I'm not going to gloat about the pie in the face over at RT but this comment from WaPo struck me as ironic:

The environment at RT also came in for some punishment: “There’s a form of self-censorship that you learn. Eventually you learn what management likes, what management dislikes. Today, especially with the heightened situation in Crimea, overtly questions are being written, very, very loaded questions. Questions basically to paint the picture and to present the Putin perspective in all of this,” Wahl told Cooper.
Replace "RT" with "[any mainstream US media]" and "Crimea" with "[any US conflict]" and you could describe American media also. Given the performance of the US media in the run up to the Iraq War, I find the gloating at WaPo very humorous. I'm not going to defend RT but let's not excuse the blatant sycophancy and selective coverage of our own media outlets either. But I have two points about this:

(1) As far as I know, no US reporter had the courage to resign on air or to forcefully buck the talking points live since, say, the start of the War on Terrorism. That's not because it's RT but I think it might have to do with the kind of people RT recruited in its pursuit to challenge the US media narrative.

(2) The battle of wills between the Washington and Moscow narratives has become painfully obvious and I think it sheds some light on the nature of information in an environment in which both parties have equal capabilities in broadcasting.