That's exactly the problem! When it comes to areas of the world that I know very little about - I am completely at their mercy. If they talk about something that happens in Bangladesh, Somalia, Bolivia or Yemen - I simply can't say what the truthfulness is. I can't call a friend, I haven't been there and I don't have time to do research....
And that's the same problem most Europeans (and Americans) would have with news from Russia, Ukraine, Belarus.
The only reason I said that is for 1 simple reason:
Snowden's material could be published in the Guardian without any major consequences for the publisher. If there was a Russian Snowden, could Izvestiya or Novaya Gazeta publish the material?
My impression is that they couldn't. But I am not sure, just guessing!
Between RT and BBC for world news - my preference is actually for RT, at the moment. I think their credibility is higher in most areas, although I am aware that there is an agenda to some of their choices of what to report and what not to.
I agree. And it's got even worse now, with social media where anyone can start a rumour.
My approach to the news has always been to try to consider both sides of the story. I think journalists should too.
Right now, to get the other side of the story about Syria, Ukraine, the USA's wars, immigration and economics, it's necessary to turn to non-Western media.
And even if there is no such thing as the absolute truth or completely objective media, it's still the case that some reports are closer to the truth than others.
China's propaganda film "5 year plan is cool"
Imagine if Russia had made the same video to say "Putin's strategy is cool". Although China is much worse than Russia on everything the West claims to care about, there is still no info war against China!
In my opinion: The country that will take down the USA will not be Russia, but China. Using America's love for money and consumption against itself. That's who the Americans should worry about - not Russia.