Disclosure: I *am* a journalist - not a broadcaster, I work in print. I find RT's attitude bizarre and really unworthy of a news organisation. Their editor in chief's responses seem to boil down to nothing better than "yeah well, we're great and you smell so nerr". It's really playground stuff.
Which really leads to the question about what is RT for? If RT is for raising the profile of Russia by producing a respected and trusted news channel - like in the way, say, Al Jazeera English serves Qatar or BBC World News serves the UK - then it is miserably failing. It's pretty difficult for anyone to respect them when their senior staff behave like this. But the network doesn't seem to be interested in what others would consider respect in the terms of world news - it really seems to be more about disinformation, about engendering distrust with major world powers by magnifying their short comings and giving time to conspiracy theorists.
I don't understand what that achieves either, though. In the old days overseas radio and TV was aimed at diplomats, business types and others who make key decisions on the world stage. I'd hazard a guess that all RT is doing at the moment is attracting an audience on the irrelevant margins, who can do little with the world view dished out to them. Putin is wasting his money.
Interestingly, the Voice of Russia UK service, while still heavily Kremlin skewed, is nowhere near as hysterical as RT and has fairly normal features on British current affairs.
I think RT found a niche in the market, those people who'll be easily influenced by Russian propaganda. Conspiracy theorists and those who are anti-West. Abby Martin said recently that she's neither anti West or anti Russia, but pro-peace. However, she is a perfect example of the type of person who'll bring in the audience to RT as a hook thanks to her ultra left-wing views. The same for George Galloway who presents Sputnik.
RT's main agenda at the moment appears to be that America and Britain invaded Iraq, Afghanistan etc and failed, so have no right to interfere in what is considered a domestic issue to Russians. Yet there has been clear propaganda on RT, during the Sochi games, their 'gay' reporting consisted of we leave them alone, but we don't want our kids learning about it. Nothing about the gay bashing that goes on which was exposed by Panorama.
As for the Voice of Russia. They have a daily afternoon segment where they broadcast from London with British news which as you say unlike RT, is on a par with R4/5 Live presentation wise, even if they tow the line. I think this is down to the audience being more upmarket than RT which has mass market availability. From what I recall, Voice of Russia is supposed to be axed with RT being the main state outlet. A shame if so.