Tagged: RT

RT — The Foreign Agent in Your TV Set

The motto of RT, the Kremlin-backed propaganda network, is “question more.”  RT loves to pose questions about all manner of conspiracy theories, such as the Sept. 11 attacks were an inside job. However, one subject which RT dares not question is the nature of its own organization.

  • What is RT America?
  • Does the Kremlin pay its bills?
  • Is RT a foreign agent?

What is RT America?

RT describes itself as a “publicly-funded, non-profit organization.” It is a brand of ANO TV-Novosti, an “autonomous non-profit organization”, established in Moscow 2005 by the now-defunct Russian news agency, RIA Novosti. In the United States, it operates through a US corporation that is RT in all but name.

When it first launched in 2005 the network called itself “Russia Today” but it rebranded itself in 2009 as the more ambiguous RT.  “We removed ‘Russia Today’ from the logo after many colleagues, also from foreign media, told us that it was diminishing our potential audience,” said Margarita Simonyan, RT’s editor in chief told The Moscow Times. “Who is interested in watching news from Russia all day long?”

Fans of “alternative facts” love to tune in to RT, which bombards viewers in Europe, the UK (where RT’s bank accounts have been frozen) and America with all sorts of outlandish stories in English, Arabic, Spanish, and, of course, Russian.

The US intelligence community devoted a good deal of its report on Russia’s interference in the US elections to RT, saying it was part of “a Kremlin-directed campaign to undermine faith in the US Government and fuel political protest” and noting that RT’s editor in chief Margarita Simonyan was close to the Kremlin. Not to be outdone,  Simonyan cleverly mocked the report in an open letter titled, “Dear CIA.”

3975f97600000578-3843634-image-a-1_1476732140501

RT editor Margarita Simonyan and Vladimir Putin

Does the Kremlin pays its bills?

RT’s budget of more than $300 million comes from the Federal Agency for Press and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation. (By comparison, the budget of the BBC, which is funded by the British government, is $375 million). In other words, yes, the Kremlin pays the bills.

Is RT a foreign agent?

The funny thing about RT is that the only place you will find it in the United States is on your TV set. RT has been very careful not to have any legal or physical presence in the United States.

The only legal paperwork I could find for RT was a 2009 US trademark application:

As you can see, RT’s own trademark states that it produces “ongoing news shows pertaining to current events in Russia.”

The trademark was obtained by RTTV America Inc., the commercial entity through which RT America operates in the United States.

RT’s editor Margarita Simonyan says that RT does not need to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. RT “simply transfers funds” to RTTV America.

However, this is a fig leaf. RT’s own trademark application, shows that RTTV America assigned its entire interest in the trademark to ANO TV-Novosti in Moscow.

The entire value of the RT brand in the United States belongs to a Russian corporation.

The Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1933 is designed to “insure that the US government and the people of the United States are informed of the source of information (propaganda) and the identity of persons attempting to influence US public opinion, policy, and laws.”

As the Atlantic noted, two Asian television networks and the distributors for two Chinese daily newspapers have registered under FARA. NHK, which rebroadcasts Japanese programming in the United States, is registered as a foreign agent.

The FARA statute exempts news organizations unless they are “owned, directed, supervised, controlled, subsidized or financed” by any organization registered outside the United States. It’s clear that RT is funded by the Russian government. So, yes, RT is a foreign agent.

Ilya Ponomarev, a leftist former member of the Russian Duma who now lives in exile in the United States, told Buzzfeed that RT is not a media outlet, and should register as a foreign agent.

“It’s a great mistake that the west is doing, that it’s acknowledging it as a media tool,” he said. “I think it’s a lobbying tool and it should be regulated as a lobbyist rather than media.”

“Russia Today is way more dangerous than ISIS. Way more dangerous,” he said. “Because ISIS may create physical danger with certain western individuals who are coming into direct contact with ISIS, but RT is very focused and committed in disputing the very core values of western society.”

The most difficult question to answer is whether RT deserves First Amendment protections. I’ll try to tackle that in a future post.

 

Obama and GCHQ tale is Russian disinformation

Note: This piece has been updated.

It anyone surprised that the allegation that President Obama used Britain’s GCHQ intelligence agency to eavesdrop on Donald Trump was first broadcast on RT, the Kremlin’s international propaganda outlet?

This allegation has gone in a few days from being a crackpot theory on social media to an international dispute. Britain was furious when White House spokesman Sean Spicer cited the GHCQ story as part of his defense of Trump’s claim that he was “wire tapped” by President Obama. The GHCQ, Britain’s version of the National Security Agency, issued a rare denial.

That this GHCQ allegation was first given life by RT shows the influence of the Kremlin-backed network, which has found a sympathetic ear in the White House. According to the U.S. intelligence community that Trump so openly distrusts, RT has the goal of undermining its viewers’ trust in US democratic procedures.

On March 5, the day after Trump tweeted that “Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower,” RT broadcast an interview with Larry C. Johnson, once an analyst with the CIA.

In the clip, linked above, Johnson said “very good friends” had told him that information  gathered by GHCQ on Donald Trump was illegally disseminated within the US government in an effort to destroy his candidacy.  Obama, Johnson said, “gave the green light” to distribute the information from GHCQ in an improper way.

On his blog, Johnson goes into more detail about his sourcing. (Update: Johnson’s blog was taken off line shortly after this piece was published).

No one involved with the Trump campaign reached out to me and asked me to get involved with this. I spoke three months ago with a source that, if the source’s name was revealed, would be known and recognized as a reliable source of information. Based on that contact I reached out to friends in the intel community and asked them about the possibility that a back channel was used to get the Brits to collect on Trump associates. My sources said, “absolutely.” I later confirmed this via a cut out with a person who is a Senior Intelligence Service executive in the CIA.

Assuming that’s true, why would Johnson, a former CIA analyst, would go on a Russian propaganda network that presents anti-American views?  CNN’s Brian Stelter put that question to Johnson on his show, Reliable Sources.

STELTER: Why is it appropriate for any American to appear on a Kremlin propaganda network?

JOHNSON: Well, it’s not a Kremlin propaganda network. … What I found the difference with Russia Today is they don’t do pre-interviews. I’ve done pre-interviews with your people. I’ve done pre-interviews in the past when I appeared on other networks.

Just two days ago, I did a pre-interview with BBC. They were going to have me on air. But once they heard what I had to say, they came back and said, oh, no, we don’t need to use you now. So, I’m —

Johnson’s point is that RT doesn’t censor its guests. Stelter’s point, which he presses later in the interview, is that anyone can go on RT and say whatever they want without bothering about details like sourcing and verification.

Johnson theories about GHCQ are likely to prove false: officials in Britain and Washington have called it ridiculous.  For RT’s purposes it doesn’t matter whether Johnson is telling the truth, only that his information serves its broader goals.

RT’s GHCQ story is the textbook definition of disinformation:

false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth.

So back on March 5, while former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was knocking down Trump’s claims on Meet the Press, RT was quickly building a counter-narrative that besmirched the United States with Johnson’s help.

An outfit like Meet the Press needs a big audience to deliver ad dollars; since it strives to be objective, it has to present credible sources. That means it has guests like Clapper who as insiders know whether Obama really “wire tapped” Trump or not.  If Meet the Press had people like Larry Johnson or RT’s Illuminati correspondent sitting around talking about what their friends supposedly told them, the audience would find something better to do and the ad dollars would dry up pretty quickly.

RT, on the other hand, is funded by the Russian government. It doesn’t need a big audience. So it can quickly disseminate poorly sourced, unverified information that drives home the message that Russia is not the bad guy and America isn’t so great, anyway.

Johnson sought to minimize his role in the GHCQ affair by telling Stelter that nobody watched RT.

STELTER: You’re saying Russia today is not that influential?

JOHNSON: I’m telling you that’s the truth. I mean, who watches it?  The fact that I spoke about it two weeks ago and it didn’t even surface — it wasn’t even a blip anywhere in the U.S. news media. And so, I guarantee, if people like yourself who were very informed, very up to speed on things, don’t pick up on something like that, you expect a coal miner in Pennsylvania, an auto worker in Michigan, that they’re going to be on top of Russia Today?

But information warfare, as Johnson surely knows, doesn’t need a big audience to work.

It has just to plant a false idea that contradicts the conventional narrative. Johnson made a big fuss about how it took so long for his story to spread, but that’s how rumors work. And that’s what makes them so effective. They are spread person-to-person by social media and word-of-mouth  until they reach a critical mass. If you wanted to drive a wedge between allies, there’s no way to do it better. It’s cheap, bloodless, and stunningly effective.

Johnson’s unsupported allegation was rebroadcast on right-wing Internet on blogs and websites until March 14 when it jumped into mainstream media. Fox contributor Andrew Napolitano repeated the allegation on the talk show “Outnumbered” and then repeated it again on Fox News. Johnson told The New York Times he was one of Napolitano’s sources.

On Friday, Trump refused to back down from the allegation, telling reporters, “All we did was quote a very talented legal mind.”

Did the president realize he was also quoting Johnson via Russian media?

Johnson, who is almost always referred to as a former CIA analyst, worked for the spy agency in the 1980s. After four years in the State Department’s Office of Counterterrorism, Johnson left government service in 1993.

Since then, he gotten embroiled in controversy such as his claim that Republican operatives possessed a tape of Michelle Obama railing against “whitey.” (Johnson claims he was manipulated by Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal.) Or that Bush White House advisor Karl Rove had been indicted.

Johnson has been a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), a group of intelligence professionals formed in 2003 to protest the use of faulty intelligence that was used as a grounds for the invasion of Iraq.

VIPS and Johnson have been critical of the US intelligence community’s findings that Russia hacked the U.S. election. On Dec. 15, Johnson co-signed a VIPS letter that stated the hacking allegations “have no basis in fact” and suggested an “inside leak,” not hacking, was behind the release of DNC emails. Not surprisingly, RT publicized the letter.

It’s worth noting here that Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst and founding member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity attended the now infamous 2015 RT 10th anniversary dinner in Moscow, where he sat at the same head table with President Vladimir Putin and former Gen. Michael Flynn. (link) It seems McGovern makes an annual pilgrimage to Moscow where we find him pontificating in RT’s studios.

Napolitano for his part has also peddled Kremlin disinformation before. On May 6, 2016, he reported that “there’s a debate going on in the Kremlin between the Foreign Ministry and the Intelligence Services about whether or not they should release the twenty thousand of Mrs. Clinton’s emails that they have hacked into and received and stored.” (archived link)

Now, mind you, this was days before hacked emails from the Clinton campaign began appearing on the Internet.

According to Malcolm Nance’s informative book, The Plot to Hack America, Napolitano’s source this go-around appeared to be a conspiracy website called Whatdoesitmean.com.

It appears that the source of the story emanated from a mythical figure, a journalist named Sorcha Faal. Sorcha Faal is widely believed to be a pseudonym for David Booth. Booth hosts a wild-eyed conspiracy theory website called Whatdoesitmean.com. Usually websites like this and the more popular and crazier Infowars.com are easily dismissed as tinfoil hat crowds who see government conspiracy everywhere. Yet in this case “Sorcha Faal” appears to be so well wired into the Kremlin that “her” work at this website was often copied by mainstream Russian information propaganda like Russia Insider’s Svobodnaya Pressa (“ Free Press”). This site pushes wild conspiracy theories such as the proposition that the US trains and directs ISIS, and writes op-eds about the dangers of European multiculturalism. It is a core component of the Russian propaganda system, and such news organs as Ren TV (a large, private, pro-Putin Russian television channel) and Sputnik News (a multinational propaganda organ of the Russian government)

We might as well learn the Russian word for this, folks.

Dezinformatsiya.