that the money you think went to NPR actually went to local public radio stations. Somehow I think your understanding of the word "frequently" is similar to your understanding of the word "opinion."

And I have already explained why I disagreed with your reasoning. That doesn't mean I always agree with RT.

Actually, you agreed with the majority of the points I made about why it is propaganda. You then were willing to say that in spite of all the things I said being true and all the parts of the article that were incomplete or false, you still believed the article. Your credulity is pretty obvious. Let me give you an example. You claim RT at least gives you pro-Russian information. Have you ever seen an anti-Russian story in RT? Compare that to the NY Times. Does the NY Times ever do stories that are critical of the US government? Which one is more likely to be propaganda?

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You really need to read what I say more carefully. I didn't say that the NPR was owned by the U.S. government. I said that NPR was -financed- by the U.S. government.



Where do I say that the U.S. government controls what and how NPR reports stories?

I'm confused about your position on this because you seem to be all over the place.
As I have repeatedly pointed out NPR is NOT local public radio stations which are funded by CPB which in turn gets some money from the government. CPB was specifically set up to prevent government interference in public broadcasting. If the government has no control over NPR stories then how can NPR be a propaganda arm of the US government? At this point your arguments are just silly.

Again, I made no such claim above. However, there is certainly evidence that the BBC is involved in pushing government propaganda. Some articles with evidence of this:

Reuters, BBC, and Bellingcat participated in covert UK Foreign Office-funded programs to “weaken Russia,” leaked docs reveal | thegrayzone.com

As leaks expose UK op to ‘weaken’ Russia, suppression of Grayzone reporting backfires | thegrayzone.com

BBC assault on antiwar academics was apparent product of UK intel plot | thegrayzone.com

Once again, you appear to not have checked out the original sources. The links seem to want to download malware in order for me to view them. Not what I would call a great source. I have no desire to spend the time to set up a virtual machine to see what happens when I do download.

Again, I made no such claims above. However, there is certainly evidence that the CBC has been used as a propaganda tool by the Canadian government in the past, apparently by your namesake, Richard Saunders:

The CBC’s “Voice of Canada”: Weapon of Cold War propaganda | canadianpatriot.org

There's also evidence that the propaganda there continues to this day:
CBC Journalist Quits; Admits Network Is ‘Deep State’ Propaganda | newspunch.com

It appears you didn't read your sources. *Disclaimer
The views expressed in the Canadian Patriot Review are inspired by the philosophy and strategic outlook of Lyndon LaRouche.

Know the bias of your source. It helps understand where they are coming from. The newspunch story is ridiculous. Defend it if you can. "Deep State" is infiltrating CBC? Talk about absolute nonsense. It doesn't even know what deep state is supposed to refer to.

If you want to understand my screen name, you should learn some American history.

Ofcourse not. They are pro western news outlets. Russia clearly isn't.

Russia has labelled a BBC reporter, as well as the Bellingcat news outlet as foreign agents as well:
Russia labels reporters foreign agents after Nobel award | BBC

Russia has also jailed dissidents on trumped up charges. Know your sources and their bias.

[Paradoxical]

Here is a list of the people on this commission. Most all of them wealthy and connected far-left liberals. Note that includes Vijaya Gadde. Yes. the same person that took it upon herself to delete posts mentioning Hunter's laptop!! Note also the Trump hater Alex Stamos. Others have an equal hatred and disdain for conservatives. This list of people could have headed Twitter before Musk took over. they would have fit right in.

Mr. Thomas A. Fanning (Chair)
Mr. Ron Green (Vice Chair)
Mayor Steve Adler
Ms. Marene Allison
Ms. Lori Beer
Mr. Bobby Chesney
Ms. Vijaya Gadde
Ms. Niloofar Razi Howe
Mr. Kevin Mandia
Mr. Jeff Moss
Ms. Nuala O'Connor
Ms. Nicole Perlroth
Mr. Matthew Prince
Mr. Ted Schlein
Mr. Stephen Schmidt
Ms. Suzanne Spaulding
Mr. Alex Stamos
Dr. Kate Starbird
Mr. George Stathakopoulos
Ms. Alicia Tate-Nadeau
Ms. Nicole Wong
Mr. Christopher Young

[Paradoxical]

Here is a list of people on the commission:

Mr. Alex Stamos
Dr. Kate Starbird
Mr. George Stathakopoulos
Ms. Alicia Tate-Nadeau
Ms. Nicole Wong
Mr. Christopher Young

Yep, GADDE.....the same person that decided NOT to run the Hunter laptop story all on her own. THESE are the type of people now heading the new "Truth" commission.

[Phoenyx]

Hey Paradoxical, nice to finally see you here :-). I agree regarding Russiagate, and also agree that people should be allowed to determine for themselves what is true and what isn't, or risk more true information being censored.

Phoenyx, if we don't allow people to post criticisms of others no matter their color, job, ethnicity, sex, political or religious beliefs, or things that are false we become a race that is stifled, afraid, and controlled by the elites. People who are in power not because they were ever elected, but because they have influence and connections such as George Soros, Klaus, the new dictator of Canada, President Xi, Dimon (head of Chase Bank) along with a whole host of other people we don't know, some of whom are interested in some new World Order where "We will have nothing and be happy" and we will all do what we are told instead of what we want to and no criticisms can ever be levied against anyone. Unknown and unseen people will be operating in the background deciding what we should see and hear and not see and hear.

Disagreements and challenges to "authority" and harsh criticisms are needed for change and improvement. For instance, it has become taboo to call someone "fat" when they obviously are and we are now told that fat is beautiful and you will hurt the person's precious feelings. As a result, we now have a human population that is grossly obese which then results in diabetes, and heart problems and that group had one of the highest rates of death from Covid. But, we can't point that out nor can we tell someone they are fat and eventually some "Truth Council" will determine that to call someone "fat" is hate speech.

One of the people on that Commission is a guy named Bobby Chesney, a Trump hater based on his postings, and also a Elon Musk hater. His podcasts now deride Musk and he and his buddy are moving over to Mastodon. I doubt many here know what Mastodon is. They are a new site where people communicate. BUT....if you post the slightest slur or criticism of anyone, you are banned, no questions. They want to keep the debate "civil". As a result, what you have there is a bunch of crybaby snowflakes who are watching every word someone says. Now, the people that cannot handle different opinions and criticism love it as their haven and solace but how do they ever learn any new ideas and thoughts? It's like being a Muslim and having your own little room where no one can ever criticize Allah or question how Mohammed could fly to heaven on a winged creature. You just have to accept and believe and be quiet.

With these commissions stacked with only people of like mind that we all need to go green right now no matter the cost, that people should be vaccinated and wear masks because health officials claim they "work" (they don't) or who are silent when China locks peoples doors from the outside resulting in the deaths by fire of men, women, and children ARE the problem. Humanity should not accept these kinds of commissions that are there to control speech and demonstrations like Trudeau and Xi and Biden.

Hey Paradoxical. Quite a speech you gave there :-). I think I agree with what you're saying for the most part. As to Trudeau being a dictator, I don't know about that, although I definitely disagree with what he did in regards to the truckers.

[Phoenyx]

It's you who's misread what I said. Where did I say that NPR gets -direct- federal funding? I said it was federally funded, full stop.

Local public stations are not NPR. CPB contributes no money to NPR. It contributes money to local stations. Local stations buy some programs from NPR.

NPR does get a bit of money from CPB, but it's a negligible amount. I think it might be best if I simply quote what Wikipedia says on NPR's funding between 2009 and 2012 and see if we can agree:

**
According to CPB, in 2009 11.3% of the aggregate revenues of all public radio broadcasting stations were funded from federal sources, principally through CPB;[48] in 2012 10.9% of the revenues for Public Radio came from federal sources.[49]

In 2010, NPR revenues totaled $180 million, with the bulk of revenues coming from programming fees, grants from foundations or business entities, contributions and sponsorships.[31] According to the 2009 financial statement, about 50% of NPR revenues come from the fees it charges member stations for programming and distribution charges.[31] Typically, NPR member stations receive funds through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, state and local governments, educational institutions, and the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). In 2009, member stations derived 6% of their revenue from federal, state and local government funding, 10% of their revenue from CPB grants, and 14% of their revenue from universities.[31][50] While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPR's overall revenues.[31]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding_in_the_2000s

Their funding is enforced by the government and I imagine it's collected by them too. There's also plenty of evidence that they're involved in doing the government's dirty work propaganda wise, which is even more important.

What you imagine and reality are 2 very different things. All companies in England and the US have laws that prevent people from stealing their products. That doesn't mean the government owns or controls the companies.
The license is paid to BBC through the BBC trademarked TVLicensing.
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/who-we-are-AB4

Alright, so it seems that the BBC collects their own revenues, but that collection is still enforced by the UK government. Suggesting that it's like saying that the U.S. enforces laws against stealing isn't accurate. People are forced to pay these fees even if they don't watch BBC media. It's much more akin to taxes, where people are forced to pay for things they may never use or want to fund to begin with.

It's a fee on anyone who has a TV in the UK, regardless of whether they're a BBC customer or not, enforced by the government and possibly collected by them as well. As to the government preventing them from charging huge fees, sure, but let's not forget that it's the same government that created this monopoly to begin with. Now, to be honest, if all the BBC did was provide quality news, I wouldn't mind in the slightest. But being strongly involved in government propaganda is where they cross the line.

ROFLMAO. So you simply make up "facts" and then demand that we accept them? That would be propaganda on your part.

There is plenty of evidence that the BBC is deeply involved in government propaganda. I get into the evidence in post #286:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...69#post5391969

I'm going to assume that you're referring to RT. I will say this, there are some claims that RT has made that I don't agree with. The same is true for pretty much any mainstream publication I've ever seen. The difference between RT and other mainstream publications, however, is that RT does -not- have an anti Russian bias and they frequently say things regarding the Russian perspective that I don't see anywhere else.

Propaganda is not about whether you personally agree or disagree with it. It is about how the story's facts compare to original sources.

On this, at least, we can agree.

Let me give you an example. Nowhere on RT will you ever find a story that says Russia invaded Ukraine or that Russia is at war with Ukraine. RT adheres to the official government position of it is not a war.

This is true, and I know that the Russian government has essentially made it illegal for Russian news outlets to call the war in Ukraine anything other than a military operation. I personally don't call the Russian military operation an invasion because of the ambiguity of the word invasion, but I think that that news outlets should be able to call it that way if they wish. But I have certainly called the war in Ukraine a war. That being said, that doesn't mean that Russian news outlets don't have a lot of good information to share.

There has been fighting on the ground between 2 countries for over 6 months. Do you consider that a war?

Yes, I do.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No. I don't agree that it is 2009.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Alright, so it seems that the BBC collects their own revenues, but that collection is still enforced by the UK government. Suggesting that it's like saying that the U.S. enforces laws against stealing isn't accurate. People are forced to pay these fees even if they don't watch BBC media. It's much more akin to taxes, where people are forced to pay for things they may never use or want to fund to begin with.

No. You aren't forced to pay the fee if you don't watch BBC media. You can opt out of a license.
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-...d-a-tv-licence