babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Banning Russian media: Has it begun in the West?
October 17, 2016 - 9:27am
Some discussion in the Russophobia thread but this topic deserves its own thread.
1. Voice of America - NATO Warns West ‘Losing Information War’ Against Russia, IS
AS babbler swallow pointed out so helpfully, the word "ban" does not appear in the article. However...
VOA wrote:
The West must step up its efforts to combat and counter the information war being waged by its opponents, according to NATO officials. They warn that countries like Russia are exploiting the freedom of the press in Western media to spread disinformation....
The conference focused on the growing reach of Russian state media such as the 24-hour news channel Russia Today or RT, often accused of being a propaganda outlet for the Kremlin....
Senior editor at The Economist Edward Lucas argued channels like RT should not be considered as journalism.
“Russia has really grasped the post-truth environment. And they will lie about things absolutely brazenly. They understand the weaknesses of our media in the post-Cold War environment: that we prioritize fairness over truth.”
Yeah, we're so fair. Just ask any Muslim in the good old USA.
2. offguardian: Opinion: West gunning for Russian media ban
Quote:
It would be monumental, but Western states seem to be moving, ineluctably, towards banning Russian news media channels from satellite platforms and the internet. That outcome – albeit with enormous ethical and political implications – seems to be a logical conclusion of the increasingly frenzied transatlantic campaign to demonize Russia.
And, now, after Reich Secretary of State John Kerry dropped by for a chat with UK Treasury Minister/ Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond, we have, THE NEXT DAY,
3. RT assets frozen by state-controlled UK bank.
[more to follow]
Has banning Russian media begun in the Western regimes?
RT bank accounts blocked in UK – editor-in-chief
As TV host for "Going Underground" Ashfin Rattansi noted in an interview, with 3 billion hits on the RT YouTube channel, it is impossible to ban RT.
But they're trying.
thanks for this...I remember once suggesting in a thread on Russian organizations expressing their concerns on some anti Russian measure in Canada,,,to take care.... voices seeming to be pro Russian, in North America and NATO would be a next target....and the crises, the wars and financial chaos has not even yet to be begun......whew! Take care!
They haven't blocked their accounts. They are going to close them in December because they don't want to do business with them anymore. RT has two months to find another bank.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37677020
Barclays did the same thing to Rossiya Segodnya last year.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/russian-news-agency-furi...
Supplemental:
RT ads banned across London story
WE also have from Aug. 2015 ...
Spanish bank blocks payment to RT over EU sanctions against non-related media chief
In this latter case, an employee of a different media organization was used as an excuse to block payment to RT. Crap, as usual.
Quoting UK state media, hmm?
Do you know something the rest of us don't, Smith? lol.
Maybe you should have actually read the RT piece.
Question more.
Why do you think I didn't read the RT piece? I did.
Here's the same information from The Guardian if you have a problem with public broadcasters.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/17/russia-todays-uk-bank-acco...
That offguardian piece deserves quoting AT LENGTH!
In conclusion,
"Such thinking also betrays how degenerate Western political leaders have sunk into Cold War stereotypes; and how willing they are prepared to go to further antagonize Russia."
Banning RT would be a very unfortunate development. Fortunately, it is not practically possible to ban RT, and nothing in this tread provides any evidence of intention to do so. Bank accounts are an entirely different matter from banning a broadcaster, and as RT's own story says, the accounts are not frozen (quote from ikosmos' own link: "RT’s assets were not frozen and can still be withdrawn from the accounts." In other words, as is all too common ikosmos, your own link disproves the claim you make - RT accounts have not been as you wrote "frozen" and RT itself says the accounts are not frozen. It's similar to your claim that VOA wrote about banning RT, when that informaiton did not in fact appear in the link you provided.)
Western media bias is real and is a real issue. Claims about "freezing" RT accounts, "Banning" RT etc are false, and undermine the very real issues of media concentration, media bias, and so on, by making this another spin zone.
Neo-McCarthyism and the US Media The crusade to ban Russia policy critics By James Carden
Russia. Islamic State. Boko Haram. This is the same garbage as that from the Drone President, Barak Obama, when, on the rostrum of the UN General Assembly, he spoke of Russia, ISIS terrorism, and the Ebola virus in the same breath as threats to the world.
Oh, I see. The word "ban" is part of the latest right-wing pro-Kremlin campaign. So not much sense trying to talk facts, if the campaign has decided to use the word "ban."
The pro-RT campaign would actually be interesting to analyze through a Chomskyan media analysis lens. Called out on a factual distortion? Offer another repitition of the theme in different words. Work to tie your opponents to the enemy (one upon a time: the USSR. Now: the US empire - and try to imply they are Nazis, if you can, when they opint out that you are distorting the facts.)
Peter Lavelle: Attacking RT is an act of censorship.
The UK financial oligarchy doesn't want to deal with RT. I for one am not particularly surprised. It is not a ban it is merely business as usual to help ensure Western hegemony by keeping the population from easily accessing other perspectives on the new global feudalism that permeates our world. The NATO oligarchy and its allies will brock no opposition to its planetary control so this makes perfect sense.
Of course some of RT's reporting is biased but then so is much of the coverage of the West's MSM. The test for whether a news agency is acceptable is obviously whether or not they toe the imperial line.
But if there's no RT, where will these people go?
https://www.rt.com/usa/362996-russia-us-foreign-policy/
Ok, but if you look at Ashfin Rattansi's remarks, where he mentions the 3 billion hits on RT's YouTube page, etc., he says that basically they can't silence RT any more than they can silence rabble.ca , for example. People still get access online. And that 3 billion in traffic might just become 4 billion.
The RT bull-horns have tweeted, etc., that they aren't interested is addressing the censorship (Lavelle) and basically direct those with questions to the RT official spokespersons. Makes sense, really. Why should they be side-tracked by the lastest escalation of hybrid warfare?
What a rough week for Western imperialism. Their proxies get shit-kicked in Allepo and all they can do is plead for "mercy" (Boris Johnson, buffoonish UK Foreign Secretary) from the Russians. Then this idiocy.
They say things come in 3's. I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict something ever more impressively stupidly Russophobic from the Western regimes. Maybe banning the letter "R" or something ...
Well, exactly.
In the interests of fact-based discussion on babble, I'm going to suggest a change to the factually inaccurate title.
Not factually inaccurate, but it is a leading question designed to make us think about it, even if the answer is no.
Like the equally misleading "Is the U.S. going to invade Russia and start ww3?" thread, I expect this one will stay as is.
So they need a new banker and are on the hook for some new cheques. A lot of sturm and drang and assumption.
It seems to me that it is first and foremost ordinary people, from great-grandparents to newborns, who are getting their shit kicked in Aleppo...
The ordinary people have been taking a shit kicking since the West and its allies started arming terrorists both foreign and local. The people get bombed and shot at from all sides. Prior to the foreign backed insurgency the only talk of Syrian refugees was about the refugees from Palestine and Iraq who were taken in by the Syrian people and government. We are lucky in a country like Canada nobody is arming our dissidents to the teeth and providing them with logistic support to overthrow the government.
Maybe George Galloway can suggest one... one of the ones he wasn't intending to throw in jaill, anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UQAx1c3Ekc
(five minute mark)
Seems like whenever a thread title is a clickbait question, the answer is pretty much no.
Is the TPP the Liberals final betrayal of Canada?
Surely not. They have three more years.
Is the US and its NATO "allies" planning to attack Russia and start World War III?
No. Please just stop.
Black-listing in Canada? Maybe.
Ya, or not.
Trump the Chump TV Network?
No.
Should Trump the Chump be charged?
No.
So is it really the beginning of a new era in Canadian politics or simply more of the same?
More of the same.
Any Canadians liking Trump?
Just that guy that was ordered to remove his hat. Otherwise no.
NDP Ex-MPs to rock Couillard's world?
A year later and his world remains unrocked. So, no.
Is The House of Representatives in play for the Democrats in 2016?
This one's an honest question! But anyway, probably no.
Hey good lookin', what's cookin'?
Nothing.
A progressive Saudi Arabia?
LOL. No.
Irrelevant laughingstock of the Western Left?
No. It's very relevant.
Kropotkin, mine was not a "blame Russia" comment. There are a hell of a lot of guilty parties.
I wasn't disagreeing merely fleshing out your comment with my perspective. IMO The tragedy comes from foreign interference. There is a good reason why international law is supposed to forbid countries from arming and supporting other peoples dissidents.
I swear to Gord I didn't know! I didn't plagiarize Betteridge!
But I do agree.
My bold there.
Now let's talk about the U.S. invading Russia!
When it comes to comparisons of today's Russia with the Soviet Union, lurid tales are the fashion in the West. When it comes to agreements signed with the latter regime, however, maybe the Brits just think that such human rights don't apply anymore ....
If Boris says it, then it's probably a crock of s*it - genius statesman that he is ... not. lol.
Interesting that, according to RT's Editor in chief, the bank is already backtracking. Maybe this garbage will really blow up in their faces.
Awwww................
S. Lavrov - Bank did not decide to close RT accounts in the UK on its own
MP George Galloway chimes in.
News flash.
George Galloway already did chime in up at #20. So he's pissed that the people he wants to throw in jail won't offer their services to the voice of freedom?
Not too surprising to hear that report from barkingdogland.
The most recent Wikeleaks have revealed that Hilary Clinton has known, for years now, that both Saudi Arabia and Qatar are arming, training, and supplying both al-Quaida AND ISIS . And under her watch, these regimes have been supplied with billions in arms, weapons, etc. plenty of which, clearly, have wound up in the hands of terrorists. Therefore, she has know that the US regime, under her watch, has knowingly supplied arms to regimes that sponsor terrorism. It's all there.
So, how come the US Congress hasn't prosecuted the barbarous Obama regime for funding terrorism? You seem to be "totally" on top of these sorts of issues. You figure it out, O great plutonium disposal expert ...
Without getting into the veracity of the claim, that relates to the issue of NatWest telling RT to take their business elsewhere how, exactly?
Or are we just doing a random shuffle on your threads now?