The ratio of divisions I think fairly correlate with such a number. It's tough to find a reliable source of information from search engines that operate behind western leaning biasness. Personally, I tend to go more with American leading experts and annalists who will project the numbers that correlate with those produced from the USSR, particularly todays Russia. The biasness of western search engines clearly down play the role the USSR played during WWll. Especially in regards to the Japanese front in which the US and Britain were hoping to see the Japanese weaken the USSR on a large scale. I imagine quite frankly, that their intent was to avoid the USSR from gaining control of the bio labs the Japanese were running in China and exposing the existence of them to the public. Which they did a good job of blocking as it is. Being most people have no idea about them even yet today.

This is why and how I put a large amount of trust in RT and Chinese {CGTN} news outlets, including RT documentaries on Ukraine, is due to the amount of Americans, and other countries, who participate within their information delivery. Where they clearly combine history and the distortion of facts from the west to arrive at more factual information. It makes it much more easier to research and separate the fiction from manipulations where history often backs up the statements being projected from them.

@William_Mary There are some very good podcasts that feature some very well spoken and pragmatic Americans as guests. Americans like Scott Ritter, Jeffery Sachs, Larry as mentioned and Ray McGovern. I find Daniel Davis good, Doug MacGregor and many other former ambassador/ international types. I don't agree with everything they say but their analysis is at least logically presented and explained. Far better than talking heads on Fox/ CNN et al and entertainment podcasts like Rogan etc. Americans are Americans, but there are good ones

I agree that there are still media, like RT, that when comparing reporting on the same story from many media outlets, they often come out on top regarding neutral/ fact based reporting. But even they have overtly biased and slanted reporting at times. Can't trust anyone fully.

@puff biasness is always going to have a particular aspect in regards to country or agenda. It's no different than propaganda. Which is why I virtually denounce the use of the term today. The term is obsolete in todays information warfare. As I state on one of the pinned pages in my group, propaganda is simply the same thing information. Propaganda was merely designed as a perversion sense to combat information from a different point of view. A tool to falsely manufacture enemies. Basically coming in high use during the same period as the compounding of conspiracy theorist came about. After decades of the the term being used to expose the agendas of Edward Bernays. These tools {multiple tools} that have been used in attempts to expose crimes and unethical practices on the political front and medias have been facing agendas of perversion for a while now.

Fake news--now it's tossed around by those it was use against. Everything according to the standard is now fake news. It projects confusion.

Highly relative to narrative control now.

More recently---woke--- perversion of the awake movement that began around 2016. Most people using the term woke don't have dam clue about what awake was about. Woke was the tone to set confusion within to stifle our message. Now if you speak about awake, you get all the useless rhetoric from all sides and the delusional reality that they're in. I've had to explain the difference to people on multiple occasions when I confront people tossing woke around. I send them the site where you can get the t-shirts that came out when the movement started. Explain to them that we denounce both parties, for the same reasonings associated to both of them. We choose not to vote for either, we are awake to their crimes. While woke is a derogatory remark that is mostly used against liberals today. Which we don't side with either. It's tossed around with an emptiness with no direction as the useless rhetoric it is.

Of course RT is going to have a certain biasness for the country and government that funds them. The question however, is how reliable is their content compared to western news medias? You know what I hear on RT that I never hear from western medias. Is if or win they make a mistake in a particular story, a correction. What I don't hear? Blatant lies or attempts to deceive me.

My main news {western news} source as a local truck driver 5 days a week is NPR. I hear blatant lies and attempts to deceive me constantly all day long everyday. I listen to it for the most part 5 days a week. I listen to it to keep up with the the bullshit our MSMs spew as they cover both sides of the political spectrum. I use it to keep my bullshit meter calibrated. They don't challenge anything, don't ask the right questions, simply offer open mic sessions to politicians and corporate spokespeople. The host actually lead with questions that are intended to fit the answer the guests are there to answer. They're scripted conversations on a large part to fit deceptive narratives and agendas. And most people don't recognize it because they don't think for themselves any longer, or use hindsight from the previous crimes and unethical practices to apply a useful foresight that would lead them to understand that they're being duped.