printable version PDF version

The Farcical Nature of State Media
by Finian Cunningham via sal - RT Tuesday, Nov 28 2017, 8:10pm
international / prose / post

Russia's tit for tat response to the US and Europe attempting to contain Russian media outlets has revealed that all media is partial or biased, that is a given and self-evident. So if one group attempts to contain the other, the other applies the exact same measures of containment. However, let's not get lost or distracted by the trees as the forest is the issue here -- mass MEDIA and its pervasive influence!

Recently the US FCC has applied measures that directly affect the free flow of information on the internet, applying all manner of constraints which are only, it is said, (take note) able to be removed if users pay extra to access various sites easily. Of course this allows for massive censorship by backgrounding sites deemed 'inappropriate' to the purveyors of 'new' internet 'freedoms,' which word the FCC utilised to implement constrictive and containing measures, what a pathetic joke! But of course, as we all should know the first casualty of any war, information or otherwise, is truth, which is transmitted via information from as many sources as possible, in order for the reader/researcher to be able to arrive at the most accurate and reasonable assessment. ANY intervention or interruption in this process (the free flow of information) is of course information WARFARE, which is occurring as I write between two superpowers, Russia and America. However the other and most critical war is ONGOING, the information war directed at the masses.

The FCC is now conducting this type of warfare on its own population OPENLY utilising various linguistic tricks and guises all to the benefit of the State and its overlords, the corporate/financial sectors. It is self evident that real freedom is compromised regardless of all the linguistic tricks, obfuscation, guises and charades the FCC could muster, clearly the real intentions are increased PROFIT for elite interests and censorship.

Now to highlight the sheer HYPOCRISY of western purveyors of information 'freedom,' particularly in the USA, which State has recently screamed over Russia utilising the exact same measures as a response to US and puppet Europe's attack on it. But that is a secondary issue, the PRIMARY issue which bellows from the second layer discourse, is the public (in both nations) is being starved of facts/truth, REALITY; that is the most critical point which this State information war reveals.

The public has become 'collateral damage' in this war, and not unintentionally.

Western news is shaped by CFR vested interests and disseminated by its media mogul members, Rupert Murdoch and others -- and we should all note the uniformity of western FAKE news throughout the WORLD, Iraq WMD etc, and the concentration of media ownership that allowed this blatant LIE to gain traction; indeed, the greatest purveyor of fake news is and has ALWAYS been, the Mass Media, easily verified.

The Russian and Chinese approach is rather more State centralised but the EFFECT is the same, the masses are starved of accurate information and fed propaganda in order to serve elite agendas and interests, particularly in the USA, which group is essentially the shadow or real government.

So it all appears as a tit for tat game between vested interests/States, but does that serve the GLOBAL PUBLIC'S interest, CLEARLY, NOT!

Nevertheless, it is extremely useful that we all observe this propaganda war, as that is what it essentially is, one State's lies against another State's lies, which observation benefits the growing awareness of the public, all States today are essentially the people's enemy, which reality is now highlighted by the American FCC.

It now becomes an imperative, if any real freedom is to be (re)gained, that a retaliatory war should be waged by the people against their oppressors -- lying, CORRUPT, authoritarian States -- and I do not distinguish which, as they are clearly all rotten to their corrupt cores. Notwithstanding that if a State or any other entity declares war, 'softly or loudly,' then the target, in this case the masses, must either respond in kind or be subject or enslaved by their oppressors, as is the case in America, Russia and China -- partisanship of any kind is an act of agency, pure and simple and I would remind alternative media commentators of this reality, our task, indeed if we have one, is to FREE THE PEOPLE OF THE ENTIRE WORLD, not take stupid sides, capice?

A partisan article follows, be AWARE and do not be led into taking sides, as all existing States serve minority criminal interests, as I hope the above discourse helps to highlight:

US & Europe’s Farcical Hypocrisy Over Russian Foreign Media Law

It’s so brazenly hypocritical, it could be a joke. The US and the European Union rushed to condemn Russia’s new media laws restricting foreign entities. At the same time, they assume the unilateral right to hound Russian news outlets as “foreign agents.”

Do as we say, not as we do, is the arrogant mentality here.

When Russian President Vladimir Putin signed new legislation into law last weekend, the Kremlin described the measures as a “symmetrical response” to moves in the US earlier this month forcing Russian state-owned broadcaster RT to register as a foreign agent.

Under Russia’s new law, any foreign-sponsored news outlet operating in Russia may be required to register as a foreign entity, disclosing its financial details and journalistic activities, in the same way RT’s affiliate in America has been compelled to do by the Department of Justice.

No Western news organizations have yet been officially affected by the Russian regulations, but there are reports of US government-owned Radio Free Europe and Voice of America as potential subjects. The Russian law does not seem to distinguish between government or privately owned media outlets. America’s cable TV network channel CNN, as well as German state-owned Deutsche Welle, have also been reported as possible entities liable under the new media registration law.

Testy reactions from the US and EU reveal a staggering doublethink.

John Lansing, head of the US Broadcasting Board of Governors, which controls RFE and VOA, said in a statement that “any characterization of such steps as reciprocity for US actions severely distorts reality.”

EU spokeswoman Maja Kocijancic said the Kremlin’s “legislation goes against Russia's human rights obligations and commitments.”

She added that the law is “a further threat to free and independent media and access to information” and “yet another attempt to shrink the space for independent voices in Russia.”

As the Kremlin explained, the new laws only apply to foreign-owned media operating in Russia. It does not apply to news outlets based in Russia. So it seems a tenuous assertion indeed by the EU that the move “shrinks space for independent voices in Russia.”

In essence, what the reactions reveal is the sheer hypocrisy and sanctimony of the US and Europe.

Washington feels entitled to denigrate and restrict RT as a “foreign agent,” but if Russia responds in kind then such a move is condemned as unwarranted and a “distortion.”

The European Union earlier this month announced €1.1 million funding for a Brussels-based media watchdog, which is tasked with labeling Russian news media as “fake.” Somehow this form of censorship and restriction is supposed to be acceptable, but when Russia responds accordingly, Moscow is accused of “threatening free and independent media” and undermining “human rights obligations.”

Do such obligations not apply to Washington and Europe? Evidently not.

When the US Department of Justice coerced RT to register as a foreign agent on November 13, or face criminal action, Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security Dana J Boente said: “Americans have a right to know who is acting in the United States to influence the US government or public on behalf of foreign principals.”

So if American citizens have the right to know such information, why do Russians not have the same right?

The US government lawyer added: “The Department of Justice is committed to enforcing FARA [Foreign Agents Registration Act] and expects compliance with the law by all entities engaged in specified activities on behalf of any foreign principal, regardless of its nationality.”

The US government is being illogical, if not mendacious, here. If its public justification were being applied consistently and genuinely then why aren’t foreign state-owned news outlets like the BBC, France 24, Deutsche Welle, Al Jazeera and China’s CGTN obliged to register under FARA?

Russia’s RT is being targeted selectively because the decision is entirely political and expedient, regardless of the grave implications for violation of free speech and the public’s right to information access.

While the US, EU and Western human rights groups like Amnesty International have attacked Russia over its laws – laws in response to moves first made by Washington – there is apparently no such concern expressed about the damage initiated by the Americans.

There is also a shameful silence among Western media outlets over the initial restrictions imposed on RT in the US. The supposed liberal values of free speech and free media are evidently not under threat when it comes to proscribing Russian news media. This contradiction illustrates a baleful mindset of Russophobia prevalent among the political class in the West. It’s OK to censor Russian media because Russian media are simply not valid, so goes the prejudiced thinking.

What these Western liberal exponents fail to realize is that the very principle of free speech and information is coming under attack by the reprehensible attack on RT and Russian media more generally under the tendentious assertion that they are “agents of Kremlin propaganda.”

Underlying the assumption that Russia’s foreign media restrictions are somehow illegitimate and not reciprocal is the arrogant view that the accusations leveled by US intelligence agencies and various Western politicians are accurate and true.

Namely, that Russian news media allegedly engaged in “meddling” in the US presidential elections last year; or, as Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May claimed earlier this month, Russian media are trying to “sow discord” in Western states. Such views are nothing more than prejudiced opinion masquerading as “fact.” Or, put another way, propaganda and fake news prettified as “intelligence.”

No evidence has ever been presented to back up these sensationalist claims of Russian interference. They rely entirely on prejudice and innuendo against Russia and its news media as somehow being malicious. This is sheer, unadulterated Russophobia of the kind that fueled the McCarthyite “red-hating” era and the Cold War paranoia, which brought the specter of mutually assured nuclear destruction to the world.

What the public in the Western states needs to realize – they are increasingly – is that the real threat to democratic rights is not Russia or its media. The danger comes from Western governments, who espouse democratic principles and the rule of law, but who in reality are censoring alternative media and internet freedom by giving companies like Google free rein to impose “de-ranking” of designated sources.

Russian media like RT have in fact provided an admirable alternative perspective on major international events such as the war in Syria and Yemen, which expose criminal responsibilities of Washington and its European allies.

That is what the real bone of contention is. Russian media have exposed that Western self-styled emperors have no clothes. They are naked, warts and all.

And so, therefore, because of this “transgression,” Russian media have to be gagged forthwith.

But in doing so, Western states, their media, and human rights advocates only expose further their own naked hypocrisy and false pretenses.

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/411209-russia-foreign-agent-threat-eu/