Russia Today Faces UK Investigation Over MH17 News Coverage

[joshcryer]

Russia Today, the Kremlin-backed news channel, has attacked the “impartiality and factuality of the mainstream media” after learning it could itself be investigated for breaking broadcasting regulations on accuracy and impartiality during its coverage of the MH17 air crash.

Ofcom, which ensures TV channels with a UK broadcasting licence provide broadly impartial news coverage, said it was considering whether to investigate Russia Today following complaints from viewers about the tone of its coverage of the Malaysia Airlines disaster.

Last week presenter Sara Firth resigned from the channel, accusing it of covering the story with “total disregard to the facts”.

But the channel has hit back against its detractors and the potential Ofcom investigation, telling BuzzFeed it is one of the few news outlets that is willing to stand up to the “party line” on what actually happened to the flight when it crashed in eastern Ukraine.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/russia-today-faces-uk-investigation-over-mh17-news-coverage

About time someone call them on their crap. Now bring back the Fairness Doctrine in the US (the FCC can do it with the stroke of a pen).

[zappaman]

1. But...but....

"RT is watched now by over 50 million US households."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4363923

So it MUST be trustworthy!

[davidpdx]

5. Laughable

[William769]

8. OMFG!

[PeaceNikki]

10. Wow. That's just fucking weird!!

[maddezmom]

12. Classic

[Cali_Democrat]

35. LOL!

The Putinistas are so unintentionally hilarious!

[Dr Hobbitstein]

39. One of MANY outlandish claims by that poster... NT

[SidDithers]

44. Hehe...

Sid

[Number23]

51. And the Western media can NEVER be trusted!!11 ((wail))

Except of course for the ones criticizing this current administration.

Oh my God. Some of these folks here have simply GOT to be PULLING OUR CHAINS.

[anti partisan]

58. You're right. It can't.

Repeat it over and over again.

When the same oligarchs who control the state also control broadcasts which can alternatively be used to criticize policies of the state, then there is a problem, a sort of quasi-fascism. There is virtually no journalistic check on the state nowadays.

In order for a democracy to fulfill the needs of the people, the people have to know the full story of what is going on politically, something they are not.

[treestar]

60. Let's get our new direct from the Russian government!

That's sure to be better than our media!

[Coventina]

2. I'm sure they'll pass the scrutineering with flying colours...

[conservaphobe]

3. I wish we in the U.S. were this dedicated to improving the media. nt

[SidDithers]

4. DU rec...nt

Sid

[William769]

6. Kick & recommended.

[geek tragedy]

7. RT.com is utter trash, but as tempting as it is to support this kind

of inquiry, I'll just never be comfortable with a State Bureau of Truth calling people to the carpet.

I know the Brits do things differently than we do, but . . .

(though I certainly agree with RT being banned as a source in LBN)

[joshcryer]

9. I'm all for unfettered speech.

As long as it's not hate speech or fire in a theater type stuff.

But I think the Fairness Doctrine is fine, all RT would have to do is just be labeled non-news, as it is a propaganda outlet. It's practically comedy at this point.

[geek tragedy]

11. makes sense. nt

[anti partisan]

20. All corporate media is propaganda

Why single out RT as such?

If you really want an honest media to reach the citizens of this country, spread the word about Free Speech TV or donate to it.

[joshcryer]

24. Corporate media, talking heads, they are garbage.

The news wire, which gets its information from independent stringers, is legit. It's dry reporting, but it's still legit.

Whether the talking heads run with independent data or not is irrelevant.

[anti partisan]

26. You know what is irrelevant...

is where the corporate media gets their information from. What is relevant is that it is garbage, and often is just as much of a shill for US corporate/national interests as RT is for Russian interests.

All this outrage for a channel that gets like 5 viewers, when other Fox "news" gets millions and millions daily.

[joshcryer]

29. RT reports CT.

FOX News reports Benchazi.

The news wire reports what is happening on the ground.

How you can't differentiate I don't know.

[anti partisan]

30. It's easy to differentiate between irrelevancies

But if all the end viewers of the mass media are seeing is some mountain of bullshit, it doesn't really matter the precise topography of said mountains.

[malaise]

13. They should investigate BBC over the Iraq lies

tthe David Kelly lies, the Thatcher lies, the Blair lies, the South Africa lies and more lies than I care to mention.

Stop fooling yourselves - they all lie including the New York Times and the Washington Post, CNN, Fox, MsNBC. They all carry water for their governments as well.

[mwooldri]

31. You must have heard of the Hutton Inquiry then.

I think the BBC came out of that one quite well. They reported the critical things, and the leadership didn't buckle. The Hutton "government whitewash" inquiry came out and only then did heads roll. We all know that the dossier outlining Iraq's biological and chemical weaponry was considerably "sexed up".

I'm sure Auntie does carry water for HM Government from time to time. However the BBC is much more credible than any Murdoch news outlet is. Heck, Fox News Channel got censured a few years back by OfCom - the UK broadcasting regulator - when John Gibson spouted off about the Beeb in the aftermath of the Hutton Inquiry.

However the bottom line with news outlets is simple: change the channel often. Truth will be verified by multiple sources on all sides of the story.

[cprise]

36. Not until heads rolled at the BBC and it was re-organized as a lapdog

BBC board of governors are no longer allowed to defend the "public" corporation against government attacks. The result is a tight circle of wagons within the corporation defending and promoting conservative themes:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/17/bbc-leftwing-bias-non-existent-myth

Ofcom is a joke. That much was evident when Blair retaliated against the (old) BBC. And even before the whole Iraq mess, how could they ensure "impartiality" with a straight face when its understood the BBC's foreign reporting is funded just like a state-owned media organization?

[Tarheel_Dem]

14. Well, now they've done it! They've gone & pissed off "50 million US households" & Latin America too,

by some accounts.

[conservaphobe]

15. I predict much usage of the false equivalence fallacy in this thread.

Oh, look... some already.

[Cha]

16. We got some RT pushers on here that will vouch for RT's veracity.. just ask the anonymous internet

RT warriors.

RT is state run.. US corporatemediawhore inc is Koch corporate run.

[Blue_Tires]

19. I'd said a couple of days ago

I knew thing were really bad when even Greenwald didn't have a defense for them anymore...

Lucky for him he inked that NBC partnership contract so RT was no longer 'necessary'

[Spazito]

17. An investigation is certainly in order...

The correct category for RT is comedy/science fiction!

[anti partisan]

18. Yeah all we need is some good ole fashioned censorship

Please, the Fairness Doctrine is complete crap.

[joshcryer]

21. Regan's appointees would agree with you.

[anti partisan]

22. And then, I would agree with Reagan's appointees

[conservaphobe]

23. No surprise there.

[anti partisan]

25. The last thing we need is the state censoring perhaps the one instrument which...

is most essential to productive criticism of the state, and to make the state work for the people.

If Reagan's appointees oppose this censorship, then we agree on something, probably for completely different reasons. Whoopdy-doo.

[conservaphobe]

27. The Fairness Doctrine had nothing to do with censorship.

It actually gave voices to MORE people.

[anti partisan]

28. I don't care about the pretext

I care about what it is, and that is state control of media, something that is terrifying no matter how cutely it is packaged.

[cprise]

37. The Financial sector now controls both government and mass media

...in the US and elsewhere. It is why the US is now regarded as an oligarchy:

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/14

Oligarchy was a popular term when it came to descriptions of Russia in the US corporate media, but now use of the term seems to be rapidly dropping off.

The appearance of democratic institutions doesn't really count for much when we've got this level of economic disparity.

[riqster]

52. Corporate control of the media can be just as bad as state control.

Or even worse.

[anti partisan]

53. When corporations control the arm of the state which controls the media

Then you're left with a completely unchecked beast.

[riqster]

54. In the case of the US, there is no state control of the media.

There is political control of various outlets based upon the partisan agendas of corporate owners and financiers.

[anti partisan]

56. Partially true. The FCC does exist.

I'm thankful it doesn't have absolute control though. Corporations would be able to control the implementation of the Fairness Doctrine just like they control many policies of the FDA.

For what it's worth, the same oligarchs that control US politics also control the message on corporate media. That the main reason various planks of US policy escape criticism on the corporate channels. So while the rulers of the state may not control the message directly through the state, people on their team control the message through other means, leading to the same result.

Except for that independent media is allowed to fill in the void by focusing on viewpoints that were NOT covered by corporate media, something that would be disallowed in a Fairness Doctrine scenario. There's no reason that independent media should have to devote "fair time" to covering viewpoints covered on corporate media ad nauseum.

And there is no "fairness" in having a balanced coverage between neoliberal/neoconservative viewpoints on corporate media.

[tclambert]

32. Wait, in the UK they have to have "impartial news coverage?"

Fox News would call that a liberal bias, while they're trying to be "fair and balanced," which is clearly not close to impartial.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. Ocfom has censured Fox News before

Fox News censured for rant at BBC

Fox News, the US news network owned by Rupert Murdoch, has been found in breach of British broadcasting rules for an on-air tirade that accused the BBC of "frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism".

Television regulators said the broadcaster failed to show "respect for truth" in a strongly worded opinion item, broadcast on the day the Hutton report was published, which also accused BBC executives of giving reporters a "right to lie".

Ofcom, which licenses commercial channels shown in Britain regardless of where they are based, received 24 complaints about the remarks. In a ruling published yesterday, it described the offending item as a "damning critique" but said it did not stand up to scrutiny.

It is the third ruling by British regulators against Fox News, which is available in Britain to Sky Digital customers, in the past year. It broke the rules on "undue prominence" in two previous news items which plugged beauty products and a seed manufacturer.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/jun/15/broadcasting.ofcom

[KoKo]

33. Agree if we brought back "Fairness Doctrine" maybe we wouldn't need to

watch International Media to get TRUTH about what USA is up to.

And....RT/America does better reporting about US Progressive Left Interests than anyone else. That's why they go after them.

But...Agree with you. BRING BACK "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE" .....it all started when they got away with denying that...and it's been downhill ever since with more dismantling of our Media Freedom of the Press.

Recommend!

[Bluenorthwest]

38. Touting homophobic State media is difficult, but you make it look easy.

Calling RT international media is an insult to international media. RT is created for this market and as such is not international product. International media is media made for other nations which we read from here, not media made by other nations for consumption here.
Straight folks soaked in privilege might delude themselves that bigots can be trusted, but that's not me, and that's how it is.

[nikto]

41. "RT/America does better reporting about US Progressive Left Interests than anyone else."

I agree with that, for sure.

[nikto]

40. If RT can be used to persuade America to bring back The Fairness Doctrine...

I'm all for it.





I still like RT's US coverage, though.

I've never looked to RT to be unbiased in Russia/Putin coverage, so this doesn't bother me.

[nikto]

42. QUESTION FOR ALL RT-BASHERS

So is Thom Hartmann useless and worthy of ridicule for HIS reporting too?
He's on RT.

Does that mean his show, and his ideas, suck?

Plus, the financial-reporting shows that criticize the IMF and World Bank----Do you RT critics LIKE
the IMF and WB? Do you feel the IMF and WB should be left alone and NOT criticized (as on MSNBC)?
Do you think RT lies about IMF/WB?

For all who bash RT with no distinctions,
please clarify.


Some explanation is needed here, for some coherence.

[conservaphobe]

43. Yes.

The fact he has no shame associating with RT tells me all I need to know about his true character.

Amy Goodman, too.

[nikto]

45. OK, then who DO you trust as a news source?

Is there anyone?

[conservaphobe]

49. I have a lot of respect for the Associated Press.

But I watch MSNBC for all of my political commentary.

I also immerse myself in Twitter...

It is there I learn a lot that goes unreported and see what real people are thinking.

The blogs masquerading as journalism out there, which appeal to the extreme ends of the political spectrum only contribute to polarization and are more detrimental to our political system than not.

I don't care much for any anti-western slant to my media... I am able to criticize my government when they don't do something I like or against my interests without the help of a foreign government's propaganda arm.

There's a lot of media out there which does justice to the issues important to the left, but some of it ventures way too far out there and publishes borderline fiction too often for my liking. Democracy Now is an example of that.

On Free Speech TV, Stephanie Miller is about the only one I can tolerate.

[nikto]

50. You sound like a dedicated centrist

Sounds like The Clintons/Obama are right up your alley.


I'm just not a "3rd-way" fan myself.

Maybe issue-by-issue is a better way to clarify...


Do you approve of

Drone killings w/o due process? (for me--NO)
Privatization of US Public Schools via Charters? (for me--NO)
NSA metadata spying on all citizens? (for me--NO)
Big trade deals like TPP and TTIP? (for me--NO)
Letting Wall St criminals go free with FINES, rather than prison? (i.e. "Too big to jail&quot (for me--NO)

Also, would you prefer to see ACA converted to a Single-Payer system? (for me---YES)

Perhaps we agree on most of these, eh?

[anti partisan]

55. So basically, you like your news seen through a pro-Western filter

The world always looks prettier through rose-colored glasses, doesn't it?

Democracy Now is one of the most, if not THE most, respectable news programs on TV nowadays. The only real bias I see is covering important issues that aren't covered on mainstream media.

It also has nothing to do with RT. I don't know where you got that from.

Thom Hartmann also has nothing to do with RT's "news". RT basically gave him a free studio to use so they could use his geopolitically neutral program to sell their channel to leftists. Crafty but I don't disrespect Thom for taking the offer. His show is great.

[valerief]

46. ? Amy Goodman is on Democracy Now, not RT, AFAIK. nt

[morningfog]

57. Why did you throw Amy Goodman in?

I don't trust RT as a source, but Hartmann is good people.

I don't visit or read RT, so I am not familiar with who is on it. Is Goodman?

[KoKo]

59. Amy Goodman/Democracy Now is Pacifica and not affiliated with RT....

That person doesn't know what they are talking about who is ranting about RT.

[joshcryer]

47. No.

But they are shameful for not criticizing RT over their coverage of protests in Russia and the anti-LGBT slant they have.

However, money talks.

[nikto]

48. This thread shows just how BLEAK our news & information system has become

Seems like there are no truly trustworthy sources left anymore.




Looks like Mission Accomplished for the oligarchy.