by
Dennis Morgan
In the
age of globalization during the last quarter of the 20thcentury, the
English language achieved global hegemony as the “lingua franca”
for international communication. It is no small coincidence that
during this same time, after the end of the Cold War, the US rose as
the sole and dominant superpower with stated aims to achieve global
hegemony. Just as English was the language of the British Empire, so
English retained its imperial role when the US Empire succeeded that
of the British. And as has been said of language, the power to
control language is the power to control minds.
As a
result, a number of countries realized that if they wanted to have a
say in global affairs, they were going to have to be able to say it
in English. In other words, unless they were happy with the embedded
worldviews in the news narratives of CNN and the BBC and preferred no
voice of their own, then they were going to have to create their own
international broadcasts in English. Moreover, since the Internet
revolutionized communications during this same time period, it became
much easier to broadcast and thus imperative for countries to project
their own perspectives on global affairs and engage in international
discourse on issues that concerned them. Hence, at the end of the
20thcentury and particularly during the beginning of the 21stcentury,
English news broadcasts sprang up from around the world to compete
with established news organizations.
So,
that’s the backdrop and context for the grand entrance of the
state-sponsored broadcast station, Russia Today (RT), onto the global
media arena in 2005. When Margarita Simonyan was appointed
editor-in-chief (at the age of 25), she stated that RT would provide
the same professionalism of mainstream international news channels
but would “reflect Russia’s opinion of the world” and provide a
“more balanced picture” of Russia. The late Danny Schechter, a
renowned journalist who was on the staff of CNN at its launching, saw
something similar at RT’s launching, describing it as another
channel “of young people who are inexperienced, but very
enthusiastic about what they are doing.”
However,
almost immediately, Western pundits, officials, and MSM cried “foul,”
as Cold War stereotypes of “communist propaganda” resurfaced.
When RT began airing its counter-hegemonic narratives, challenging
mainstream (particularly US) news coverage through Internet and
satellite broadcasts, it quickly attracted millions of viewers
throughout the world. It seemed that the more popular RT became, the
more alarmed the US and the West became, accusing RT of being a
“propaganda bullhorn” of Putin, spewing disinformation and lies.
So, is
this true? Is RT merely Kremlin propaganda, spreading disinformation
and lies, or is it a platform to present a more balanced picture of
Russia, expressing the Russian perspective on global affairs? In my
opinion, from extensive viewing of the news coverage and programs
offered by RT, I would say that RT critics’ “propaganda” claim
does not hold up to close scrutiny and is, in fact, propaganda
itself; on the other hand, the alternate claim of offering a
“balanced picture of Russia” and expressing the “Russian
perspective,” though certainly closer to the truth than the
“propaganda” claim, is not a truly accurate description of RT
either. In other words, while the news coverage can be said to
reflect the Russian perspective on global affairs, most of the hosts
are not Russian; moreover, as for as providing insight into Russia
and everything “Russian,” proportionally speaking, only a
fraction of the programming or coverage revolves around Russia or
Russian affairs.
So, now
that I’ve told you what RT isn’t, I’ll explain what it is, the
reason why I view and support it, and why I think the US
establishment, including its corporate media, has been fiercely
attacking RT and are out to shut it down. To put it plainly, RT is
the #1 international broadcast that allows a platform for alternative
narratives and dissenting views to be expressed. Just take a look at
the hosts of the “shows” section of RT’s website, and you’ll
understand what I mean. These are very independent-minded
individuals, whose dissenting views are simply not allowed on MSM; in
fact, some of them, like Larry King, Ed Schultz, and Thom Hartmann,
held celebrity status on MSM and only joined the RT staff because
they were free to air their views without censorship. Ed Schultz, for
example, stated that, unlike the usual censorship tactics of MSNBC,
RT never quizzed him in advance about his guests or the content of
his show; instead, he says that the very reason he likes RT is
because of its policy of absolute freedom of speech. Imagine that!
Here we have Ed Schultz, a media refugee from MSM, stating that,
unlike MSNBC, he’s allowed to say anything he wants to on RT,
without any editorial oversight whatsoever.
This is
quite phenomenal when you consider the outrageous charges of American
politicians and the corporate media that RT is a mere “propaganda
tool of the Kremlin,” and that those who work at RT are “useful
idiots’ or “Putin’s puppets.” Really? Just take a look at the
kind of individuals, most of them Americans or British, hosting their
shows on RT. These are very independent, very smart people who refuse
to be anyone’s “puppet”; in fact, the very reason they came to
RT was because they didn’t want to be puppets of the corporate
media. Do you really believe that people like Larry King, Ed Schultz,
Thom Hartmann, Jesse Ventura, Chris Hedges, Lee Camp, and George
Galloway are all stooges for Putin? Give me a break.
The fact
that their portrayal of RT is a complete fabrication tells you who
the real propagandists are, who truly are guilty of spreading
disinformation and lies to the public. Yes, in spreading their
malicious lies about RT, they reveal themselves, and if they are
deceiving you about this, they are probably deceiving you about just
about everything else too. Actually, MSM has been in the public
deception business for quite some time; as long as it’s good for
the ratings, it’s called “news.”
Take the
RussiaGate conspiracy theory, for example, which has zero evidence to
support it with. Is it “hacking,” “collusion,” or “trolls?”
I forget which meme is current. Similar to the various justifications
(one after the other, all of them lies) to support the Iraq War, as
soon as one conspiracy is debunked, it is followed by another, in the
blink of a media eye, without comment on the fraudulent nature of the
prior allegation, as in Orwell’s novel, as if it didn’t exist.
And the familiar villain, the usual suspect, the Russian whipping
boy, comes to their rescue once again.
Several
months ago I penned a piece in CounterPunch about the anti-Russia
hysteria that’s been sweeping the nation, so I won’t rehash that.
However, what I find telling is that a disproportionate amount of
this hysteria is actually directed at Russia Today. If you don’t
believe me, just take a look at the FBI report in January of 2017,
based on the investigation of supposed Russian interference into the
2016 election: roughly a quarter of it is about RT. When you think of
it, that’s a large percentage devoted to a media outlet, especially
when you consider that RT was never all that pro-Trump. As I
mentioned, RT has a diverse blend of the hosts of featured programs,
and they were anything but homogenous in their views on the
presidential candidates. It’s true that Peter Lavelle, the host of
CrossTalk, believed that Trump should be given a chance, and Larry
King gave a favorable interview to Trump; on the other hand, a number
of other hosts were highly suspicious and critical of Trump. Okay,
well, I admit that there wasn’t a whole lot of support for Hillary
Clinton on RT, it’s true, but when you compare lackluster support
for Clinton on RT with the overwhelming support that she enjoyed on
CNN, can you really justify the claim that RT “interfered” in the
2016 election and CNN didn’t? The FBI report is a joke, really, as
a CNN producer described it in private – a “nothing burger.”
So, if
it’s true that Putin made so much effort to interfere in the
American elections to ensure that Trump would win, and if it’s true
that RT is Putin’s propaganda arm, then why didn’t Putin do more
to use RT to propagandize in favor of Trump? Are you telling me that
the tepid support of Trump on RT was the best propaganda that Putin
could come up with? As an ex-KGB officer, I’m sure he could do
better than that. It’s the same kind of “nothing burger” sock
pocket, failed hot dog sales people that Mueller indicted – the 13
Facebook trolls who failed to wake Sleeping Beauty but were indicted
for trying.
Okay, I
realize I’m getting into fantasy here, but that’s my point: its
total fantasy that MSM has been spinning 24/7. Wake up, people, and
smell the Rachel Maddow koolaid you’ve been drinking; these people
are professional liars – it’s what they do for a living. When
RT’s press credentials were withdrawn at the White House, when
their algorithms were suppressed on Google, Twitter, and Facebook,
when the Russian Consulate in San Francisco was raided at hardly a
moment’s notice, and when RT was singled out and forced to register
as a “foreign agent” with FARA – an unprecedented move against
a single media outlet – where was CNN or MSNBC? Did they protest
this blatant form of media censorship? Only when Russia retaliated
with a tit-for-tat response did they even mention it. And this media
silence, aside from reporting on the Russian response, was not only
true in the case of MSM, but sadly enough, Democracy Now’s joined
the media silence. Not a word was uttered in protest of this
outrageous attack on the press freedom of RT. It bogs the mind to
think that no one seemed to consider that this was not just an attack
on RT but an attack on the freedom of press everywhere: to attack one
is to attack all, especially when the justifications are based on
“trumped up” allegations, which essentially boil down to: “We
say Russia Today is a propaganda bullhorn of the Kremlin, and because
we say it, you should believe us. After all, have we ever lied to
you?” And then all the media bows down and assents to this madness.
Forgive me if I’m not impressed with fairy tale logic.
To sum
up, I support RT mostly because they are professionals and feature a
line-up of fantastic programs and documentaries, which are
informative and insightful. As far as I’m concerned, whether it
serves Putin’s “agenda” (whatever that is) is beside the point.
What matters is the authenticity of the journalism. Americans should
be grateful for this source of alternative views that challenge
homogenous and hegemonic “mainstream” narratives. While all media
either have some interest to serve or ideology to peddle, the health
of the media in general can only be measured by its diversity. So,
it’s not about whether you “agree” or “disagree” with the
Russia Today broadcast; more importantly, the principle of fair play
in media access and reach is crucial for the health and future of
democracy. That’s why I support Russia Today, and so should you.
Source:
Comments
Post a Comment