The decision to pull the plug on RT’s propaganda is a grave mistake

The EU banned the channel in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine — and since the channel’s UK feed comes via EU channels, this decision halted broadcasts in the UK as well. UK Government ministers had called for a ban and were pressuring broadcasting regulator Ofcom to do so.

RT America shut down three days ago after being dropped by a cable company. However, RT’s real reach was never television but the internet, and it was quickly shut down there too. YouTube removed his channel while Facebook blocked him in the EU.

Given the shamelessness of the channel’s propaganda and the warmongering barbarism of the Kremlin, which supports it with hundreds of millions of dollars a year, few in the West will mourn the channel’s demise.

Two days after the start of the Russian invasion, Margarita Simonyan – editor-in-chief of RT and a Putin ally – claimed on Russian-language television: “No one is fighting the Ukrainians. We liberate Ukraine. No one is bombing peaceful Ukrainian cities.” Whatever that is, it’s not journalism.

Watching RT’s edition last week offered a picture at odds with that of dozens of independent journalists in Ukraine from a variety of outlets around the world.

Four days after Russia claimed it had taken the town of Melitopol, an RT reporter broadcast from a Russian tank on the outskirts of town – not even leaving the vehicle, claiming it was too dangerous to enter the area. Nevertheless, he reported: “The situation in the city is said to be calm.” Such reports convince only the most credulous.

For 16 years, RT has been spreading disinformation. It has sought to refine and obfuscate its message, throwing money at public figures like former Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond to become presenters and giving the appearance of objective, questioning journalism.

Yet RT’s propaganda rarely strays far from the surface. Reports on RT’s website consistently downplay the Russian invasion and give little credit to attacks on civilians.

When burned, my book on Stormont’s cash-for-ash scandal, was published in 2019, RT’s invitation for an interview was the only one I turned down. Her sudden interest in the inner workings of Stormont may seem odd, but it was in line with the network’s strategy: amplify any scandal or failure of democracy in the West, while softening the totalitarian and corrupt rule of the Putin regime.

It was always noticeable that RT was there when problems arose in Belfast. That in itself was neither unusual nor scary – dramatic events and above all violence attract international media attention.

But RT’s appetite for such stories went well beyond what would be commensurate with the geopolitical significance of the Ardoyne Roundabout riots. Dedicating unusual resources to such riots, RT broadcast riots live on YouTube, attracting a surprisingly large audience and giving the impression of a war zone when the riots only covered a few streets.

With everything that RT does poorly as a journalist and pumps out Kremlin propaganda, it is a grave mistake to ban it – both out of principle and pragmatism.

The principle is that freedom of expression should only be prevented in the most extreme circumstances, where it may threaten human life. Some people will argue that RT’s propaganda does this indirectly, potentially reducing public support for Ukraine and thus endangering its people.

But when such a broad definition of dangerous speech is used, the end goal is a dangerously restrictive media environment.

Censorship is tempting when the target is an unpopular opponent, and overwhelmingly tempting when the target is an apologist for a brutal regime massacring its way through a European country. However, RT’s nonsense should be refuted with facts, which in this case are overwhelming. Its output should be deconstructed and ridiculed.

Given that those who watch RT have been exposed to years of conspiratorial nonsense, they are more likely to take a dim view of this ban than the general population. This is counterproductive and reinforces their sense that the West is hiding something.

It’s understandable why many people would want this channel shut down, but that comes dangerously close to Putin’s tactic of silencing disagreeable media voices.

A week ago, the Kremlin ruled that Russian media calling the invasion a “war” could be fined the equivalent of (before the ruble’s collapse) the equivalent of €54,000. Several independent Russian media outlets have been shut down in recent days. Last Friday, the lower house of Russia’s parliament passed a law that could face up to 15 years in prison for those who spread “fake” news about the military.

These actions are grotesque, but also revealing. If this war went according to plan, such measures would be unnecessary. Many of Putin’s defense attorneys abroad are now also distancing themselves from him.

Putin threatens nuclear war and silences dissenters because his propaganda has been so ineffective. RT is part of that failure.

And therein lies the pragmatic argument for ignoring RT. It has done little to advance the Russian president’s goals in this war and is mostly viewed with contempt.

The channel crumbled from within before being banned, with several employees resigning in protest at its increasingly untenable position. Left to its own devices, it may have either fallen apart or become more extreme and therefore less effective.

RT’s inability means it’s also a false target. The real problem is effective propaganda – on social media. A press gazette The analysis found that nearly three-quarters of fake news and misinformation about the war was circulated on Facebook and Twitter, platforms where Russian troll farms have long been active.

In contrast, foreign journalists in Ukraine and Russia have managed to report extensively on the truth of the war and the resistance of the Russian people to it. Your reports have had a powerful impact.

As RT was banned here, the BBC website was expected to be shut down in Russia – reports that had reached 10.7 million Russians in the first week of the war, three times their usual audience, were cut off.

It is Putin who fears open discussions and debates. We should huge it.