Patentlywong

Because it adds no value to the mission of RT news (which is to spread influence) since it doesn't expose the targeted audience to the other articles on RT news with higher propaganda value (like coverage on syria).

RT as a propaganda arm needs viewers to function as kerlin intended. RT was created to offer a kremlin approved perspective. RT would fail that purpose if its reach is limited. This is something we can all agree on, right? Russia want to draw certain audiences, that's a given right?

So how is the neighbouring comment wrong or worth ignoring? Even tho the profit motive may not be there, RT value proposition to the kremlin is the same as vice, buzzfeed, and huffpost except that instead of ads, they seek get the audience to the site to expose to them to the kremlim approved narrative.

>This is just one giant misinformation campaign directed towards derailing informed consent and an informed electorate

alternative theory: they look for fringe topics trending and picked up the narrative to drive views.

Just because RT news is state backed to the point of being an apparatus of the state, it doesn't make moot the same market incentives that drove readership to huffpost, buzzfeed or vice. RT news coverage is to draw in an english audience that is that is skeptical of, or contrarian, to mainstream anglo news reporting. 5G conspiracies likely drove traffic to the site.

This is factually incorrect... I cannot believe that I'm actually making use of my polisci double major but your understanding of the word is missing YUGE parts of economic history such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decade_(Japan)