First let me say I agree that all media must be scrutinized and verified as much as possible. Since information has been distributed from the dawn of man, it has been used at times to influence as much, if not more, than just transferring facts. Now as to my comment. It had nothing to do with the subject of the article, but the source. The discussion of US media is well known, and facts and rumours about them persist. I was bringing to the forebear information about RT as it may not be as well known who and what they are. I believe the old adage "Consider the source" is important. Many people, including myself, have gotten to the point where the source of any info is discarded due to past examples of outright deceit. That's intellectually lazy, but understandable. But let's not forget that, intended or not, effective propaganda doesn't have easily disputable "facts" as their focus, but rely on inferred credibility. It involves taking a documentable occurrence and presenting it with an opinion, or spin, advantageous for the originators purposes. In the case of RT, their interests are foremost those of the Russian Govt. As I indicated, effective propaganda won't always openly and easily present info that can be disputed. In fact it's my belief a good propagandist will publish info that is totally accurate at times to develop trust in an audience so further articles are taken at face value. To conclude, I wasn't attacking you or stating that, at least, some of the facts in the article were false, or what the intent of publishing it was. My only intent was to present information on the source of that info. It's up to all of us to use whatever data is presented and form our own opinions.