LONDON — RT, formerly known as Russia Today, could lose its broadcasting license in the UK, after British TV and radio regulator Ofcom announced on Dec. 20, that it will consider imposing sanctions against RT for breaking impartiality rules while covering the Salisbury attack and wars in Syria and Ukraine.
Seven RT shows within six weeks spread a “Russian viewpoint” on the most crucial global events, without providing an opposing voice, Ofcom found. A new wave of propaganda followed the poisoning of ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury on March 4. The Skripals recovered, but the nerve-agent attack ended up killing a British citizen who accidentally came into contact with the substance.
RT broke the broadcasting rules seven times in 2018, at a level not reached since 2014, when reporting about Syria and Ukraine. That time it was forced to read out Ofcom decision on air. Now the consequences may be tougher as RT risks losing its broadcasting license in Britain.
RT tops the rankings of international media violating the Broadcasting Code with 23 breaches overall. It is ahead of Sky News – the second TV channel in the list – by a wide margin, having made twice as many breaches.
The Kyiv Post analyzed the decisions of all Ofcom investigations launched against RT and found patterns showing how the media outlet misleads its audience and uses similar excuses when caught.
Since 2012, when RT received its broadcasting license in the UK, Syria has been its favorite subject to spread propaganda about. The channel raised the topic in eight out of 23 cases. Another one is Ukraine, to which RT devoted four programs that breached the Ofcom code.
Conspiracy theories, confusing statements or, sometimes, outright lies. This is what the audience can expect when watching the Kremlin-controlled RT. The broadcaster was created by the Russian state to spread propaganda, reporting inaccuracies regularly, although this time it hit the UK with a disparately intense amount of one-sided news coverage.
Two weeks after the nerve agent attack on the Skripals, RT went on the air with an edition of the program called Sputnik. The presenter, George Galloway stressed in a sarcastic tone: “So President Putin is such a genius that just days before his presidential election and just 100 days before Russia hosts the World Cup, he tries to kill two Russians […] for no purpose yet even speculated upon.”
Then Galloway asked the guest whether the poisoning seemed “pre-prepared for some ulterior political motives.”. The interviewee, Alexander Nekrassov, described as a former Kremlin adviser, instantly agreed with Galloway calling Russian involvement in nerve agent attack on ex-spy and his daughter “a badly prepared provocation” and a “charade”.
The presenters’ statements became more hostile in the second part of the program. They compared British Government to “rabbits caught in the headlights” and said that investigating Salisbury incident the authority was “digging themselves deeper.” Again Galloway and his co-presenter repeatedly denied the possibility of Russian involvement, spurring the guest to agree with them.
That is what a diversity of viewpoints looks like according to RT. Presenters encourage guests to say what dovetails with “Russian viewpoint”, specifically with Putin’s. However, if the interviewee refuses to say what was expected, the TV anchor interrupts him leaving behind of the discussion and, sometimes, even shout at him as happened to Richard Murphy, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria.
It was in April during an episode of the Crosstalk program following Syrian government being suspected using chemical weapons in Douma, the last rebel-held town in the Eastern Ghouta region. Syria and its Kremlin backers denied accusations and described the attack as staged.
The presenter Peter Lavelle lost his temper when Richard Murphy disagreed with his statement that “Damascus has been doing the heavy lifting to fight ISIS.” Lavelle shouted:
“What has the United States done in Syria that’s right? Name one thing that the United States has done right when it comes to Syria?!”
Overall Lavelle interrupted five out of eight Murphy’s remarks and twice ended up screaming at the diplomat. However, in their letters to Ofcom after almost every breach of the impartiality rule, RT complained that found it too challenging to get people with views opposing Russia’s to speak on the channel.
Ofcom, in turn, argued that there are plenty of editorial techniques to represent the second point of view even if the interview is rejected. RT simply started using its excuse as a way to to give an alternative opinion.
In July 2014, RT broadcasted a brainwashing episode of the program Truthseeker titled “Genocide of eastern Ukraine,” about the Kyiv administration’s alleged policy towards the population of Donbas. Viewers complained to the regulator saying that the program made “no effort to provide balance” and made “horrific” and “wild” claims. At the very beginning, a voiceover said: “Kyiv’s leaders repeat Hitler’s genocidal oath.” Then the presenter, Daniel Bushell, repeatedly compared Ukrainian authority and army to Nazi Germany’s, accusing Kyiv of torturing and killing independent reporters and ethnically cleansing the east of the country.
The only reference to Ukraine’s opinion during the whole 14-minute program was a caption displayed for six seconds. It stated: “Kiev claims it’s not committing genocide and denies casualty reports.”
RT argued that showing the caption on the program was enough to “include the Ukrainian government’s viewpoint.”
Ofcom did not accept that as an excuse. This is the trick that RT uses most often when it does not intend to show a second point of view, the Kyiv Post noticed. Sometimes, RT did not provide anything other than Russian opinions, saying that they were reporting facts, so that it was “not necessarily needed to be balanced with other views”. This was RT’s reasoning for a biased reporting on the Revolution of Dignity in Ukraine in 2014.
After the huge amount of fake news RT spread about Ukraine in 2014 presenter Liz Wahl resigned on air in protest, followed by her colleague Sara Firth spoke up about quitting a station on Twitter.
Later that year RT launched the channel advertisement campaign covering streets of London, New York and Washington with banners depicting British and American politicians and stating: “This is what happens when there is no second opinion.”
Ironically, when there is no second opinion, RT may lose its broadcast license.
Commenting on Ofcom findings RT spokesperson said: “RT is extremely disappointed by Ofcom’s conclusions in what were almost all self-initiated investigations into RT by the regulator. We […] will decide shortly the nature of our next steps.”
