RT, the Russian government-funded English-language television channel, presents its country’s view of the world.
So, it claims, does every other broadcaster. RT is just honest enough to admit it.
“Media outlets do not exist in a vacuum. Can you really expect any American corporate-owned news network to report a story in a way that goes against the U.S. national interest? Or Euronews to not advocate [European Commission] positions?” said Margarita Simonyan, who has led the editorial side of RT since its inception in 2004 as Russia Today.
See also: 9 Essential Questions About Ukraine, Answered
The Ukranian conflict has put RT in the spotlight like never before in its nine-year history. RT portrays its coverage as reflective of the Russian perspective on this topic. Some U.S. news media outlets charge RT is merely disseminating propaganda and oddball stories like action star Steven Seagal’s recent media critique.
BuzzFeed noted other examples including a report that labeled Russian military a “stabilizing force for Ukraine” and supposed Ukranian appeals to a Chechen terrorist.
The attention was compounded earlier this week when Abby Martin, an RT anchor, delivered a Network-like rant against Russia’s role in the conflict. “Russia was wrong,” said Martin, from RT’s Washington bureau headquarters. Martin’s tirade was followed by an emotional on-air resignation by another RT anchor, Liz Wahl. Wahl said she couldn’t stand “whitewashing” Russian President Vladimir Putin’s actions anymore.
RT issued a statement about Wahl’s resignation to Mashable, published below, that read in part: “When a journalist disagrees with the editorial position of his or her organization, the usual course of action is to address those grievances with the editor, and, if they cannot be resolved, to quit like a professional. But when someone makes a big public show of a personal decision, it is nothing more than a self-promotional stunt.”
Though there are rare parallels in U.S. journalism of high-profile journalists questioning their government — like Walter Cronkite’s 1968 advocacy of a Vietnam pullout — such sentiment is highly unusual for any anchor, much less one from a state-owned media company.
George Galloway, a British minister of parliament who also hosts a show on RT, said media watchers shouldn’t be shocked that RT has a different way of looking at the world than most Americans — and even its own American anchors.
“Every television station has its own bias. You are talking to me from the land of Fox News, so most of this kind of criticism is completely hollow as far as I’m concerned,” said Galloway. “Every state broadcaster like the BBC supports the prevailing view, the prevailing orthodoxy of its state. RT is no different in that regard.”
Screen Shot 2014-03-05 at 4.08.18 PM
A screenshot of RT’s Instagram feed shows pictures from the recent Olympics, Kiev’s Independence Square, and a photo of a “self-defense squad member” taking a photo with civilians.
Image: Screenshot/RT Instagram Account
If RT’s goal is to disperse propaganda, it’s doing so under the pretext of a mainstream news outlet. Even amidst the latest sturm and drang over Ukraine, RT comes across in most ways like a straightforward news outlet, albeit one that leans more to the left than most when it comes to U.S. topics.
Originally called Russia Today, the company rebranded to RT in 2009. Simoyan said the move was an attempt to broaden the channel’s audience and not meant to hide its Russian origins.
While the homepage is particularly heavy on Ukraine news right now, it also features stories on Facebook’s drone efforts, an air race world championship and Brazil celebrating the first day of Carnival in Brazil.
Unlike stereotypical Soviet-era media like TASS or Pravda, RT coverage has earned somewhat of a reputation for journalistic integrity. It’s been nominated for various awards including an International Emmy for its Occupy Wall Street Coverage. The channel also recently inked a deal to feature Larry King’s online talk shows.
In addition, RT has massive reach, beaming to some 644 million people in more than 100 countries. It has also found some success with its YouTube channel, which hit 1 billion views in June. In comparison, CNN’s channel sits just below 350 million. It has a headcount of around 2,000 globally with about 100 in its Washington D.C. bureau.
Funding for the channel comes from the Russian government. That’s a fairly unusual arrangement in the U.S., but not abroad, where other outlets, including the BBC, have been government funded and editorially independent, Simonyan said.
Not everyone agrees. Ann Cooper, professor of professional practice in international journalism at Columbia University and a former Moscow bureau chief for NPR, said government support had helped RT build a modern news agency, but one that was clearly skewed toward Russian interests.
“The money is buying them a very professional look and some of the work is good, interesting,” she said. “As soon as they got onto the subject of anything relating to the United States, it veered off into propaganda or relentlessly anti-American, anti-American foreign policy in particular.”
Cooper oversaw a 2011 study by 15 students at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism that compared five government-funded channels that broadcast to an international audience: Al Jazeera English, CCTV-I (China), France 24, Press TV (Iran), and RT.
RT scored particularly low in homeland coverage, credibility and coverage of the U.S.
Screen Shot 2014-03-05 at 4.51.32 PM
The top of RT.com’s homepage is filled with Ukraine coverage including an article titled “Questions on Ukraine the West chooses not to answer.”
As Wahl’s departure illustrates, the Ukraine situation is testing the RT’s journalistic independence. Yet RT Correspondent Egor Piskunov, who is currently reporting in Crimea, said he has seen first-hand reporting that he considers to be anti-Russian.
“Sometimes if we see that a certain story is being presented in a certain way, just from one side, usually by most other media, they have the same agenda,” he said. “They have the same angle, so we of course try to focus on the same story but provide the other side of things, which are usually ignored.”
The clash of media spilled over into the public sphere this week when Ukrainian and Russian news organizations exchanged open letters over their respective coverage. Tension between the media outlets has heightened as accusations of misinformation have flown.
Piskunov said that while he does not feel any pressure to report stories a certain way, he considers it part of his duty to address areas he feels have been misreported.
“It’s a huge information media war going on right now,” Piskunov said. “Right now the live position for the reports that we have, it’s also shared by other mass media and sometimes when i’m doing a live report, another correspondent from another channel is saying completely opposite things from what I’m saying.”
—
RT’s full response to Wahl’s resignation:
Ms. Wahl’s resignation comes on the heels of her colleague Abby Martin’s recent comments in which she voiced her disagreement with certain policies of the Russian government and asserted her editorial independence. The difference is, Ms. Martin spoke in the context of her own talk show, to the viewers who have been tuning in for years to hear her opinions on current events, the opinions that most media did not care about until two days ago. For years Ms. Martin has been speaking out against US military intervention only to be ignored by the mainstream news outlets — but with that one comment, branded as an act of defiance, she became an overnight sensation. It is a tempting example to follow.
When a journalist disagrees with the editorial position of his or her organization,
the usual course of action is to address those grievances with the editor, and, if they cannot be resolved, to quit like a professional. But when someone makes a big public show of a personal decision, it is nothing more than a self-promotional stunt.
We wish Liz the best of luck on her chosen path.
Mar 5 2014, Jason Abbruzzese, Mashable