JO
Personally, that's why I enjoy watching some of RT's output.
The Iraq war is an example of our so-called enlightened system not producing a truthful outcome on screen. Whatever your thoughts on Brexit, the BBC (if measured by the number of guests invited for interview) gives far more prominence in screen time to those that oppose Britain leaving the EU.
Incidentally, I watched the 7pm bulletin on RT UK last night and thought they treaded very carefully, presumably after the OFCOM threat.
johnnyboy
Founding member
They have a very specific role in the West, to sew seeds of doubt, to suggest that domestic news providers are somehow not telling 'the whole truth'. It's more sophisticated than 'Russia Good, West Bad' - it's more about spinning 'there isn't one truth' kind of narratives...
It's insidious and there is absolutely no way I would work for them. I'd leave the industry if they were my only employment option.
It's insidious and there is absolutely no way I would work for them. I'd leave the industry if they were my only employment option.
Personally, that's why I enjoy watching some of RT's output.
The Iraq war is an example of our so-called enlightened system not producing a truthful outcome on screen. Whatever your thoughts on Brexit, the BBC (if measured by the number of guests invited for interview) gives far more prominence in screen time to those that oppose Britain leaving the EU.
Incidentally, I watched the 7pm bulletin on RT UK last night and thought they treaded very carefully, presumably after the OFCOM threat.
NG
Having seen the large number of people sharing RT stuff on social - I don't agree that 'everyone knows' that RT is a Kremlin mouthpiece...
noggin
Founding member
It would be a big pity if OFCOM did this.
Everyone knows that RT is a Moscow-backed channel just like everyone knew Press TV was a Tehran-backed channel just like...etc etc.
Everyone knows that RT is a Moscow-backed channel just like everyone knew Press TV was a Tehran-backed channel just like...etc etc.
Having seen the large number of people sharing RT stuff on social - I don't agree that 'everyone knows' that RT is a Kremlin mouthpiece...
JO
Having seen the large number of people sharing RT stuff on social - I don't agree that 'everyone knows' that RT is a Kremlin mouthpiece...
You may well have a point.
However, I look at like this. Every few years, an election comes around. Each party will then present a number of what they call facts in order to win mindspace with us. This, to me, represents how I take information from each media organisation, howsoever controlled, to form my own worldview.
The BBC has no more of a monopoly of truth than any other organisation. Let's not forget the BBC World and BBC World Service broadcast duff information, provided by the British Government, for months and months to hundreds of millions of people around the world to sway opinion that invading Iraq was right.
PressTV from Tehran would doubtless have had the same editorial line, what with Iran and Iraq's recent history.
Doubtless, had RT been around in those days, it would have examined those documents which the BBC examined in a different way leading to a conclusion that there was no justification for war.
France opposed the war and would likely have been on "the same side" as RT.
In this case, despite the BBC's alleged neutrality (hard to believe when dozens of MI5 and MI6 staffers are on the books), RT would have been the more reliable outlet.
I love the BBC and am completely in favour of the licence fee. It's newsgathering though is poor.
johnnyboy
Founding member
It would be a big pity if OFCOM did this.
Everyone knows that RT is a Moscow-backed channel just like everyone knew Press TV was a Tehran-backed channel just like...etc etc.
Everyone knows that RT is a Moscow-backed channel just like everyone knew Press TV was a Tehran-backed channel just like...etc etc.
Having seen the large number of people sharing RT stuff on social - I don't agree that 'everyone knows' that RT is a Kremlin mouthpiece...
You may well have a point.
However, I look at like this. Every few years, an election comes around. Each party will then present a number of what they call facts in order to win mindspace with us. This, to me, represents how I take information from each media organisation, howsoever controlled, to form my own worldview.
The BBC has no more of a monopoly of truth than any other organisation. Let's not forget the BBC World and BBC World Service broadcast duff information, provided by the British Government, for months and months to hundreds of millions of people around the world to sway opinion that invading Iraq was right.
PressTV from Tehran would doubtless have had the same editorial line, what with Iran and Iraq's recent history.
Doubtless, had RT been around in those days, it would have examined those documents which the BBC examined in a different way leading to a conclusion that there was no justification for war.
France opposed the war and would likely have been on "the same side" as RT.
In this case, despite the BBC's alleged neutrality (hard to believe when dozens of MI5 and MI6 staffers are on the books), RT would have been the more reliable outlet.
I love the BBC and am completely in favour of the licence fee. It's newsgathering though is poor.
SP
The BBC has no more of a monopoly of truth than any other organisation. Let's not forget the BBC World and BBC World Service broadcast duff information, provided by the British Government, for months and months to hundreds of millions of people around the world to sway opinion that invading Iraq was right.
But attributed as such, surely?
The BBC has no more of a monopoly of truth than any other organisation. Let's not forget the BBC World and BBC World Service broadcast duff information, provided by the British Government, for months and months to hundreds of millions of people around the world to sway opinion that invading Iraq was right.
But attributed as such, surely?
JO
The BBC has no more of a monopoly of truth than any other organisation. Let's not forget the BBC World and BBC World Service broadcast duff information, provided by the British Government, for months and months to hundreds of millions of people around the world to sway opinion that invading Iraq was right.
But attributed as such, surely?
I agree. The attribution is correct but the information is still duff.
This itself leads to an interesting question. Are the means of reporting the news more important than the end even if the viewer is intentionally or unintentionally misled?
Again, this is not a BBC-hater doing BBC-hating. I love the BBC and watch it far more than any other broadcaster, including its less-than-stellar news output.
johnnyboy
Founding member
The BBC has no more of a monopoly of truth than any other organisation. Let's not forget the BBC World and BBC World Service broadcast duff information, provided by the British Government, for months and months to hundreds of millions of people around the world to sway opinion that invading Iraq was right.
But attributed as such, surely?
I agree. The attribution is correct but the information is still duff.
This itself leads to an interesting question. Are the means of reporting the news more important than the end even if the viewer is intentionally or unintentionally misled?
Again, this is not a BBC-hater doing BBC-hating. I love the BBC and watch it far more than any other broadcaster, including its less-than-stellar news output.
MA
I've said it in here before, but I'll say it again, if you travel abroad many people consider the BBC to represent
a 'UK establishment' view. As discussed, they don't, but nevertheless, that's what millions around the globe believe. How do you correct that (or should you even attempt to ?)
Should Ofcom take RT off the air here, that will be viewed in other parts of the world as 'government censorship', for that reason I feel they should be allowed to continue broadcasting, but there's no reason why Ofcom and others shouldn't make the UK viewers fully aware of the station's allegiance .
Is the BBC deliberately misleading the public when they report "the Government has stated <something that may be debatable>"? I guess it depends if you think the
fact
they are reporting is
the government has stated
or
<something that may be debatable>
.
I've said it in here before, but I'll say it again, if you travel abroad many people consider the BBC to represent
a 'UK establishment' view. As discussed, they don't, but nevertheless, that's what millions around the globe believe. How do you correct that (or should you even attempt to ?)
Should Ofcom take RT off the air here, that will be viewed in other parts of the world as 'government censorship', for that reason I feel they should be allowed to continue broadcasting, but there's no reason why Ofcom and others shouldn't make the UK viewers fully aware of the station's allegiance .
GL
I've said it in here before, but I'll say it again, if you travel abroad many people consider the BBC to represent
a 'UK establishment' view. As discussed, they don't, but nevertheless, that's what millions around the globe believe. How do you correct that (or should you even attempt to ?)
Should Ofcom take RT off the air here, that will be viewed in other parts of the world as 'government censorship', for that reason I feel they should be allowed to continue broadcasting, but there's no reason why Ofcom and others shouldn't make the UK viewers fully aware of the station's allegiance .
Ofcom's response is also a classic example of a United Kingdom that appears to be behaving as if we're in 1995. RT has already prepared for being taken off air. It now has numerous brands it uses on social media to share content. I've seen many people who would be violently sick at the thought of sharing Russian-produced content, but they don't realise that's what it is. I'm actually getting fed up seeing Polly Boiko's face appear in so many 'funny' videos 'poking fun' at the 'establishment' with vague brand names.
There is no doubt whatsover that RT is there to sow seeds of doubt and create instabililty. Indeed, this is the Russian Government's approach at the moment. Following the chemical incident in Salisbury, the Russian Government instantly put out statements suggesting a 'mainstream conspiracy' to damage Putin's election chances. Most people probably don't believe that line, but if it creates enough doubt and unease, they've achieved their aims.
It's the same approach the Kremlin takes with political movements around the world. In Europe, it has simultaneously provided financial support to far left parties and far right parties. In some countries, it has financed two parties that are diametrically opposed to each other. Why? Well, it clearly can't agree with both manifestos. It's doing it to stir up the sh*t, speaking frankly. I'm personally a big fan of the Green party in the US, but there's a lot of evidence that they became 'useful idiots' for the Kremlin, with a huge amount of broadcast coverage on RT - almost all of it deeply sympathetic to their viewpoints. RT's response at the time was 'Well why shouldn't we cover ALL the parties? The US media refuses to, which is un-democratic'. RT had a point and often does make valid criticisms of western media bias. The main issue is that it's the guy at the party who walks around whispering into everyone's ears that 'Big John over there just stole all the booze'. Then quietly walks off when the fight kicks off!
Is the BBC deliberately misleading the public when they report "the Government has stated <something that may be debatable>"? I guess it depends if you think the
fact
they are reporting is
the government has stated
or
<something that may be debatable>
.
I've said it in here before, but I'll say it again, if you travel abroad many people consider the BBC to represent
a 'UK establishment' view. As discussed, they don't, but nevertheless, that's what millions around the globe believe. How do you correct that (or should you even attempt to ?)
Should Ofcom take RT off the air here, that will be viewed in other parts of the world as 'government censorship', for that reason I feel they should be allowed to continue broadcasting, but there's no reason why Ofcom and others shouldn't make the UK viewers fully aware of the station's allegiance .
Ofcom's response is also a classic example of a United Kingdom that appears to be behaving as if we're in 1995. RT has already prepared for being taken off air. It now has numerous brands it uses on social media to share content. I've seen many people who would be violently sick at the thought of sharing Russian-produced content, but they don't realise that's what it is. I'm actually getting fed up seeing Polly Boiko's face appear in so many 'funny' videos 'poking fun' at the 'establishment' with vague brand names.
There is no doubt whatsover that RT is there to sow seeds of doubt and create instabililty. Indeed, this is the Russian Government's approach at the moment. Following the chemical incident in Salisbury, the Russian Government instantly put out statements suggesting a 'mainstream conspiracy' to damage Putin's election chances. Most people probably don't believe that line, but if it creates enough doubt and unease, they've achieved their aims.
It's the same approach the Kremlin takes with political movements around the world. In Europe, it has simultaneously provided financial support to far left parties and far right parties. In some countries, it has financed two parties that are diametrically opposed to each other. Why? Well, it clearly can't agree with both manifestos. It's doing it to stir up the sh*t, speaking frankly. I'm personally a big fan of the Green party in the US, but there's a lot of evidence that they became 'useful idiots' for the Kremlin, with a huge amount of broadcast coverage on RT - almost all of it deeply sympathetic to their viewpoints. RT's response at the time was 'Well why shouldn't we cover ALL the parties? The US media refuses to, which is un-democratic'. RT had a point and often does make valid criticisms of western media bias. The main issue is that it's the guy at the party who walks around whispering into everyone's ears that 'Big John over there just stole all the booze'. Then quietly walks off when the fight kicks off!
MA
It's the same approach the Kremlin takes with political movements around the world. In Europe, it has simultaneously provided financial support to far left parties and far right parties. In some countries, it has financed two parties that are diametrically opposed to each other. Why? Well, it clearly can't agree with both manifestos. It's doing it to stir up the sh*t, speaking frankly.
In other words, 'Divide and Conquer'
It's the same approach the Kremlin takes with political movements around the world. In Europe, it has simultaneously provided financial support to far left parties and far right parties. In some countries, it has financed two parties that are diametrically opposed to each other. Why? Well, it clearly can't agree with both manifestos. It's doing it to stir up the sh*t, speaking frankly.
In other words, 'Divide and Conquer'
DV
Statement on RT news channel
13 March 2018
Following the Prime Minister’s statement in the House of Commons yesterday, Ofcom said that it would consider the implications for RT’s broadcast licences after the further statement by the Prime Minister tomorrow.
As the independent UK broadcasting regulator, Ofcom has an ongoing duty to be satisfied that broadcast licensees remain fit and proper to hold their licences.
We have today written to ANO TV Novosti, holder of RT’s UK broadcast licences, which is financed from the budget of the Russian Federation. This letter explained that, should the UK investigating authorities determine that there was an unlawful use of force by the Russian State against the UK, we would consider this relevant to our ongoing duty to be satisfied that RT is fit and proper.
The letter to RT said that we would carry out our independent fit and proper assessment on an expedited basis, and we would write to RT again shortly setting out details of our process.
| from …….. | OFCOM.ORG.UK | 14-Mar-2018 @ 14:46 |
13 March 2018
Following the Prime Minister’s statement in the House of Commons yesterday, Ofcom said that it would consider the implications for RT’s broadcast licences after the further statement by the Prime Minister tomorrow.
As the independent UK broadcasting regulator, Ofcom has an ongoing duty to be satisfied that broadcast licensees remain fit and proper to hold their licences.
We have today written to ANO TV Novosti, holder of RT’s UK broadcast licences, which is financed from the budget of the Russian Federation. This letter explained that, should the UK investigating authorities determine that there was an unlawful use of force by the Russian State against the UK, we would consider this relevant to our ongoing duty to be satisfied that RT is fit and proper.
The letter to RT said that we would carry out our independent fit and proper assessment on an expedited basis, and we would write to RT again shortly setting out details of our process.
| from …….. | OFCOM.ORG.UK | 14-Mar-2018 @ 14:46 |
HC
I don't expect this post to be nominated come the end of December as 'post of the year 2018' however..
(declare interest - I once went to Russia for two days, and I think it's a facinating country, with very friendly people - well, the ones I met)
However, it's this 'fit and proper' that if Ofcom invokes the nukes and removes the broadcast licences from RT, I would hope RT would hit back and get a judicial review in the high court.
I would take 'fit and proper' to be the people actually running the channel. And, sorry anti-Russia bashers - the management of the English service of ANO TV Novosti/RT did not go to Salisbury and posion a former agent, his daughter, and by close proximation, a serving police officer. Oh, and neither did the management based in Moscow.
It all smacks of playing to the crowd by Ofcom, forced on them by the Government, looking around to be seen to be all 'strong and stable'. It's all very tenious stuff, and reading that statement by Ofcom, its like they are trying to find loopholes to get out of it as well.
Hypothetical example. If the head of Discovery Networks, ordered the head of the London operation to deliberatly run a UK member of staff over that bad mouthed him on Twitter, and then the exact orders were difficult to prove - Would Ofcom, immediately run an investigation to see whether all the Discovery and Eurosport channels would be pulled from digital linear platforms based on 'fit and proper'?
Probably not. It was the actions of one person, and whilst it reflects badly on the head of the company, it could be put down to the action of one 'lone wolf'.
What I'm saying is, until we know the full facts of the Salisbury tragedy, names, orders, emails, UK passport control entry, CCTV footage ect, a threat to a channel that some people don't even know is on their EPG is stupid.
Yes, they dance to a different tune with there editoral narrative, which some don't like, but to pull the plug on the basis of a still ongoing investigation, I think would be very harsh.
If it's proved beyond doubt that it was a Kremlin led attempted assination (remember, they are still alive - the written press and some tv reports have behaved like they died at the scene) then fine. Yank out the jackplugs and remove the channel from our tv screens. But, until then...
(declare interest - I once went to Russia for two days, and I think it's a facinating country, with very friendly people - well, the ones I met)
However, it's this 'fit and proper' that if Ofcom invokes the nukes and removes the broadcast licences from RT, I would hope RT would hit back and get a judicial review in the high court.
I would take 'fit and proper' to be the people actually running the channel. And, sorry anti-Russia bashers - the management of the English service of ANO TV Novosti/RT did not go to Salisbury and posion a former agent, his daughter, and by close proximation, a serving police officer. Oh, and neither did the management based in Moscow.
It all smacks of playing to the crowd by Ofcom, forced on them by the Government, looking around to be seen to be all 'strong and stable'. It's all very tenious stuff, and reading that statement by Ofcom, its like they are trying to find loopholes to get out of it as well.
Hypothetical example. If the head of Discovery Networks, ordered the head of the London operation to deliberatly run a UK member of staff over that bad mouthed him on Twitter, and then the exact orders were difficult to prove - Would Ofcom, immediately run an investigation to see whether all the Discovery and Eurosport channels would be pulled from digital linear platforms based on 'fit and proper'?
Probably not. It was the actions of one person, and whilst it reflects badly on the head of the company, it could be put down to the action of one 'lone wolf'.
What I'm saying is, until we know the full facts of the Salisbury tragedy, names, orders, emails, UK passport control entry, CCTV footage ect, a threat to a channel that some people don't even know is on their EPG is stupid.
Yes, they dance to a different tune with there editoral narrative, which some don't like, but to pull the plug on the basis of a still ongoing investigation, I think would be very harsh.
If it's proved beyond doubt that it was a Kremlin led attempted assination (remember, they are still alive - the written press and some tv reports have behaved like they died at the scene) then fine. Yank out the jackplugs and remove the channel from our tv screens. But, until then...