Due Impartiality – part one: Ofcom bans RT

[This is a long document I started to put together back in July. I’ve split it into three parts for readability. There may be further updates with ongoing correspondence with Ofcom or other relevant parties. Enjoy!]

On March 18^th 2022, under pressure from both major parties in the UK government, members of the mainstream press and a spike in complaints over coverage of the war in Ukraine, the broadcasting regulator Ofcom decided to take away the license of Russia Today (RT) and stop them from broadcasting in the UK. This followed a ban across EU countries, the blocking of their Youtube channel, the overnight disbanding of the entire RT America platform, putting over 100 employees out of work, (including veteran and cutting edge American journalists) and the censorship of the RT website, which in many countries can now only be accessed by using a VPN or other backdoor approaches (the TV channel can still be viewed live here)

In its announcement Ofcom said that it didn’t consider RT to be ‘fit and proper to hold a UK broadcast licence’, with their decision coming ‘amid 29 ongoing investigations […] into the due impartiality of RT’s news and current-affairs coverage of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.’ As broadcasting regulator they insist on a ‘duty to be satisfied’, and that despite a clean record for nearly four years:

‘We consider that ANO TV Novosti’s [the license-holder for RT] position as a state broadcaster, financed by a state which has recently invaded a sovereign state and effectively criminalised independent journalism, and in a context where a journalist can be imprisoned for up to 15 years for failure to adopt the state’s view of the news, means that we cannot be confident that it will be able to abide by the due impartiality rules of the Code.’ – point 49, p.10 of the full document

This in spite of ANO TV Novosti’s explanation that:

‘ANO TV-Novosti receives annual subsidies from the Russian Federation’s state budget every year, under a procedure established by federal law which prohibits any state interference in its editorial policy or any role of its ‘founder’ in the editorial process. These subsidies partly cover the ANO’s expense of running the RT television channel, the rest being covered by advertising and other similar activities as is normal for a media organisation. Nothing in the arrangements for these subsidies gives the state any right of control over the editorial decisions or content of the RT channel; indeed to permit such control would be illegal.” ‘ – ibid. p.6

Remembering that Ofcom had only said that their 29 investigations into due impartiality were ‘ongoing’ and that they had ‘not concluded on any of these investigations’ (ibid. p.10), on June 20^th I sent in a Freedom of Information request to the Ofcom website enquiring about the results of these investigations and asking if they could provide:

‘any relevant documentation about the substance of these complaints and the outcome of the subsequent investigations, ie: whether RT was found guilty of spreading documented falsehoods about the war in Ukraine’

Whether this spurred them into action or they were intending to publish their findings anyway, I don’t know, but on July 18^th I received a reply from Ofcom informing me that they had published the outcome of their investigations, which found that all 29 violated Section Five of their Broadcasting Code which requires that:

‘broadcasters must maintain due impartiality in news. When dealing with matters of major political controversy and major matters relating to current public policy such as wars or areas of conflict (in these cases, specifically the ongoing conflict in the Donbas region), broadcasters must also comply with the special impartiality requirements in the Code. These rules require broadcasters to take additional steps to preserve due impartiality – namely by including and giving due weight to an appropriately wide range of significant views’

Looking at the full text document outlining their decisions – an intimidating 525 pages long (much of it consisting of identical passages repeated multiple times) – the first thing I noticed was that the alleged breaches of impartiality related to news bulletins on February 27^th, March 1^st and March 2^nd and one documentary, ‘Donbass Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow’. To me this looked like 4 investigations, not 29, but they argued that:

‘despite containing some similar content, each programme was a standalone news bulletin reporting events which evolved throughout the day. Therefore we have considered each programme individually’ – pp.2-3

Fair enough if that was their approach, but it also serves to inflate the number of alleged violations to support their original contention that ‘We consider the volume and potentially serious nature of issues raised within such a short period to be deeply concerning’ – a volume of 29 sounding much more impressive than a volume of 4.

The next thing I noticed, after beginning to read through the transcripts of the programmes and Ofcom’s objections, is that none of it took issue with points of fact or the truthfulness of any given statement. The complaint that came again and again was that RT had made ‘contentious claims’ which were ‘highly critical of the Ukrainian authorities, including its military’, and that, while broadcasting critical comments was ‘not, in itself, a breach of due impartiality rules’, because:

‘It is essential that news programmes are able to report on controversial issues and take a position on those issues, even if that position is highly critical, particularly during times of conflict. However, a broadcaster must maintain an adequate and appropriate level of impartiality in its presentation of matters (and major matters) of political controversy. It may be necessary, in order to comply with the due impartiality requirements, that alternative viewpoints are broadcast.’ – first instance, p.16

So it turns into a much more slippery question of whether the ‘alternative viewpoints’ which RT provided (and their responses, included in the document, show many examples of this attempt at balance) are considered to be enough in order to maintain an undefined level of impartiality, as judged by Ofcom. For example, in dealing with the first news bulletin on February 27^th:

‘In Ofcom’s view this programme lacked the inclusion of any alternative viewpoints on the matter of political controversy and current public policy that was discussed in relation to the specific and ongoing conflict in the Donbas region. For example, the perspective of the Ukrainian state and/or military which: contested the highly critical claims about Ukrainian forces in the region (for example, accusations that “the Ukrainian military is conducting relentless shelling of residential areas …”); and/or challenged the viewpoints of the Russian armed forces, the Donetsk People’s Militia (“DPM”) or the Luhansk People’s Militia (“LPM”) (for example, the claim that a tactic said to be used by Ukrainian armed forces was “used by international terrorists in Syria”) was not included in any form in this programme.’

RT had noted descriptions by Ukrainian and Western leaders of the Donbas conflict as ‘an act of aggression’ and ‘war’ conducted by an ‘invading army’ but this wasn’t considered sufficient because these more general criticisms of Russia:

‘did not represent, in any form, the significant view of the Ukrainian state and/or military in relation to the highly critical allegations that were made about their conduct within the Donbas region, specifically that Ukrainian forces were deliberately attacking residential areas, using “terrorist” tactics, and had been doing so for the last eight years.’ (p.17)

RT had responded that, as a Russian TV channel they were ‘prepared that our output would be viewed with extra scrutiny’ but that they had strived to ‘provide the picture that’s both true to facts and sufficiently balanced’. For its part Ofcom recognised:

‘that RT viewers would have expected to see news on the channel relating to the conflict in Ukraine from a predominantly Russian perspective and that, as stated above, determining facts during times of significant conflict can be more difficult.’

However:

‘Ofcom’s investigation into this programme concerned due impartiality and not due accuracy […] it was legitimate for RT to broadcast news on the conflict in Ukraine from a Russian perspective and also to report on the allegations that were being made by Russian officials and spokespersons about Ukrainian forces in the Donbas. However, it was still incumbent on TV Novosti to maintain due impartiality on this matter of major political controversy by including a wide range of significant alternative viewpoints and giving them due weight in this programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes, including, for example, the perspective of the Ukrainian state and/or military on the ongoing conflict in the Donbas.’ (p.18, my emphasis)

I started to understand why Ofcom had dodged my request for the ‘substance’ of complaints made against RT and for the ‘documented falsehoods’ they were supposed to have disseminated: they weren’t interested in truth or facts, it was just about balance. Even if they were lying through their teeth RT (and presumably other broadcasters) were obligated to provide the viewpoints of the opposing side, or the accused parties as a kind of right of reply – seemingly in every instance where a strong criticism was made over a ‘controversial’ issue.

This was darkly humorous to me as a long time critical observer of Western mainstream news sources, because on most ‘controversial’ subjects it is clear that invariably the story is slanted to presenting one side in a favourable light – the story favouring state/corporate power interests – while denigrating any other interpretation. This is especially the case when it comes to foreign policy and the West’s own wars and military assaults oroccupations of other countries. Western forces are depicted as benign, moral actors, greeted as liberators except by those so barbaric and unenlightened to consider resisting. The news landscape fits accordingly with information tightly curated, sanitised, and fed to embedded reporters who faithfully relay the Western perspectives while ignoring or actively attacking contrary views. When did we ever hear from Iraqi officials, Afghan officials, Libyan, Syrian, Palestinian officials, given the space to respond to Western claims of atrocities supposedly committed by their countrymen, and just so happening to provide the pretext for Western military intervention? The only times I remember this happening were in cases where the people were mocked or carefully presented as propagandists to not be taken seriously. Similarly, dissident figures in the West who could provide alternative analyses are typically dismissed as deluded, self-hating or worse, useful idiots or even active 5^th columnists for the official enemy of the day. Thus any criticism or counter-narrative can be safely ignored as part of the enemy’s propaganda effort, while the pro-Western propaganda effort goes ahead unchallenged.

I wondered how long it would take me to find 29 examples of a Western media outlet failing to report with due impartiality according to the standards applied by Ofcom to RT. So I decided to challenge myself to do just that. To make it like vs. like as much as possible I opted to focus on UK state media, the BBC, and narrowed down my search parameters by looking at the BBC News youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BBCNews The first playlist is dedicated entirely to the ‘Ukraine crisis’, with 528 videos at time of writing, going back to February 2015 (326 since the invasion).[1] To make it harder for myself I aimed to find 29 truly separate examples, not counting how many times each broadcast would have been aired across the BBC’s various platforms. Making it somewhat easier, on Ofcom’s terms I didn’t have to prove that anything reported was factually incorrect or deliberately misleading (though I have commented when aware of different interpretations and contradictory evidence), merely to note that a highly critical statement had been made about the Russian military and/or political establishment without providing an adequate response to the specific criticism from a Russian official or an independent analyst taking a different view.

It didn’t take long to start racking up examples. The very first video I looked at, ‘Explosions rock Ukrainian port hours after grain deal’ contained an accusation from a US politician that Russia was trying to ‘weaponize food’ and from a Ukrainian MP calling Vladimir Putin a ‘food terrorist’, with no alternative point of view put forward and the reporter only noting that ‘Moscow has not made any comment’. Moving down the list of videos many critical statements didn’t even bother with that minimal level of balance. The accusations were relentless, one-sided and worded very harshly and unequivocally, not just from Ukrainian sources but somtimes directly from the BBC reporters themselves. The words ‘murder,’ ‘rape,’ ‘theft,’ ‘atrocity,’  ‘war crimes’ were ever-present with Russian troops described several times as ‘terrorists,’ ‘animals,’ ‘not human,’ ‘orcs’ and portrayed variously as drunk, on drugs, raping women, killing or abusing civilians, none of which was rebutted beyond a token mention of ‘Moscow denies this’ – which of course the casual viewer would think was a lie, given all the other crimes thathad apparently been committed by ‘the Russians’. Again, this is a kind of direct, unqualified language that the BBC would never use to describe the many abuses of Western troops, and it was never used to describe the actions of Ukrainian troops, except when presented as yet another dishonest Russian propaganda trope.

Another feature of the coverage was the use of human interest-type stories looking at the lives of individuals dealing with the conflict. On their own these were fairly innocuous, but the fact that they were nearly all from the perspective of Ukrainian citizens and soldiers had a powerful effect of creating what Noam Chomsky calls ‘worthy victims’[2] whereby empathy is directed selectively towards one group, humanising them in contrast to another group – in this case the dastardly Russians, or the Ukrainians in the Donbas region who have been attacked and killed mainly by the Ukrainian military since their attempted secession in 2014. Where BBC reporters do interview Russians they are almost always dissenting figures who oppose the war and the policies of Putin and the Russian government. Somehow they never seem to find an ordinary citizen who speaks in favour of the actions of their government, which would be odd from an impartial broadcaster given that Putin’s approval rating since the launch of the ‘special military operation’ has risen from around 70% to just over 80%.

Interestingly, Ofcom is fully aware of this propaganda technique when it comes to RT’s reporting, as they point out in their decision on the documentary, ‘Donbass Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow’ (view online here, contains graphic images):

‘[T]he programme made no reference to the views of residents in the Donbas, for example, who are not pro-separatist, who do not recognise the self-proclaimed republics in Donetsk and Luhansk, or who in any way support the actions of the Ukrainian Government in the Donbas. By contrast, allegations that were highly critical of the conduct of the Ukrainian authorities were made repeatedly throughout the programme, frequently accompanied by emotive and graphic footage of warfare and its after effects’ (ibid. pp.241-242)

(Although, unlike the BBC, at least RT were reporting a majority opinion in the separatist region, not giving undue prominence to the dissident minority.)

Their specific complaints about the documentary are worth quoting in full as something to bear in mind when considering the BBC’s reporting:

‘• Allegations of Ukrainian “war crimes” and violence against civilians. For example, Ronald Van Amerongen alleged that the Ukrainian army was responsible for committing “brutal murders” in Donbass, stating “they target civilians”; and George Eliason said “You can’t say that…there wasn’t war crimes”. Similarly Vasily Prozorov alleged that Dobrobats (“volunteer nationalist battalions”) “committed war crimes pure and simple: torture, rape, extrajudicial killings, robberies, looting”; and Victor Lanta said “The real aggressor is obviously the army of Kiev. Every day they bomb civilian facilities”.

• References to historical events, such as the Maidan protests in February 2014 and the fire at Odesa in May 2014, where details have subsequently been contested. For example, the narrator described the Maidan protests as a “coup” which led to “fratricidal war in Ukraine” and alleged that “People who asked for a peaceful referendum and the chance to speak their native language were burned alive in Odessa’s Trade Union building”. Yuly Lyubotsky, speaking about the Odessa Trade Union building similarly alleged: “The Ukrainian Government encouraged such actions. The people who tried to escape by jumping out of windows were shot at”.

• Repeated allegations that the Ukrainian authorities, including its military, were fascists or Nazis who were attempting to commit genocide against Russian-speaking people in the Donbas. For example, Anna Soroka, said: “300 to 500 civilians are buried, who were killed by the military-political leadership of Ukraine. There’s only one word for this – genocide”. Clips of residents included statements such as “Only the Germans did this during World War II. Now, the Ukrainians are doing the same thing to their own people”; and “We’ll drive out these evil fascists who want to come to our land”.

• Allegations that the people in the Donbas had rejected the Ukrainian Government. For example, the narrator said: “Donbass keeps living, working and dreaming of a peaceful future – without Ukraine”. In addition, Denis Pushilin said: “The vast majority can no longer imagine themselves as part of Ukraine…Those two to three percent who want to go to Ukraine, they want to return to the old Ukraine, as it was before 2014”; and Alexis Castillo said: “Donbass residents no longer want to be part of Ukraine”.

• Allegations that the Ukrainian Government was acting under the influence of the West. For example, Russell Bentley said that when he saw footage of a US diplomat “handing out the cookies” at Maidan, Kyiv in 2014 he “understood that this was also the work of the criminal United States government”. Janus Putkonen said that the Maidan Uprising “was not a plan of Ukraine. This is a civil war situation, fuelled from abroad, not from Russia…Fuelled from Washington, from Canada, from Finland even…This is a civil war situation, not war between Ukraine and Russia, but war from the West against [the] Russian world”. Roman Omelchenko said: “They need territory: the USA, England, Canada. Why? They need some place to put their bases, so they can deliver an instantaneous, unanswerable strike on Russian territory”. ‘ (pp.239-240)

Once again, they objected that, in spite of presenting the views of western officials critical of Russia and quoting speeches from Volodymyr Zelensky:

‘[T]he programme made no reference to the significant view of the Ukrainian state and/or military in relation to the numerous highly critical and specific allegations that they: had committed war crimes and violence against civilians; were fascists or Nazis who were attempting a genocide of Russian-speaking people in the Donbas; had orchestrated contested events such as the Odesa Trade Union building fire in 2014; and were acting under the influence of the West.’

It wasn’t considered sufficient that the documentary began with the disclaimer that:

‘The opinions of the people who appear in this film are their own and do not necessarily reflect the policies or position of RTD. The Ukrainian authorities have been asked to comment on the issues presented in this film but have yet to respond’ – p.242

And RT’s further explanation:

‘Russian media is viewed by Ukraine as an “adversary” and that it had been “denied access to the ‘Ukrainian official position’ since March 2014”, along with other Russian TV channels […] we believe that there’s no need (as our compliance trainers claimed re Ofcom’s “impartiality” rules) to present equal “pro & contra” airtime to every single point of view expressed in a program (documentary)’ (p.238)

was considered inadequate because:

‘[I]f alternative views cannot be obtained from particular institutions, governments or individuals, broadcasters could refer to public statements by such institutions, governments or individuals or such viewpoints could be expressed, for example, through presenters’ questions to interviewees’ (p.242)

The inevitable conclusion:

 ‘An appropriately wide range of significant viewpoints on the relevant matter of major political controversy and major matter relating to current public policy were not adequately represented or given due weight within this programme.’ (p.243)

Remember this when you read the BBC’s numerous highly critical allegations about the Russian military and the policy of the Russian government and their routine failure to provide a response to the claims from a Russian official. Ofcom, when standing in judgement of RT, doesn’t accept a few token quotes on general matters as adequate balance, or even saying that the opposing side has been given the opportunity to respond but has not yet done so. Every effort has to be made to search out and present alternative views, even when none are forthcoming…

In the end it took me just under a week, spending a few hours most evenings, to find the total 29 examples and copy the most blatant failures of impartiality within the pieces. The selected videos were from a period between July 23^rd going back to March 17^th and I didn’t watch every one so likely there are many more examples that I missed. Some of the names will be misspelled, for which I apologise (I made use of youtube’s auto-transcript feature which is a bit hit-and-miss with unusual words), and I didn’t manage to find out the names of all the newsreaders, but it should be easy enough to find out for anyone who would like to dig deeper. In time I might include full transcripts of the pieces so the selected quotes appear in context. I think I have fairly represented the contents and lack of balance in each one, though you may have to watch yourself to be sure. There is a chance, with these videos being clipped from longer news bulletins, that some attempt at impartiality was made elsewhere in the programme as it went out live. I’m happy to be corrected if this turns out to have been the case, although I would think mention should have been made on the youtube channel if so.

[continued in part 2…]

---

[1] In itself this is an indication of the skewed priorities of the BBC. There is no visible playlist or remotely comparable level of coverage for the Yemen crisis, still ongoing and far worse in terms of lives lost and humanitarian catastrophe than the situation in Ukraine as it stands. I think it’s fairly obvious that this lack of coverage is because the main antagonist in the conflict, Saudi Arabia, has been covertly supported by Western powers, including the UK. So of course UK state media has no interest in damaging the reputation of the government which supports it, helps to fund it and dictates its management structure.

[2] ‘Our hypothesis is that worthy victims will be featured prominently and dramatically, that they will be humanized, and that their victimization will receive the detail and context in story construction that will generate reader interest and sympathetic emotion. In contrast, unworthy victims will merit only slight detail, minimal humanization, and little context that will excite and enrage.’ – https://chomsky.info/consent01/