Some thoughts on Russia Today‘s Tomorrow
by Ethan S. Burger
Exclusive to La Russophobe
The Russian people have not experienced any significant benefit from the symbolic pressing of the “reset” button in U.S.-Russian relations. Just ask any Russian citizen what they think about the necessity of urging the work force to stay home or establishing 120 “anti-smog centers” in Moscow as a result of the fires near the capital. This situation in Moscow is being well reported by the foreign press and Russia Today, can the same be said of the state-owned media?
I have often wondered what the Russian leadership thinks it gains from placing special supplements of Russia Today in major newspapers like The Washington Post and the New York Times. Most U.S. newspapers are struggling, as Hendrik Hertzberg wrote in The New Yorker, this did not prevent The Washington Post from undertaking a comprehensive investigation analysis of the wasteful homeland security complex (both governmental and private-sector, largely government-funded) that has emerged post 9/11. It is doubtful that any Russian media outlet that reaches a large segment of the population would ever have the courage to undertake a comparable effort about the fires currently spreading through the country.
Russia Today holds itself out as “the first Russian 24/7 English-language news channel which brings the Russian view on global news.” . It also maintains an extensive website. Russia Today is proud of the fact that in 2009, “RT’s daily audience is over 6 times bigger than that of Al Jazeera English while RT’s monthly audience is 5 times bigger than that of Deutsche Welle. That’s despite the fact that RT’s budget is not as big as those companies.”
It is important, however, to understand that Russia Today is not a Russian counter-part to al-Jazeera International. Al-Jazeera broadcasts in both in Arabic and English. Its audience includes both the Arab and non-Arab world. A large share of its personnel has worked for foreign news organizations like the BBC. Not surprisingly, many conservative Arab governments view Al-Jazeera as a potential threat as it provides its citizens information provided by a source that is not state-controlled. Frequently Al-Jazeera is wrongfully equated as being the voice of al-Qaeda since it has been used by Bin Laden and others to relay threats against the West or other “non-believers.” The decision to broadcast such items essentially is an editorial and business decision. The network is not advocating terrorism, but it willingly let’s terrorists use it to get its message out. Ironically, it represents a valuable source of intelligence information in the fight against Islamic extremism.
That is not to say that Russia Today does not employ some excellent journalists, but as it is said “he who pays the piper calls the tune.” Russia Today is owned by the Russian government. In a sense, it might be seen as the equivalent of Voice of America. Voice of America is up-front about its function:
The long-range interests of the United States are served by communicating directly with the peoples of the world by radio. To be effective, the Voice of America must win the attention and respect of listeners. These principles will therefore govern Voice of America (VOA) broadcasts:
1. VOA will serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news. VOA news will be accurate, objective, and comprehensive.
2. VOA will represent America, not any single segment of American society, and will therefore present a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions.
3. VOA will present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, and will also present responsible discussions and opinion on these policies.
(Public Law 94-350)
Although its website is also available in the Russian language, those Russian citizens with access to the Internet who are so inclined can be exposed of news sources that are not controlled by the Russian government. According to studies I have seen, these individuals are far outnumbered by persons who get their news from domestic Russian television or those who prefer reading about sports to politics.
There are many cynics who contend that media in the West, albeit privately owned are biased and its content of the news that it provides its audience/readership reflect the views (and interests) of its ownership. While in Great Britain, the walls separating news reporting, comment & analysis, and editorials may be low, if they exist at all; the norm in the U.S. is rather different. In the States, the media is primarily profit-motivated and does not see itself as speaking to a particular constituency. Until Rupert Murdoch, bought the Wall Street Journal, there was a clear line dividing its news and editorial operations. Nonetheless, Murdoch’s Fox Television network continues to broadcast “The Simpsons,” who political line is quite incompatible with his own since the popular show generates large audiences and hence large advertising revenue.
It will be a welcomed development when Russia Today as well as well-funded non-state controlled Russian-based Internet sites, newspapers, radio & television stations provide the Russian people comprehensive news coverage and analysis in their own language.
The author is a senior lecturer in law at the Center for Transnational Crime Prevention at the University of Wollongong in Australia
@This situation in Moscow is being well reported by … Russia Today
And maybe I’ll elaborate.
Nothing ever was “well reported by Russia Today”.
RT reported the death of Sergei Magnitski as a prison hygene issue. RT is pure pro-Putin/Kremlin propaganda garbage. Botcott RT’s sponsors.
Let us not forget the propaganda tool called Interfax:
Radiation levels are ‘normal’ in Russia
Yesterday at 10:24 | Interfax-Ukraine Radiation levels have not risen in Russia as a result of fires, including in districts contaminated after the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, the Russian meteorological service Roshydromet said.
“We have been intensively monitoring radiation levels – now more often than ever. No rises have been registered in radiation or background pollution levels as a result of fires,” Roshydromet deputy director Valery Dyadyuchenko told Interfax on Thursday.
Read more: http://www.kyivpost.com/news/russia/detail/78017/#ixzz0wRavlgpi
RT’s Peter Lavelle is for Putin what Third Reich propaganda minister Joseph Goebels was for Adolf Hitler, he even looks like him. When I see Lavelle mocking Strategy 31 and the real opposition movement in Russia I want to put a bullet in my TV screen.
Compared to “Russia Today” Rupert Murdoch’s “Fox News” is the model of impartiality.
I want to put a bullet in my TV screen
What does prevent you from doing that? Not an insured accident? You should always pay for pleasures, just don’t be a coward.
So I’m a “coward………..”
If you want to meet with me sometime in private we’ll see who’s the coward.
You know, if you had said that in Russian or if you were ‘Boris’ or ‘Ivan’ and not Shay, our dear friend Kim of LR would call you an ignorant, stupid, violence-loving, cultureless Russian ape :)
I have the impression that there are some inconsistencies in this text.
“Until Rupert Murdoch, bought the Wall Street Journal, there was a clear line dividing its news and editorial operations. Nonetheless, Murdoch’s Fox Television network continues to broadcast “The Simpsons,” who political line is quite incompatible with his own since the popular show generates large audiences and hence large advertising revenue. ”
What has the WSJ to do with the Simpsons? Either has the original text been shortened or the author jumps to the next topic before he finished his first one.
You just need to read more carefully and think more before you comment. The WSJ is a right-wing paper. The Simpsons is a left-wing TV show. They are owned by the same person. Get it?
But than he should say so. If he writes that the WSJ had a clear line dividing its news and editorial operations, than I expect him to mention what Murdoch did when he took over. But he jumps over to the Simpsons.
And this is true for the whole text. Burger writes. “Russia Today is proud of the fact that in 2009, “RT’s daily audience is over 6 times bigger than that of Al Jazeera English while RT’s monthly audience is 5 times bigger than that of Deutsche Welle. That’s despite the fact that RT’s budget is not as big as those companies.”
Without knowing the real figures I would guess that RT’s claim is the usual boasting. And I would expect Mr. Burger to give me the real picture. Instead of doing so, he says that the journalists from Al Jazeera have a lot of experience with other media. Ok, and the RT crew? Only the KGB foreign language institute? Again, no follow up here. Mr. Burger points out that Al Jazeera is not al-Qaeda’s mouthpiece. And, surprise, surprise: Russia Today is owned by the Russian government. But that doesn’t mean that “does not employ some excellent journalists” For Example? Peter Lavell? Again, he doesn’t elaborate, instead he compares RT with “Voice of America”. A comparison I would have expected in a Kremlin paper, but not in this blog.
Almost each sentence in this article is only loosely related to the sentence before. He misses many opportunities.
“Russia Today” is the Kremlin’s propaganda channel and could be exposed in a much more sharp and convincing way. The article does not live up to the usually high standards of this blog.
Even worse than Russia Today is little-known Chechnya Today (aka Grozny, aka Kadyrov TV):
ChT is a mix of RT and North Korea http://www.korea-dpr.com/
I wish time and space would allow me to write a detailed analysis.
OP-EDs are not suppose to exceed 750 words. I was not writing a news analysis or a diatribe.
Your points are well taken.
If I were writing a magazine article or something larger in scope, its content and organization would have been different.
Great to read your response! I fully understand the constraints you are facing when writing an Op-Ed.
I don’t know how deep you are involved in researching Russia Today, but there is one thing about this channel which puzzles me and I would like to learn more about it. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
Of course I have not seen any analysis comparing the cost and the impact of this propaganda exercise but I have a strong feeling that it is completely useless.
I can’t imagine who really watches RT. Ordinary people in the West have no reason to choose a channel paid by the Russian Government. Even those who distrust their own media are unlikely to attribute more credibility to sources sponsored by the Kremlin.
Russia experts, regardless if critical or friendly to Russia, normally are speaking Russian and able to watch ORT, RTR etc. It is more instructive for them to follow what the Kremlin tells the Russian audience than what they want the foreigners to know.
The group of people friendly or neutral to Russia and interested in the government’s official position but not speaking the language must be rather small. I can’t imagine that it justifies the high costs.
Do you have any insight on this matter?
@I can’t imagine who really watches RT.
To help you imagine:
Take a look at this account, then scroll down to see the Subscriptions on the left (only one).
There are also other kinds of RT viewers then the Chetniks of course, but now you at least have some idea.
Wow, that’s an impressive audience!