The Iraqi Vice President recently criticised America for taking the credit regarding the liberation of Mosul from Daesh. In doing so, he blamed America for the creation of Daesh in the first place, and said that the Iraqi government will not allow America to build a permanent military base in Iraq, (to add to their 800+ bases around the world).
How do I know this? I read it on RT (Russia Today); the international TV news network funded by the Russian government. I did not read this on the BBC, the Guardian etc. It was omitted in western mainstream media. You would think, given that our governments have consistently meddled in Iraq for decades, resulting in literally millions of deaths, that our media should report something like this, and hold our governments accountable for the Vice President's accusations, or at least look into it. But no; we (the west) invaded their country based on a lie, armed jihadist insurgents in Syria (which the Pentagon knew would likely create an Islamist principality - Daesh), and now we ignore them. Is the truth simply too uncomfortable to bear?
(I could list many other examples of news stories reported by RT that have been omitted/skewed in western media).
I started watching/reading RT earlier this year, having begun questioning the narrative purported by western media regarding the conflict in Syria. At first, I was very wary. I had been led to believe that RT was simply pro-Russian propaganda; and I'd been fed a constant stream of anti-Russian sentiment throughout my life; it is always depicted as some kind of uniquely horrible country; a 'rogue state'. In films, the villain is often a Russian. With the Cold War ending only 30 years ago, I guess this is all natural to an extent.
So I assumed that RT would be a particularly untrustworthy news source, with journalists controlled somehow, by the allegedly oppressive leader of Russia, Vladimir Putin.
Having spent some time watching RT America, my eyes were opened. I was surprised to see that Larry King, and Ed Schultz (formerly of MSNBC), were on the network. I quickly became hooked on 'Redacted Tonight', a left-wing satirical news show presented by the often hilarious Lee Camp. I enjoy 'On Contact', presented by Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize winner formerly of the New York Times, (he was pushed out having refused to go along with the NYT's generally pro-Iraq war stance). Also Crosstalk, with Peter Levelle, offers great debates on world affairs, and Going Underground, with Afshin Attansi, includes a diverse variety of interviewees, from Nigel Farage to John Pilger to many sitting MPs, to the winner of RuPaul’s Drag Race.
Having noticed the highly partisan coverage of Aleppo's liberation (or 'fall') in western media last December, I embarked on a mission to find some kind of truth regarding the situation in Syria; talking to Syrians online, and reading the work of independent journalists who had actually been to the war torn country. RT's coverage seemed in line with my conclusion that the war was largely caused by outside intervention from numerous countries with vested and long-standing interests in toppling the Syrian government; and that they did this by funding and arming an array of jihadist insurgent groups, putting an end to any genuine revolution, (if such a thing was ever really on the cards). RT offered facts and perspectives entirely omitted in my usual sources of news (Channel 4 News, BBC, and the Guardian, mainly).
Unlike the corporate media, RT is not beholden to advertisers or commercial success, as it is mainly funded by the Kremlin. So it's presenters can say whatever they like about western policy, without fear of losing advertisers or viewers. (NB the presenters are very open about where their funding comes from). Would I rely on RT as my sole source of news, and to offer the truth regarding Russia's affairs? No. But do I trust them at least as much as corporate media, much of which is proven to propagate war, collude with politicians, and is owned by just a handful of media moguls/corporations? Yes. Do I think it is essential to follow news from media networks outside of 'the west'? Absolutely. For anyone who considers themselves a 'globalist' to not do this, seems incredibly arrogant.
Having concluded that it isn't a uniquely propaganda-ridden news network, I have become extremely alarmed by the recent demonisation of RT, (and indeed, of Russia), by the corporate media and western governments.
Another area in which they have offered more balanced and nuanced coverage is the alleged 'Russian hacking' of the US election. In what I have seen, RT have simply reported the facts; there is no hard evidence that the Kremlin was responsible for the hack/leak of the DNC emails, or that they 'colluded' with Trump's campaign in some nefarious way to win him the election. Even the NSA is only 'moderately confident' that Russia was behind the hack/leak, and this was based on intelligence from an agency that has subsequently been discredited - Crowdstrike, (and that was paid for by the Clinton campaign).
This is in contrast to the hysterical corporate media, which seemingly has become lost in conspiratorial assumptions and neo-McCarthyism, in their desperation to impeach Trump. Anyone who disbelieves or questions their narrative is now labelled a 'Putin agent', or pro-Trump. In such an atmosphere, all media is disinclined to report the facts/remain partisan, in fear of being labelled as such, and losing viewers/readers/advertisers.
Here is just one example of where RT (and other alt-media) have been ahead of the game -
Until recently, CNN, the New York Times, etc, have been reporting that '19 intelligence agencies' agreed that Russia was responsible for the hack/leak. This was a lie, which they have since acknowledged. It was 3, and none of the agencies offered irrefutable conclusions. The intel officials who wrote the reports were also hand-picked by the Democrats, who had just suffered a highly embarrassing election defeat, and so the reports were very possibly politicised; seen as a way of distracting from their loss, and simultaneously smearing the new President as a 'Putin puppet'. Leaked emails show that they had already used this tactic during the campaign. We know that this kind of collusion between politicians and elements of the intelligence community happens - just think back to the WMD dossier pre the Iraq war.
If you'd been reading RT, or many other alt-media outlets, you'd have known about the myth of '19 intelligence agencies' long ago. (It may have been reported in corporate media too, but not prominently).
Corporate media seem to choose a narrative and run with it; going with whatever attracts viewers/readers. Just look at how popular Rachel Maddow has been on MSNBC. Her rants about every possible bit of circumstantial evidence that could possibly prove some kind of nefarious Kremlin involvement in the Trump campaign have been ratings gold for the network. RT on the other hand, does not have the same need for commercial success, though of course, all media, including RT, is susceptible to falling foul of 'groupthink'.
I am worried about where we are headed. RT has been attacked consistently both by the corporate media, and by the western governments that the corporate media appear to serve. The US intelligence report regarding Russia's alleged hack included several pages of criticism of RT. It alleges that RT ran a disinformation campaign during the run-up to the 2016 election in order to help Trump, simply because they dared to discuss the content of the hacked/leaked DNC emails; because they dared to interview third party candidates; because they dared to discuss everything and anything without fear of being slammed as 'conspiracy theorists' or 'pro Trump'; because they dared to criticise western foreign policy/NATO, and the brutal wars that have destroyed an entire region of the planet and caused a humanitarian refugee crisis.
Isn't this what we want? A media where nothing is unsayable; where criticism and questioning of our government's actions is a priority; where there is no 'political correctness'? Isn't free speech and a free media paramount to a free society?
Shouldn't it be down to individual judgement as to what is propaganda and what isn't? We have the internet at our fingertips. We can all do our own research and find the truth; decide for ourselves which media outlets and journalists are trust-worthy. Are we really going to rely on politicians, who are proven to misinform, and lead us into disastrous wars, to start cherry picking news for us?
It would appear that media liberty is not what some elites in the west desire. The new President of France, Macron, has condemned RT, even shutting them out of a news conference during his election campaign. He is now at the forefront of pushing for internet censorship in order to crack down on what he calls propaganda. Is this where we're headed? Towards a society where any media that reports facts and perspectives disliked by western governments is censored? And there was me thinking Miss Le Pen was the fascist candidate in the French election.
We are in turbulent times, what with the unexpected election of Trump, the Brexit result, the increased popularity of non-centrist parties in Europe. It is quite evident that Russia has been scapegoated as a way of explaining away all of this turmoil. They have been accused of running both disinformation campaigns, and of serial hacking, in order to unsettle the western world. In France for example, they were accused of meddling in the election to help Le Pen. It was barely reported however, that the French Intel chief has since said that there is no evidence of this. Similarly, as explained, when you really investigate their alleged hacking in the US, it becomes clear that the evidence is not very strong at all.
In reality, what seems clear to me, is that RT simply reports news that upsets western establishments; opening the eyes of many westerners to what it is that our governments have been up to in the Middle East, for example. They are reporting facts and perspectives omitted in western media, and anyone who truly wants a free society, should welcome this.
Is this Putin’s masterplan, to bring down US hegemony? Or does the Kremlin simply want to project the Russian perspective internationally (and combat anti-Russian bias)? The UK government, via BBC World Service, seeks to ‘promote our values and interests around the world’ - one rule for us and another for Russia?
A recent Pentagon report reveals that the US establishment fears the continued decline of US Hegemony; their strategy for reversing this is more military dominance, more surveillance, and more propaganda. So we know that propaganda techniques are being utilised by the west. No doubt, Russia are as well. In my view, we should remain aware of both; we should question everything. Watch RT with the knowledge that it is funded by the Kremlin. Watch corporate media with the knowledge that they are, by their very nature, compromised; and proven to propagate war. We need to use our own brains and not rely on governments, or certain media outlets, to decide official truths.
