Report on Russian hacking objects to RT criticisms of fracking

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has a substantial section in its report on 2016 U.S. election hacking by Russia that focuses upon the Russian govenrment-funded channel RT as overtly anti-American.

The full report can be accessed here. There is no doubt that a great deal of RT coverage is anti-American. The editor in chief of RT Margarita Simonyan admitted: "the word 'propaganda' has a very negative connotation, but indeed, there is not a single international foreign TV channel that is doing something other than promotion of the values of the country that it is broadcasting from." She added that "when Russia is at war, we are, of course, on Russia's side"'. This somehow is itself a sin and to be stopped as apparently international tv should promote a US point of view and not criticize the U.S.

Among the negative aspects of RT is that they have hosted debates that include third party candidates, unlike mainstream media debates in the U.S. which are only between the two major party candidates. In 2012 the RT hosted a TV debate including Libertarian Party Candidate Gary Johnson and Jill Stein Green Party Candidate. In 2016 they had primary debates for the same two parties that focused on foreign policy as well as electoral reform. The report sees presenting a more inclusive debate as somehow anti-American! The anti-hacking document claims:In an effort to highlight the alleged "lack of democracy" in the United States, RT broadcast, hosted, and advertised thirdparty candidate debates and ran reporting supportive of the political agenda of these candidates. The RT hosts asserted that the U.S. two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a "sham."While one can disagree with what RT says, many Americans will be attracted by the fact that RT provides an alternative news source that allows them to learn the positions of those outside the two major parties. There is a market for such information and RT provides it. This bothers the intelligence community which would like to be able to better control the flow of information.

The report on hacking also notes that RT has produced a documentary against fracking. The documentary is appended. However, anti-fracking news is endemic in the west. Numerous documentaries and articles are published that are critical of the practice. Do the authors of the report think that these are useful idiots who unknowingly are pushing the agenda of the Russians? A recent article in the Washington Post suggests as much. The article was so misleading that it was itself criticized as fake news. However the Post was not satisfied and just recently carried a false news account of an alleged hack of a US utility by Russia. Of course mainstream award-winning media have carried stories of Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The report suggests the reason behind the RT reports on fracking: RT runs anti-fracking programming, highlighting environmental issues and the impacts on public health. This is likely reflective of the Russian Government's concern about the impact of fracking and U.S. natural gas production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to Gazprom's profitability.This could well be correct but many environmentalists are going to be attracted by this coverage whereas mainstream U.S. media may often avoid such coverage as it could hurt some of those they depend upon for advertising. The report also notes that RT covers such negative aspects of U.S. life as police brutality. Of course U.S. mainstream media often does the same with respect to the Russian system. Russian criticism of mass surveillance the report takes as a sign that the RT is trying to 'undermine viewers' trust in the U.S. democratic procedures. There is not the slightest hint that such coverage might justifiably cause viewers to have doubts about the system. Instead of suggesting that reform might be needed, the report suggests that the U.S. needs to spend more money countering coverage that actually contains a great deal of truth even while it is, as claimed, part of a propaganda strategy aimed at the United States.

In the Now another new Russia-funded TV channel

There is a new offshoot of the popular Russia-funded RT news channel called In The Now. It claims that it wants to attract social media users who want their news "served with a side of smile".

 

Naturally given the funding there is also a propaganda element along with entertainment, Internet goings on and some serious news. In The Now has its own Facebook page. The top banner image is filled with a collage of world leaders, two cute foxes and celebrities. In an article on In The Now, BuzzFeed News notes that it is not immediately made clear that In The Now is a venture of RT, the Russian funded news channel. In The Now actually used to be a regular show as part of the RT channel offerings. It started as a separate project this spring. The In The Now website is at inthenow.media.. A recent article suggests that the Dalai Lama could be a CIA agent. Many articles express skepticism about Western foreign policy and is supportive of Russian positions.

A recent hit was the appended video titled "Independent Canadian journo totally crushes MSM reporter on what's actually going on in Syria". Indeed, Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett does make some significant points, but she also makes some claims that are quite questionable. She uses the Syrian elections as evidence that Assad has the support of Syrians; but the voting took place only in areas controlled by Assad. If they had been held throughout Syria the result would have been quite different. She also makes claims about some reports using the same child several times. This claim is criticized in some detail in an article by BBC Channel 4.

However, other sources have also been critical of news reporting from the Aleppo offensive as for example Patrick Cockburn writing in The Independent. In my opinion actions on both sides have probably been war crimes; but most western mainstream media descriptions and accompanying images have been chosen so as to demonize Assad while only criticizing rebel actions to a much less degree.

A second hit for In The Now claims that a series of "farewell" videos that were posted by civilians in the besieged portion of Aleppo "looks like a coordinated PR campaign". RT picked up on the video, noting in an article that, "In The Now found there's little to indicate that the people appearing in the mobile videos were actual civilians experiencing the hyped "Russian and Syrian shelling". BuzzFeed points out that the Russian embassy in Canada then tweeted the RT story. Does BuzzFeed think that U.S. and Canadian diplomats do not often tweet material that supports their points of view? There is a constant propaganda warfare going on that has heated up considerably over the last while.

BuzzFeed News asked RT some questions about the relationship of RT to In The Now. An RT spokesperson said that In The Now was originally part of RT but was spun off when its creator Anissa Naouai wanted to "explore a less formal, digital format".

The press conference shown in the video took place on Dec. 9 at the UN building in New York. Krostoffer Ronneberg the U.S. correspondent for the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten was the journalist who asked the questions. Ronneberg said that he had gone to the conference only to hear what Syrian ambassador to the UN, Bashar Jaafari would say about the situation. However, Jafaari did not show up but instead four activists appeared whom he claimed gave a message that you would expect to hear from the Syria or Russian government. Ronneberg said that the exchange was being used as part of an information campaign in a military conflict. Wouldn't the ambassador have engaged in a similar campaign?

Bartlett explained to BuzzFeed that Jafaari was supposed to introduce here but that he had another meeting and could not be present. She said the press conference was organized at her request and with the help of the U.S. Hands Off Syria coalition.

Some reports claim foreign troops are already in Libya to fight the Islamic State

Several sources report UK commandos have been deployed to Libya to stop the advance of the Islamic State threatening key oil fields and the Es Sidra oil export terminal.

 British Special Forces have been deployed in Libya to wrest back control of more than a dozen oil fields seized by Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) militants, it has emerged. Approximately 6,000 European and US soldiers, including 1,000 British troops, will be involved in a number of offensives set up to halt the advance of the jihadist terror group.

The report claims Italian forces will lead the operation, supported mainly by British and French .

Special Forces. The RT report cites the Daily Mirror as a source. The Daily Mirror account is rather different, maintaining that 1,000 troops are not already there but Special Air Service (SAS) forces are preparing for their arrival:Crack SAS troops are in Libya preparing for the arrival of around 1,000 British infantrymen to be sent against ISIS there in early 2016. Special Forces including military close observation experts from the Special Reconnaissance Regiment are spearheading a major coalition offensive against the terror network.

Another source gives a similar account and gives the same numbers as RT for the total troops to be deployed. All the reports claim that the Islamic State or Daesh has a number of oil fields that will provide revenue for the terrorist group.

Only a week ago, a Libyan internationally-recognized government spokesperson made it clear that foreign intervention was not needed in Libya because of the security situation. The media seems to be joining in an attempt to manufacture consent for a foreign intervention in Libya,

One of the UK accounts rivals Fox news:The crazed jihadis have reportedly overrun Libyan rebels in the towns of Bin Jawad and As Sidr as part of an offensive that designed to give the terrorist group access to huge new revenue streams from oil.

Contrast that alarmist report with the more sober evaluation of Daily Star: SIS has taken advantage the security vacuum to grab territory and are threatening to advance from Sirte, which it controls. So far the group has failed to take control of any Libyan oil installations but has done so in Syria.

This is not to deny that the IS advance is a threat. IS has advanced east of Sirte. Fighters fought with security forces near the Es Sidra oil export terminal, killed two guards, and set an oil storage tank on fire Two suicide bombers attacked the port area but then the fighters retreated.

None of the reports bother to mention whether the UK or the other countries bothered to get permission from either of the two rival governments in Libya to send troops. Foreign intervention at this juncture can only complicate the delicate political situation and confirm the suspicions of many that the new Government of National Accord is a foreign creation that will be used to legitimize another intervention by international powers in Libya. Interesting that it is all the old colonial powers such as Italy, France, and the UK who are spearheading the intervention. US intervention is also evident with their commandos recently being turfed out of eastern Libya.