Here I will attempt to explain why...
I recently discovered that some Russian liberals just happen to hate the Kremlin funded TV Channel, Russia Today. And they hate it because it is Kremlin funded. Remember that for later! First I will demonstrate some liberal hate. Here is Yevgeniya Albats from The New Times expressing shock on facebook at Julian Assange getting a gig on Russia Today:
I cannot believe this... Is he an idiot or just a greedy son of a beach?
And later in the comments:
Fred, he is to take a very , very dirty money, if not to say - bloody money. You do understand that, do you not?
My new found favourite liberal monkey, Anton Nosik, in an article dedicated to crocodile tears on Western NGO's being kicked out of Russia, suddenly drops this line out of nowhere:
[The government] has appointed Russia Today, where every day Americans are told that they have brought down the skyscrapers on 9/11 themselves, as the main channel of communication with the West.
Where does all this come from? It just can't be cocaine, ketamin, and cannabis. These people might sound demented but it is not exactly the case here. What you witness are Russian liberals kneeling and sucking their masters dry. Allow me to demonstrate, does anybody remember 'Out-Communicated!'? In that Russia Today report, Peter Lavelle in reaction to Walter Isaacson's rant said the following:
...he is making it sound like it's just a media war...
However Lavelle likes to spin it though, it is an information war. I understand that they have an in house culture in Russia Today, but I am an independent blogger, and I do not have that problem. Russia Today was created to wage this information war on an enemy territory. You might ask now, what does this have to do with Russian liberals? The Russian liberals are agents in this war, on Russian territory, and in the Russian language, and I dare say, they also happen to be agents of the West. But do I have a proof? I have that coved as well!
In my first post mentioning Nosik, I have linked to an article posted on the website of Ekho Moskvy. Therefore it must mean that Nosik happens to have some patrons in Ekho Moskvy who are willing to publish his rants. Alexey Venediktov has been the chief editor of Ekho Moskvy for some time now, here is his story:
In 2002, Venediktov became the chief editor of a new talk radio 'Arsenal'. Journalists from 'Ekho Moskvy' became its owners. When it was created, it was reported that American endowments and some structures [controlled] by George Soros, invested in the project. (http://www.infogrant.ru/doc/9341.html)
In 2008, Alexey Venediktov received a prize form the Overseas Press Club of America (http://fondartema.com/index/0-28). This prize is sponsored by American TV station, CBS, and by the daily US News and World Report.
We should say couple of words on the information policy of 'Ekho'. In 2008, reporting on Russian-Georgian war, the radio station has operated only with Georgian testimonies, and called Russian soldiers: 'enemies'. In 2011, it defended US interests in connection with the European AMD (that is the radio conducted a policy harmful to the national defence of Russia). Considering that he received money from George Soros (who said the 'Russia should be put in her place'), this is not at all surprising.
And something on Albats:
Yevgeniya Albats is perhaps the most odious figure of Russian journalism. Her 'objectivity' and 'lack of bias' have led to a situation, where there appeared an article about her on lurk in which she is called 'Valeria Novodvorskaya without the lulz.' However that did not prevent her from suddenly getting a a scholarship of Alfred Friendly (in the US), and then Nieman's in Harvard, in the nineties (http://lenta.ru/lib/14203188/). It would be interesting to know for what achievements [was she given these scholarships]. Are you being often summoned to Harvard, or given scholarships?
In 2007, she became the deputy chief editor in 'The New Times', and from January 2009 its chief editor. The new publication made the corner stone of its information policy: 'complete trust in the West in all of of its expressions.'
Is it therefore any surprise that Albats and 'The New Times' have openly supported Georgia in the 2008 Russian-Georgian conflict?
It is rather interesting that both Lavelle, and the author of the article, fragments of which I have translated above, bring the 2008 Russia-Georgia war as an example. The disparity between Western and Russian coverage of the conflict was so huge, it undermined all belief in the objectivity of Western media.
However, besides defending West's geopolitical interests, the major object of criticism for Russian liberals is the Russian government. Russia Today therefore is viewed as an agent of their primary enemy, thus they have no love lost for it, and attempt to tarnish it at every opportunity. Perhaps there is also an element of envy on their part. While Russian liberals are almost universally hated in Russia, Russia Today happens to rather popular in the West.