It is no revelation to say that it was apparently long ago collectively decided by the Western world, that there would be one set of rules for the United States (our de facto leader from whom we take cues in all matters of international relations and receive "protection" from in return), and one set of rules for everyone else.
Those who fail to appropriately fall in line with this method of doing business are of course nothing more than raging, blind propagandists.
And mainstream Western media likes to talk about propaganda. It likes to talk about propaganda a lot, in fact.
A cynic might surmise that it has something to hide.
So perhaps, most ironic of all ironies, is watching respected veteran journalist Christiane Amanpour invite the host of RT's In The Now, Anissa Naouai, on to her show to discuss propaganda, only to then launch into a 9-minute long CNN-approved Putin hate-fest.
Naouai herself wrote on Twitter that the segment which appeared on TV was heavily edited -- and watching it for yourself, it's easy to tell she isn't exaggerating.
RT.com covered the dispute in an article today.
It is possible to see at least a couple of instances where they've cut and pasted Naouai's comments to suit the overall theme they were going for, which unsurprisingly was: Russia is a bad, bad place.
So then, why bother having an RT host appear on CNN to defend her position at all, if they were just going to censor her? Easy.
CNN needs to create the illusion of debate, and it's difficult to do that without sometimes appearing to show a second perspective. Enter Naouai.
But they couldn't just let her run wild with her comments, lest you actually believe it was up to you to come to your own conclusions based on an honest debate.
God forbid you would hear what this unreliable Russia-defender actually had to say in full and make your own mind up.
And have you heard? She's a traitorous American, no less.
If you're in any doubt over what is going on here, look no further than the banner CNN used on the bottom of the screen during part of the segment:
That's CNN's way of making sure its viewers know whose side to be on from the get-go.
But wait, there's more.
Naouai's censorship was one thing -- and it's not at all unusual for these segments to be edited, regardless of the topic -- but Amanpour ironically made her bias even clearer through the words coming directly from her mouth.
Amanpour opened the segment with this:
"US Vice President Joe Biden is arriving in Ukraine's capital, Kiev, to try to rescue the dying Minsk Accord, which was supposed to end the war with Russia in Eastern Ukraine."
First of all, "war with Russia" is a blatant misrepresentation of what is actually happening in Eastern Ukraine right now.
Second, the real message here is, of course: The United States to the rescue.
"As the deadly battle unfolds on the ground, a heated propaganda war is also being waged. Russia has recently launched its new Sputnik offensive, a new state-run international media outlet named after the Soviet space program. This follows long-time Kremlin-funded Russia Today and other state-run TV."
What a welcoming and unbiased introduction she has prepared for her guest.
But this is my favorite part:
"Moscow is clearly upping the ante on the airwaves, in an attempt to control the message, but what President Putin may see as an image problem, the rest of the world may view as weaponizing the Fourth Estate."
The rest of the world, no less?
I suppose that's kind of like how Russia has been "isolated by the world" though, right?
Anyway, Naouai's opponent in the debate was Mikhail Kasyanov, former Russian Prime Minister and diehard Putin opponent.
Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with having Kasyanov on CNN, but it does seem rather odd that they pitch a journalist against a long time foe of the president and expect the debate to be balanced and fair.
Naouai, the journalist, has to at least appear to be unbiased in what she says, while Kasyanov can fire verbal grenades off all over the place and it's presented to the audience as a fair fight.
Would it not have been more appropriate for Naouai to debate a fellow journalist -- from the Western perspective -- about propaganda?
The thing is, if that had been the format, Naouai would likely have wiped the floor with them and that just wouldn't do, now would it?
Instead we were subjected to constant reminders from Amanpour that Naouai was working for a Kremlin-funded channel, implying that there was no way she could really be trusted.
Yes Christiane, we get it. Naouai gets it. She made that clear. RT's budget is wide open, it's not a secret -- and repeatedly revealing it to your audience as if it was one is ridiculous and misleading.
You can read the full -- very heated and very personal -- exchange between Amanpour and Naouai here.