Calls to ban RT in UK show what politicians really think of free speech

 

Ofcom’s response to potentially shutting down RT in UK cleverly appeases both sides in freedom of speech debate BY Damian Wilson — a UK journalist, ex-Fleet Street editor, financial industry consultant and political communications special advisor in the UK and EU.  

When talk turns to pulling the plug on international broadcasters operating in any realm, then things have certainly turned serious. But if the UK broadcast regulator Ofcom is seriously considering shutting down RT, it should be making that decision on its own, not with politicians wading in, arms flailing, making all sorts of demands.

We all marvel about having all those TV channels to choose from, hundreds of them beaming in from around the globe to our living rooms. Yet, paradoxically, we channel surf every night and still complain about finding nothing to watch.

But – and this is the important thing – at least we have that baffling choice, and it is not only a technological miracle but a tribute to the wonders of the information age we live in. No longer restricted to terrestrial, cable, or satellite, we can watch pretty much anything straight from the internet.

 

Yes, it’s confusing. Yes, there is a load of dross. And yes, there are views expressed that we might not agree with. But at least we have the option to choose, and that is the beauty, not just of the democracy we live in, but of the high regard in which we hold the right to freedom of speech.

You can say anything you like to anyone you choose, even if it upsets them. Just don’t expect everyone to agree with you. And that’s whether it’s over the dinner table or over the airwaves.

Former Scotland First Minister Alex Salmond, who hosts a show on RT, may not be everyone’s cup of tea. But so what? That doesn’t mean he should be silenced, as current First Minister Nicola Sturgeon suggested. Nor does it make him, or his sometime media colleague George Galloway, any sort of demon for choosing to contest the public narrative. They might be completely off the mark, or bang on target, but at least they’re asking those awkward questions. If either gentleman was lying or pushing fake news, that might be different. But they’re not.

They’re among the dissenting voices, the media figures with a sizable audience who deserve better than being slated as traitors or urged to quit their roles as disruptors and toe the line, simply because a government minister says so.

This is not an apologia for either Salmond or Galloway, who are more than capable of fighting their own corner without my help. But it is a defence of free speech. If you’re in two minds about this issue, then pause a second and imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. If the Russians decided to switch off the BBC in their country or block journalists from Sky or ITN working their beat, Brits would be outraged, and rightly so.

 

The current cultural climate demands that TV programmes are bookended by warnings of potentially upsetting content and guidance to a website for “anyone affected by these issues,” and while most of us just switch off when this irritating ‘nanny-knows-best’ nonsense appears, we do not need politicians adding to this white noise because they think it makes them look tough.

Anyone who can navigate their way through the TV guide labyrinth should be left alone to celebrate that none-too-small achievement and watch their selection in peace, without being guilt-tripped.

Refreshingly, Ofcom was quick to respond to political demands that it review RT’s position on the UK media landscape in language particular to bureaucracy that both agrees with a request while at the same time leaving enough wiggle room not to meet the minister’s request. Think, “Yes, Prime Minister.”

Addressed to Nadine Dorries, the Secretary of State of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, its reply read in part, “Ofcom takes very seriously our role as the independent communications regulator, charged with upholding freedom of speech while ensuring that TV and radio audiences are protected from harm.”

And while Ofcom can sometimes be criticised, it was this implied ‘take your tanks off our lawn’ response, along with the assurance that the situation in Ukraine was being monitored, that was just enough to fulfil expectations both for those who expect pushback and for those who expect subservience. Ofcom also said, “We are expediting complaints in this area as a matter of urgency and we will not hesitate to take swift action where necessary.” It’s a tricky tightrope. 

Our regulators are not perfect, not by a long shot, but at least they try to be fair. And when the clamour is growing around the need to restrict the output of foreign media outlets in a febrile atmosphere, it must be difficult to hold your nerve.

For now, Ofcom has done enough to appease both sides to this latest debate of freedom of speech, but, if the stakes rise further, questions will be asked and we can’t be sure at this point exactly where the cards might fall then.

 

READ MORE:

https://www.rt.com/news/550383-ban-ofcom-uk-free-speech/

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

Earlier this week, Russian President Vladimir Putin recognized the independence of self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk republics after a new spike in violence by Kiev forces.

 

Putin has directed Russian forces to conduct a special operation in the Donbass region, according to February 24 remarks from the Russian president. Putin declared that he expects consolidated Parliamentary support for the operation in the Donbass region. 

 

Putin remarked that the NATO-allied war machine supporting 'Neo-Nazis' in Ukraine is moving and closely approaching Russia's borders. 

 

"Leading NATO countries pursue their own goal by fully supporting Ukraine's extreme Nazis and Neo-Nazis, who, in turn, will never forgive people of Crimea and Sevastopol for their free choice to reunify with Russia," said the Russian president. "They will, of course, go to Crimea, like to Donbas, the way they do it, to kill, like executioners from the bands of Ukrainian Nazi supporters of Hitler were killing innocent people during the World War II." 

 

Putin emphasized that Russia, for the past 30 years, has been attempting to negotiate NATO non-expansion to the east, despite being faced with deceit and blackmail.

 

 

 

 

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/20220224/putin-authorizes-special-operation-in-donbass-1093318890.html

 

 

read from top.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW

For the Forty Thousandth Time: What Putin, Really, Really, Really Wants!

 

 

BY Phil Butler

 

After having read forty thousand headlines revolving around what Russian President Vladimir Putin “wants” for the past decade, I wonder if anybody but Putin knows? Based on what I have learned about the Russian leader, I can tell you this. He absolutely wants what almost all Russians want, for the west to just quit the crazy speculation.

Western policymakers rely on experts to help determine the course of international relations. Or, at least we assume Washington politicians are consulting somebody. Since the think tanks seem to reflect (or construct) what’s going on, it seems natural to assume there is some uniformity of purpose. And where Russia’s president is concerned, it’s uniformly apparent that somebody(s) wants the public to believe Vladimir Putin wants something bad for other peoples and nations. Just to check my memory, I used a Google refined search to see how many times the public has been told what Vladimir is really after.

I began with a timeframe of 2011 until the end of 2015. Up first in the results I found Brookings experts saying Putin wanted to “pull Europeans away from the United States,” and to divide and to create a new “Yalta” agreement of borderlines between the U.S. and Russia influence. Then there was “BEYOND CRIMEA: What Vladimir Putin Really Wants”, a semi-scholarly paper by Jeffrey Gedmin telling future foreign service trainees how the Russian leader was set on conquest. Of course, Gedmen is the former president of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, so I guess we know how his bills get paid.

A year before these prophetic strokes of predictive genius, the Atlantic ran a piece entitled, you guessed it, “What Putin Wants” a la 2014. In this one, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, David Frum comes to the conclusion that “So long as Putin retains power, Russia can never evolve into a normal state.” And with this the essence of all “Putin wants and needs” inquiry is revealed. It’s all about definitions. Russia is not normal, according to the thinkers Washington is relying on. Or, Washington employs a lot of “thinking” in order to prove Russia is not normal!

I could go on, indefinitely since there are limitless pages of search results telling us what Russia’s leader is allegedly after. The Washington Post, the Daily Beast, Politico, the New Yorker, BBC, NBC, Slate, NPR, RAND, and etc, etc, etc. If it’s bad for us… But just for fun I created a similar search for 2016 to 2019, and guess what? The same media outlets recreated the headlines on Putin’s desires. The Atlantic led off with “What Putin Wants” followed (in the search) by the New York Times asking “What Does Putin Really Want?”, and the rest followed suit in a weird redux somebody decided appealed to American readers. The funny thing is, all the prophecies say the same thing, which should make intelligent people wonder “why all the journalistic/analytical mind reading?”

Fortunately, there are still voices of moderation, experts who seem to at least understand the Russia position on things. Take this “What Putin Wants” analysis for Foreign Policy by Dmitri Trenin, who’s the Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, the other day. Trenin, who’s a former colonel of Russian military intelligence, and who served for 21 years in the Soviet Army and Russian ground forces, surely knows the positioning here, even if his tilt is naturally with the Carnegie funders. The essence of his report is correct, for once, in assessing that what Putin is after is stopping NATO’s advance. The rest of the report is of no consequence, but Putin seeking to protect Russia’s frontiers is the point.

Vladimir Putin and the Russian people want to live in peace, and to prosper from their legacy resources, ingenuity, and hard work. That’s it. The Russians do not want to have their country chopped up into manageable little territories as was the case with Yugoslavia. Russians have a national identity they would prefer remained intact. And the Russian president, put in power by rich oligarchs or the deeply prideful Russian gatekeepers, or both, is doing the Russian nation’s bidding. End of story. NATO moving onto the doorstep of Moscow reminds every Russian of the lead up to the Nazis’ Operation Barbarossa, or to WWI, or even Napoleon’s ill-fated escapades. After all, what is the ultimate purpose of expanding NATO? What’s the mission for the average American in Utah who cannot find Europe on a labeled globe? Who and what is served?

Maybe we should be asking the pertinent question “What Does America Want?”

 

 

Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

 

Read more: 

https://journal-neo.org/2022/02/23/for-the-forty-thousandth-time-what-putin-really-really-really-wants/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

REE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!