Outdoing Dr. Goebbels: The propaganda war against RT
Propaganda. At its best – a wonderful German pop group of the 1980s who had their biggest hit with a track named ‘Duel’. At its worst – the comments of the new BBG chief Andrew Lack, which put RT in the same category of ‘challenges’ as ISIS.
READ MORE: Head of US state media put RT on same challenge list as ISIS, Boko Haram
“We are extremely outraged that the new head of the BBG [US
Broadcasting Board of Governors] mentions RT in the same breath
as world’s number one terrorist army. We see this as an
international scandal and demand an explanation,” says
Margarita Simonyan, RT’s editor-in-chief. Anyone who supports
genuine pluralism in the international media should be demanding
an explanation too.
It would be easy to say that Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the infamous
Nazi Minister of Propaganda would be proud of Lack’s comments.
But in fact the propaganda war against RT – of which Lack’s
comments are only the latest example, actually – ‘out-Goebbels’
Dr Goebbels’.
The reason for these attacks is fear. What is clear is that the
success of RT has caused real panic in the ranks of the west’s
neo-con/‘liberal interventionist’ elite.
RT urges us to question more – and questioning more is the very
last thing that the elites in the west want us to do. They want
us to accept hook, line and sinker THEIR narrative of world
events – a narrative which told us that Iraq possessed WMDs which
could be deployed within 45 minutes and which posed a threat to
the entire world. A narrative which told us that Muammar Gaddafi
was ‘massacring his own people’ and so, for the benefit of the
Libyan people, who our leaders cared so much about – we had to
have a ‘humanitarian intervention’.
A narrative on Ukraine which casts Russia and its ‘evil’
President as the aggressors and which portrayed a violent,
anti-democratic putsch financed by the west and spearheaded by
some very nasty far-right extremists as a victory for
‘democracy’.
Again, we’re expected to accept these narratives and not to
question them.
For years, the serial-war lobby, which has been at the forefront
of the attacks on RT, had it easy. Mainstream news media in the
US and other western countries faithfully parroted the official
NATO line while neo-con / ‘liberal interventionist’ pundits
provided the vast majority of the commentary.
But then along came RT – and millions of people started to watch
it.
Voices that we didn’t hear very often – if at all – on the other
channels, now had a platform. Voices that actually reflected
majority public opinion on foreign policy issues.
So the attacks on the station began. The same ‘free speech’ crowd
who had campaigned against Iran’s Press TV- now had a new target
for their poison pens.
These attacks intensified after Russian diplomacy – and a
vote in the British Parliament – helped to
avert planned air-strikes on Damascus in the summer of 2013. As I
noted here, the war lobby were furious that for
once, they hadn’t got their way. Something I observed from quite
early on was the very strong overlap between obsessive RT-haters
and people who supported the Iraq war and who wanted western
military intervention against Assad’s forces in Syria. (Whenever
you read an attack on RT I suggest you put the authors’ name into
a search engine with the words ‘Iraq war’ and ‘Syria’. It's
usually quite revealing).
Neo-con propagandists writing for neocon propaganda sheets
accused RT of peddling ‘propaganda’ showing that the age of
satire was not dead.
McCarthyite gatekeepers obsessively monitored RT programmes,
using a variety of smears to attack guests and pundits who held
the ‘wrong’ views, i.e. views that the McCarthyite gatekeepers
didn’t agree with. Those who committed the ‘crime’ of re-tweeting
a RT interview or article, or citing RT with approval, were
admonished.
Journalists were urged not to appear on the station- and were
attacked when they did so. All by people who claimed to be in
favour of ‘free speech’ and ‘media pluralism’!
Even the Secretary of State has joined in with the RT-bashing.
In April last year, John Kerry called RT a ‘propaganda bullhorn’.
That‘s the same man who said – with a straight face – “you just don’t
invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your
interests.” But of course, that wasn‘t ‘propaganda’ was it?
The latest, desperate elite attack – equating RT with ISIS is
deeply ironic considering the way RT has covered the ongoing
conflicts in the Middle East. RT was reporting on the significant
jihadist presence in the Syrian ’uprising’ at a time when the
neo-cons wanted us to believe that the ‘rebels’ opposing
President Assad were all cuddly, peace-loving democrats. RT
pundits – myself included – also challenged the ’dominant’ narrative
that Assad had little public support in Syria.
Neo-con and ‘liberal interventionists’ repeatedly told us that
Assad would soon be toppled – you had to go to RT to find the
truth – which was that the Syrian government – whatever our own
opinions of it – did have substantial support – and that support
for it was growing due to people being turned off by the
brutality of the ‘rebels’.
The fact that radical jihadists were a leading part of the
‘popular democratic uprising’, ‘against Assad and his government’
did not fit the official good guys vs. bad guys narrative so it
was left out. Only when IS started to threaten the oil fields of
Kurdistan did the elite western narrative change. Then it DID
become acceptable to talk about jihadists in Syria – and to
publicise their massacres. Where just a few months earlier –
almost all the atrocities in Syria were blamed on Assad and
government forces – it was now fine to report on the violence of
those opposed to Assad.
But RT once again, was telling us the truth long before we were
supposed to know it. The attacks on RT are evidence that the
channel is doing an excellent job. If only it had been around in
2002/3 to challenge the dominant narrative back then.
MORE:
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.