The Lifeboat News
[ Message Archive | The Lifeboat News ]

    Reply to Ofcom re: RT FOI request 📂 Archived Message

    Posted by Ian M on August 31, 2022, 12:51 am

    Dear Sir or Madam,

    Thank you for responding to my freedom of information request (reference number 01468133). I am partly satisfied by the response to my query about the 'substance' of the 29 investigations into RT's coverage of the Ukraine invasion, as these are discussed in detail in the document 'In Breach' published on July 18th, along with the outcome of the investigations - https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/241723/RT-News-RT-various-dates-and-times.pdf

    I note with some disappointment that the investigations refer to alleged failures of 'due impartiality' and not to due accuracy (p.18), thus my request for the 'documented falsehoods' RT was supposed to have broadcast remains unanswered.

    Nonetheless I would like to request an internal review into the issues raised by these investigations and the related decision to revoke RT's license to broadcast in the UK. I believe they call into question Ofcom's own impartiality, revealing inconsistencies in the standards it demands of different broadcasters, and leading to further questions about the role the organisation plays in the management of the information landscape in the UK.

    The key criticism of RT's programming, made again and again in the above document, was that 'highly critical allegations' were made of the Ukrainian military and state without sufficient provision of 'alternative viewpoints' from Western or Ukrainian sources. This was considered especially necessary during 'matters of political controversy' (see pp.16-18 for the first instance of this criticism) or where interpretations of events were 'contested' (p.239). RT's failure (in Ofcom's judgement) to be sufficiently impartial in this way, combined with being funded by the Russian government, was seen as enough to take away their broadcasting license.

    As an experiment I decided to see if I could find 29 examples of the BBC failing these standards of impartiality in its coverage of the Ukraine conflict. It did not take me long to find numerous instances of heavy criticism of the Russian military and state made by BBC newsreaders, reporters, interviewees and other public figures, with regular accusations of 'murder,' 'rape,' 'theft,' 'atrocity,' 'war crimes’ and descriptions of Russian troops - or often just 'the Russians' - as 'terrorists,' 'animals,' 'not human,' 'orcs' and portrayed variously as drunk, on drugs, raping women, stealing goods, and killing or abusing civilians. Hardly any of this was rebutted beyond an occasional mention that 'Moscow denies this', and I didn't see a single independent analyst putting across an alternative viewpoint or counter-argument. The Ukrainian military, in contrast, was presented as professional, courageous and patriotic and barely criticised at all. All of this coming from the state broadcaster of a country that isn't even directly involved in the conflict!

    Please see the attached document for links to the 29 examples I found via the BBC youtube channel including transcripts of what I took to be the most egregious failures of impartiality according to Ofcom's standards (as applied to RT).

    I'm aware that Ofcom has a 'BBC first' policy whereby complaints have to first go through the BBC's own complaints procedure before they can be considered by Ofcom - https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0030/99417/procedures-bbc.pdf This is in my view a further double standard, especially given the broadcaster's notoriously impenetrable system for dealing with complaints (see here for a relevant example: https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/correspondence-with-bbc-to-date/ ) However I am sure it would be a simple matter to find other UK broadcasters failing to report impartially on the Ukraine crisis and other 'matters of political controversy' where the UK and other Western state or corporate powers have vested interests. The point is that Ofcom is apparently unwilling to do this, and only invokes its powers against media companies presenting counter-narratives supportive of rival states such as Russia and China. As such it arguably functions as a de-facto censor for the UK government to eliminate sources of information it finds politically inconvenient.

    A casualty of this approach and the selective demand of impartiality is that the factual information provided by these sources no longer gets through to the average viewer or reader of mainstream media outlets in the UK. This is damaging to free debate and discussion of ideas at the best of times, but in the current context of heightened political tensions it is extremely dangerous to exclude the perspective of the opposing party, making negotiation and diplomacy much harder and leading to the 'othering' of another population which historically is often the precursor and enabler of open warfare. Between nuclear-armed states this would of course be calamitous.

    I urge Ofcom to consider these points, and I request an internal review of the decision to revoke RT's license to broadcast in the UK.

    Yours sincerely,
    [Ian M]

    *****

    ICYMI: https://members5.boardhost.com/xxxxx/thread/1658863925.html and https://members5.boardhost.com/xxxxx/thread/1660238308.html

    Will post any response I get. They say internal reviews should be completed 'within 20 working days, and up to 40 working days in exceptional cases', though I'm not sure if they will accept my above request as it doesn't relate directly to my original question. We'll see...

    cheers,
    I

    Message Thread:


    « Index