Assessing Diversity on Russian TV

The U.S. view of Russian media is that it is all propaganda all the time to keep the Russian people in line, but it actually encourages diverse and even hostile opinions, says Gilbert Doctorow.

By Gilbert Doctorow

Anyone looking into Russian television programming on both state-owned and privately owned federal channels cannot ignore the heavy presence of political talk shows. They enjoy time on air comparable with formal news broadcasting. Indeed some are wrapped around news bulletins, and all make use of audio-visuals taken from the newsroom to drive the panelists’ debates.

Russian President Vladimir Putin answering questions from Russian citizens at his annual Q&A event on April 14, 2016. (Russian government photo)

The genre of political talk shows is as much a fixture of Russian television around the clock as the daily serials dealing with romance, detective stories and adventure. They tell you that the Russian public, young and old, female and male, is very politicized and keen to hear political views that are divergent from what state news program hosts are reading off their teleprompters. If I had to find a comparable interest in politics in Western Europe, I would name France. I suspect that the U.S. public trails far behind.

But does Russian television present the views of the political opposition to viewers? Does the Kremlin tightly control Russian television for political content? Is Russian mass media monolithic or pluralistic? Are the talk shows journalism or state propaganda?

This review is based on my own participation in nearly all the political talk shows on the Russian national channels from May 2016 through this month. I stress the importance of personal participation because of what I learned about the culture of these shows, about the presenters and producers from chats in the holding pens before and in the refreshments rooms after the shows, as well as from talking to other panelists during the breaks. This is something you cannot get from watching the shows either in live broadcasts or on the Internet postings afterwards (nearly all shows appear on the channels’ websites or on Moreover, only by being present on set can you appreciate how the debates are cut in the editing room before they are broadcast in the case of those shows not going out “live” or before posting on the Internet.

The political talk shows in which I participated are as follows and — except as noted — all have their broadcast headquarters in Moscow:

Rossiya-1 (state-owned): 60 Minutes; Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev

Pervy Kanal (state-owned): Time Will Tell

NTV (privately owned):  Meeting Place

Zvezda (federal channel of the Russian Armed Forces): Special Article

Pyaty Kanal (state-owned, St Petersburg based channel 5): Open Studio

Pecking Order   

In terms of intellectual level of discourse, the Vladimir Soloviev programs are Russia’s finest. They operate in several formats besides the one mentioned above. One of the most interesting is what is called “Duels” between exponents of two adversarial positions with breaks for coaching by their respective teams and call-in voting to tabulate who has been more persuasive.

A wintery scene in Moscow, near Red Square. (Photo by Robert Parry)

While numbers of viewers or ratings are not available and may in fact not be greater than for other programs on the same channel or than talk shows on Pervy Kanal, the numbers of viewers tracked by for the Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev shows often come to 250,000 within 12 hours of posting. Given the demands of such shows on audience knowledge and interest, that is a very impressive showing.

It bears mention that the quality of Soloviev’s program is directly related to the level of the guests he attracts. They are chairpersons of the Duma or Federation Council committees, presidents of the Duma parties, and the very best academic minds. The quality also may be attributed to the freedom the moderator enjoys both for his professional standing and as a Kremlin loyalist.  He appears to be very much his own man and interacts freely with his panelists. All of this raises the entertainment value as well as the journalistic content.

I would set this in direct contrast to another leading daily talk show program on the same Rossiya-1, 60 Minutes, where the presenters Yevgeny Popov and his wife Olga Skabeyeva appear to be working strictly from the texts on their teleprompters and instructions given by their managers-producers coming through their ear plugs. The result is loss of spontaneity and authenticity.

In terms of national attention, I would place the Time Will Tell show of Pervy Kanal on a level at or above 60 Minutes. Being an afternoon program with audience of pensioners, it does not draw in first-quality analysts or politicians, although rank-and-file Duma members are frequent visitors. Its outstanding feature is the relative freedom of action of the moderators. Its drawback is the excessively tight control of panelists’ access to microphones, which leads to a great deal of clamor and noise. But the control may be justified by its being the first program to broadcast live to the Moscow time zone, which carries greater political risk than Rossiya-1 shows that broadcast live to the Russian Far East and then are progressively rebroadcast by time zone East to West from recordings to reach Moscow eight hours later.

The commercial station NTV opted for a political talk show modeled on Pervy Kanal’s Time Will Tell, taking over some staff, virtually duplicating the studio and also occupying live broadcast time in mid-afternoon. Its ratings are said to trail substantially the competition, although the lead presenter came to the job with a lot of relevant experience.

The federal channel Five talk show Open Studio operates a split panel sitting in two cities, two in Moscow and four in St. Petersburg, but its home audience is surely in the northern capital. The moderator conducts what might be called sequential interviews with each of the participants, and there is very little cross-talk. One peculiarity of this show is audience call-in of questions.

The Ministry of Defense channel Zvezda has the only talk show that is not broadcast live. From my experience, there was as much shouting on stage as in the noisiest major channel shows, but it was nearly all deleted in the cutting room to yield a smooth flow of debate to the audience. Panelists are taken from a different pool than the major stations, which may be characterized as an advantage, as I will discuss below.

A Constantly Evolving Genre

Russian television programming follows the ratings, because all channels rely on paid commercials, which may take up 12 minutes or more of an hour on air. The hottest competition is between the leading state channels Pervy Kanal and Rossiya-1. They fought tooth and nail to attract audiences to their New Year’s 2017 programming. They fight daily in the talk program genre and ratings swing back and forth depending on the hour of day, topicality of the day’s subject, prestige or charisma of the invited panelists.

Wintery scene at Red Square in Moscow, Dec. 6, 2016. (Photo by Robert Parry)

When I appeared on Pervy Kanal’s show Time Will Tell dedicated to the U.S. presidential election of Nov. 8, the hosts proudly told me their ratings that day spiked to 20 percent, well above their norm of 15 percent. This means that at the given hours of broadcast in the middle of the afternoon Moscow time 20 percent of all Russian television sets were tuned to the show. By contrast, the leading competitors had ratings of 10 percent or less at that given time.

Because of the fight for ratings and fierce competition, the genre of political talk shows is constantly evolving. The technical sophistication of the studios, the decision to broadcast live (and to which time zones) or to distribute pre-recorded and edited videos, hosting by one, usually male, presenter versus male-female pairs, the level of control of the proceedings before cameras from unseen producers upstairs, the use of evening prime time versus afternoon hours when pensioners and housewives predominate: all of these variables are constantly in play as given shows are enhanced or replaced with each season.

Shouting Matches

It has to be said that Russian political talk shows are meant to be entertaining as well as informative. They are more of a free-for-all than debate governed by Oxford Union type decorum. This reflects the streak in Russian culture that goes in for mixed discipline martial arts contests or single combat “without rules.” It is also calibrated to the time of day and target audience of the given show, as Artyom Sheinin, the moderator of Time Will Tell explained to me when I first appeared there: the show’s afternoon time slot attracts a disproportionately high number of retirees who want an “adrenaline shot” at mid-day. The evening programs on the same Pervy Kanal are less excited, so as not to disturb the digestion of those who just returned home from work and are seated in their armchairs in a reflective mood.

Still, even in the evening slots, most talk shows on both state and private channels put a lot of Russian intellectuals off by their noise. The noise predominates at the middle quality range of the genre. At the ends of the middle spectrum in terms of specifics of the audience (Zvezda with its military families or the more staid and traditional St. Petersburg channel 5, where all panelists have a cultivated demeanor and dress in suits and ties), either the clatter is cut in the editing room, as in the former case, or it does not happen at all because of the prevailing culture, the latter case.

Then there is another and very important exception to the practice of shouting matches, namely the top quality shows, in particular those moderated by Vladimir Soloviev. The very important politicians and political commentators whom he attracts expect and receive their due courtesy and are almost never interrupted.

Subject Matter

The talk shows or show segments in which I and other foreigners participate as panelists debate exclusively issues of international relations, as is entirely logical. If we have any value for the Russian viewers, it is as experts bringing in fresh perspectives and challenging what they otherwise hear from the Russian establishment. On domestic issues, our remarks would not be informed, nor would they be welcomed.

Red Square in Moscow with a winter festival to the left and the Kremlin to the right. (Photo by Robert Parry)

The subject matter on the talk shows closely tracks the topics on Russian news. Over the period of my experience from May 2016 to present, the news has been heavily skewed to Russian relations with Ukraine, military conflict in the Donbas, implementation of the Minsk accords, NATO military exercises near the Russian borders, the NATO battalions arriving in the Baltic States, the Syrian civil war and in particular the liberation of Palmyra and Aleppo, the U.S. presidential campaign, the election results of Nov. 8 and what the new administration of Donald Trump might bring.

On the premier programs of Vladimir Soloviev, international affairs constitute close to 100 percent of the subject matter. However, on other political talk shows, domestic topics in the news may make up between 30 and 50 percent of the programming. Subjects have included the draft law on violence in households, the “Yarovaya” law on electronic surveillance and record keeping, rising monthly fees of apartment owners for building services and repairs, how to deal with the many fatalities caused by joyriding of Russia’s golden youth.

Abstract debates on economic issues or social issues are not in the nature of the talk shows, which are so news-driven that the panelists may be interchanged, even the studio hours may be moved back in order to give the production team time to prepare visuals for a show devoted to some “breaking news.”

Panelist Diversity

The outstanding fact, which is surely the greatest weakness of the genre, is that the pool of panelists from which the major channels draw overlaps excessively. On any given day, you can tune in to several of these talk shows on different channels and find the very same panelists holding forth.

I do not have a firm explanation for this phenomenon. A casual observer might guess that some of the panelists are making their livelihood by multiple appearances, but there is no way of knowing who is being paid to appear. From my chats at the sidelines, I understand that most panelists are being paid nothing other than their taxi fares if they are locals as most are, or flights and hotel if they are out-of-towners. Foreigners are a special case: it is widely assumed that “enemies” are paid for their trouble, meaning in particular panelists coming from Poland and Ukraine.

Factors that I identify to explain the different channels’ drawing on the same pool are availability, known success with the competition and skill of repartee. Appearing on one show draws the attention of the young “producers,” meaning administrators, working at other channels. The job prospects of these handlers rise when they bring in and coach fresh talent. In the case of foreigners, it is fluency in Russian, which must be of rather high standard given the pressures of fast and interrupted debate.

As I have indicated in passing above, some of the best local panelists are Russian legislators from the lower or upper houses of the Federal Assembly. Others are journalists, think tank political scientists, area specialists, military experts.  Most have well-established professional careers. A very few are young docents seeking public exposure to gain promotions.

By nationality, the foreigners on talk shows panels come from countries which are in the news and which have tense relations with Russia: Ukrainians, Poles, Baltic States, the U.K. and the U.S. Most, but not all deliver, as expected, harsh critiques of Russian foreign policy. In this respect, Russian television for the domestic audience has a totally different set of requirements and objectives than the channel dedicated to foreign audiences, Russia Today, where foreign guests are often “friends of Russia.”

Among the most experienced foreigners with near native fluency regularly appearing on the Pervy Kanal and Rossiya-1 is the British journalist and lecturer, Owen Matthews, from Newsweek. I joined him at a session of 60 Minutes. Another journalist of major standing with whom I appeared on Time Will Tell is David Filipov, Moscow bureau chief of The Washington Post. It bears mention that, to my knowledge, neither they nor the other Western critics of President Putin who are invited onto Russian talk shows have written anything about their experiences while their readerships are led to believe by the publications they work for that Russian media are just monolithic propaganda outlets for the Kremlin.

Other U.S.-based guests from the think tank world who appear regularly on the premier talk shows of Rossiya-1 are Ariel Cohen from the Atlantic Council and Dimitri Simes, President of the Center for the National Interest. Both are given 5 or 10 minutes to themselves by satellite link from Washington, D.C. Their statements, usually about political developments in the U.S. from the perspective of “inside-the-Beltway,” then are commented upon by the talk show’s in-studio panelists. Cohen is also occasionally in the Moscow studio as a panelist. Both speak native Russian.

Finally, there is the unique phenomenon of all Russian talk shows during the time period under review: the journalist Michael Bohm, who spent a decade as editor of the op-ed page of The Moscow Times and now provides spice to Russian television by energetically defending the views of the neocons and liberal interventionists in their anti-Russian policies. He is the American whom many Russians love to hate. Nonetheless, his mastery of Russian folk sayings has endeared him even to his harshest detractors.

By party affiliation, the Russian politicians appearing on the political talk shows belong predominantly, but not exclusively to the parties in the Duma. Among the most frequent guests on the Soloviev shows are leading members of the ruling United Russia party Vyacheslav Nikonov, chairman of the Duma Committee on Education; Aleksey Pushkov, former chair of the Duma Committee on International Affairs; and his predecessor in this post, Konstantin Kosachev, now chair of the same committee on the Federation Council.

Though less often, the other Duma parties are definitely visible on these shows. Vladimir Soloviev gives frequent invitations to the president of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia Vladimir Zhirinovsky whose nationalist views he obviously shares. LDPR’s Duma Deputy Leonid Slutsky, the new chair of the Committee on International Relations, was on the talk shows soon after his appointment.  Gennady Zyuganov, leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, is invited far less often to the major talk shows and the invitation is usually in connection with commemoration of some event or personality from the Soviet era.

The political talk shows also regularly invite as panelists members of certain parties that were unable to reach the 5 percent voter threshold to win seats in the State Duma. By rule of thumb at Time Will Tell, for example, they constitute 10 percent of the panelists. The parties most commonly invited are Yabloko and Party of Growth.

How Diverse?

So, does Russian television present the views of the Opposition? It all comes down to definitions. What do we mean by the “Opposition”?

Couple walking along the Kremlin, Dec. 7, 2016. (Photo by Robert Parry)

For many American experts on Russia, the definition of “opposition” pre-determines the answer to the questions of pluralism, genuine journalism and the like on Russian television. This is because the notion of Russian opposition that has taken hold in the United States is attached to “regime change,” not to normal electoral politics. Only those committed to bringing down the “Putin regime” are deemed worthy of the designation “opposition.”

In this view, all Duma parties other than the ruling United Russia party – namely the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Just Russia, and the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia  – do not count as opposition.

To be sure, nearly all Duma parties rally behind the foreign policy of Vladimir Putin, though several are still more strident nationalists than the ruling United Russia party. However, in matters of domestic policy, the Duma parties have their own policies and strongly criticize the ruling party seeking to modify its legislative initiatives and to introduce bills of their own. To deny them the status of Opposition is like considering the Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. an undifferentiated mass because they largely share a bipartisan foreign policy (at least until the advent of Donald Trump). This point is all the more relevant when we consider that a variable but always substantial portion of most talk show programming is devoted to domestic as opposed to foreign policy issues.

Until his death in 2015, Boris Nemtsov and his Parnas movement were THE OPPOSITION in the eyes of American experts. Nemtsov, Milov and Kasyanov were striking out against the corruption with which the Putin regime was said to rely to stay in power, against its authoritarian if not dictatorial ways, and stood in favor of accommodation with the West, which they claimed was obtainable if only Russia cast aside the aggressive, assertive habits of the Putin regime.

Since Nemtsov’s death, the new White Knight in Russian politics for American observers has been the blogger Alexei Navalny, who showed his political muscle in the last mayoral elections in Moscow. Never mind that Navalny has little electoral support outside the capital or that his political views are ultra-nationalist. He is determined to bring down the regime and that is enough.

From my observations of the period under review, neither representatives of Parnas nor Navalny and similarly minded, self-styled “non-systemic opposition” were ever admitted to any of the television talk shows whatever the channel precisely because of their seditious intent.

But before our American experts exclaim “gotcha” I would ask them whether they can cite an appearance of leaders from Occupy Wall Street on Meet the Press, say in 2009, or at any time since? The American equivalent of “non-systemic opposition” is precisely that kind of folks. No government, including no democratic government, will give such opponents the microphone to foment insurrection on national television, least of all during prime time.

For these reasons, I insist that the question of pluralism and the journalistic mission of informing the audience and bringing to them alternative points of view have to be posed more broadly without reference to specific individuals or parties/movements being given the microphone on air.

Besides the well-known positions of the Yabloko Party leaders who appear in the talk shows among the 10 percent reserved for defenders of the Yeltsin-era accommodation with the West, mention has to be made of Sergei Stankevich, who since 2016 represents the Party of Growth, another non-Duma party. An early ally of Yeltsin who later fell out of favor, spent several years as a political exile in Poland and was later pardoned, Stankevich regularly questions on air the whole logic of Russia’s actions in Crimea and in Ukraine’s Donbas region.

And, if we take a broad view and look to the airing of ideas challenging the official party line of the Kremlin on international affairs, the foreign guests who are always invited onto the panels are a proxy for the views of the anti-Kremlin domestic opposition, including the non-systemic opposition.

At a minimum, the talk shows in which I have participated were staged to present a discussion of topical issues of international relations by skilled and well-informed experts representing diverse points of view. In that sense, they demonstrate pluralism as opposed to Kremlin propaganda. They are guided by a journalistic interest to address current events and to expose the public to various interpretations.

Gilbert Doctorow is a Brussels-based political analyst. His latest book, Does Russia Have a Future? was published in August 2015. © Gilbert Doctorow, 2017


24 comments for “Assessing Diversity on Russian TV

  1. Tecia Werbowski
    March 6, 2017 at 07:35

    This is the most informative and enlightening piece.So very interesting Thank you

  2. evelync
    March 5, 2017 at 10:54

    Rob Roy,
    I just read your very thoughtful and informative response.
    Than you! I didn’t know what Amy was up to these days.
    Too bad Amy has allowed herself to get wrapped up in this ugly representation. Puzzling…
    I’m disappointed.
    I agree – Hillary Clinton cannot be smart and hold some of the bizarre positions she seems to espouse.
    She’s a walking talking propaganda machine.
    Obama has called her wicked smart. Ellizabeth Warren has praised her ability to master complex policy intricacies. Even Bernie has praised her presentations on complex legislation.
    However, that facility for memorizing? Understanding? Presenting? complex rules doesn’t translate into recognizing the unintended consequences of a bad bill….
    It seems to me that she is an apparatchik who operates on behalf of a corrupt system and lacks the moral/ethical core to distinguish right from wrong.
    Thanks for setting me straight.

    • Alexandr
      March 6, 2017 at 06:58

      Unfortunately, Soloviev’s program doesn’t contain English subs. I tried to do subtitles, but there’s so much words (most of the times its time-study more than 2 hours) and I refused to do that.

  3. Jurgen
    February 27, 2017 at 23:49

    Great read, thank you, Mr. Doctorow.
    I think that Mr. Doctorow, IMO, is mostly on target here.
    Here’s my 5 cents, my totally subjective personal opinion.
    I had worked in both Russia and Ukraine for quite a while, been to those Baltic micro-quasi-states many times, so I could compare diversity of TV in those counties as well as here in US.
    Diversity of Russian TV has no resemblance to that distorted picture that US MSM channels try to create in minds of US viewers.
    Number one: you can freely watch harshly anti-Putin/anti-Kremlin channels either online or through a cable subscription (they are not blocked, filtered or censored). An average American TV viewer can’t even imagine what kind of criticism is freely broadcasted by the The Rain TV (TV Dozhd), The RenTV, The Echo of Moscow etc.
    Number two: Openly anti-Putin politicians are perfectly allowed on political TV talk shows. One can watch as many Russophobes on Russian TV talk shows as here in US, may be even more given that number of Ukrainian nuts that take part in Russian political TV talk shows.
    Number three: Openly and harshly anti-Russian Ukrainian TV channels can be watched in Russia. Russian TV channels are blocked in Ukraine.
    Number four: one can freely attend uncensored harshly anti-Putin meetings or (that was a real shocker to me) go to a night club in Moscow were a leader of some punk band sang something like “Putin must die, he should be killed…”, etc., etc. and that and similar kind of political “lyrics” would be performed for more than an hour at a time. Then those guys would go on tour across Russia. I believe they posted some of their flicks on YouTube, saw it a couple of years ago. And those guys are still not in Putin’s GULAG concentration camps but rather enjoy life of punk “artists” in Moscow, not sure how that would be appreciated in a night club somewhere in NY or in Washington if the name in a similar song would be Obama or Trump. Or in Berlin if the name would be Merkel.
    Number five: Harshly anti-Kremlin/anti-Government websites (hundreds of them) are not blocked, filtered or censored, same applies to printed media.
    Again, my subjective impression, almost none of Russians I had met there ever expressed any animosity towards US or Americans in general, even being totally drunk ?)) (that’s another urban legend and another topic) .

    • Alexandr
      March 6, 2017 at 06:56

      Well and truthfully said, thanks Jurgen!

  4. evelync
    February 27, 2017 at 11:10

    Thank you, Gilbert Doctorow for this very interesting article.

    “In terms of intellectual level of discourse, the Vladimir Soloviev programs are Russia’s finest.”

    Is there a way to watch this on you tube with closed captions for people who don’t speak Russian?

    I really don’t enjoy shouting matches – was grateful to Jon Stewart for putting an end to CrossFire on CNN.
    And you mention that Soloviev avoids that and lets people speak.

    Democracy Now in this country is a wonderful venue for alternative views, with interesting guests – e.g. President Manuel Zelaya was on to explain his views on Secretary Clinton’s enabling of the “illegal” (per leaked U.S. State Dept analysis) coup against him in 2009.
    Asked why he thought she helped enable it he said something to the effect – Hillary Clinton is a smart and capable woman but she’s weak and listened to neocons int the State Dept.

    I agree with you that the MSM in the United States usually has the most boring talking heads and its a waste of time turning in and expecting to learn something that is outside of the propaganda mill of the Neocon/Neoliberal agenda that has been making things worse not better over the last few decades (according to retired colonel and professor emeritus of history at Boston University, Andrew Bacevich). Bacevich is invited on Democracy Now but I haven’t seen him on MSM. Same for other real critics of our regime change policies.

    • Rob Roy
      February 27, 2017 at 18:21

      evelync: I agree, Doctorow’s article is very interesting and informative. Excellent, in fact. I, too, would like to see/hear the Vladimir Soloviev programs with English translations. Democracy Now! has always been a good news source until recently when they decided to go the bash-Putin-Russia by questioning Trump’s ties there and going along with the USA’s propaganda of Russia “hacking” the DNC, which people wish to use to call Trump on treason when that particular crime never happened. How do I know? The stellar reputation of Julian Assange who said vehemently, many times, the emails were LEAKED to him/Wikileaks from an insider in the US. The VIPS (Veterans of Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) sent Obama a long memo telling him there’s no forensic proof a “hack” occurred. Also, Flynn (as disgusting as he is on Iran) did nothing wrong by talking to anyone in Russia about anything. He was a private citizen while there when OBAMA was president, thus can’t be charged under the dusty old 1779 Logan Act which has NEVER been used against anyone, ever. I’ve been in Iran talking to many people and am going to Russia and will talk to people there. It’s a right of any private citizen. If Amy Goodman says one more time the words, “Trump’s ties to Russia” I will quit watching that news hour that I’ve seen every since it began. BTW, being friends with Russia is a GOOD thing, isn’t it? Hilary was headed there to unseat Putin and install a pro-American puppet, a crazy idea if I ever heard one. Look at the mess in Ukraine she and Victoria Nuland created, a country now run by Nazi/Fascists. I think Zelaya was wrong….Hilary was never smart but very headstrong in her love of coups and regime changes. She wasn’t controlled by the neo-cons, she’s a leader there. [Why didn’t we elect Jill Stein and create a better world?]

      • Christofer Pierson
        February 28, 2017 at 15:33

        Peace with Russia is a good thing, agreed. However, what makes anyone so sure that Trump does not have financial ties with Russia? Or that an alleged billionaire’s ties with Russian billionaires are neutral (i.e., no one’s business but his own) if not benign? Why must the left give Putin, hero of Europe’s and America’s white nationalists and homophobes, a pass just because our despised leader of the neoliberal party despises him? Why bend over backwards being nice toward Putin? How can we be sure that we’re not just knee-jerking/reacting again, as we Americans of all political stripes always do?

    • Jurgen
      February 28, 2017 at 00:04

      I believe almost all Russian TV shows are on YouTube, but none is even subtitled in English. There are few SW programs out there that can do real time translation of video streams, but they are rather pricey and install and configuration is complicated and translated voices sound weird. He speaks decent English, you can shout him an e-mail, who knows they might be interested to translate and subtitle if they see some demand.

  5. SteveM
    February 27, 2017 at 10:36

    Related to this entry is Russia as a stealth agent for Trump and the Russia Today (RT) television network as a supposed media vehicle for Trump propaganda before the election. RT has a cluster of American produced programs. These include On Contact, Redacted Tonight, Watching the Hawks and The Big Picture and they have a baseline political slant that is far American Left, i.e. The Nation, Mother Jones. They consume most of the evening programming hours.

    Those programs beat on Trump in every episode before, during and after the election. Probably 80% of the positions that those programs take also run counter to Russian policies and sensibilities. Redacted Tonight is hosted by vulgarian meatball Lee Camp. That sophomoric trash is actually an embarrassment. Frankly, why RT funds those programs is beyond me. Moreover, the Ed Schultz program repeatedly runs stories that were very critical of Trump.

    If the Kremlin wanted to assist Trump via RT, why would much of its programming do beat-downs on Trump night after night? If Russia was using RT as a vehicle to advance the Trump candidacy, they did a pretty lousy job of it. It’s far easier to discern that the American MSM were in the tank for Hillary Clinton.

    BTW, the RT programs Worlds Apart and SophiCo are Russian interview programs that are actually well done. The hosts do have a Russia bias, but both also schedule American guests who advocate for mainstream U.S. foreign policy positions. I have yet to see anything in any American produced programming that includes the opinions of Russian experts who represent the normative foreign policy of that country..

    • Otto Baak
      February 27, 2017 at 17:57

      I watch RT’s ‘Documentary’ & ‘Going Undergroond’ in the UK with British & US & European politicians, industrialists, military people etc, etc – are they all Putin’s stooges? It seems that critics of RT have never seen a programme.

      And what is superior on these interviews, compared with those of the BBC is that the interviewees are never interrupted.

  6. Dave
    February 27, 2017 at 08:33

    One small mistake: Channel 5 is not state owned, but private – owned by the “National Media Group”” holding company, which despite its name is a subsidiary of the privately owned (and also deceptively named) “Rossiya Bank”.

  7. Erik G
    February 27, 2017 at 08:27

    The ability of economic force to control mass media in an unregulated economy like the US is at least as important as state control of media elsewhere. So is the ability of US secret agencies to control mass media and conceal state control. All of these forms of control of public information should be the most serious felonies and even capital offenses.

    Mass media should be rigorously monitored for fairness and representation in their management, production, and presentations. All of their funding should be monitored and restricted to limited, registered, individual contributions. Apart from such multi-partisan public-record monitoring and control, government and external organizations should be prohibited from participation in mass media under the most severe penalties.

  8. James lake
    February 27, 2017 at 08:23

    The issue that determines the independence of media is media ownership
    Who owns the media in Russia?

    In the uk over the years the range of newspapers has decreased and we either have state owned BBC or Sky which is owned by the murdoch family

    The views put forward tend to support the government line or the neo liberal corporate views which until Brexit were the prevailing views.

    That’s why I look for and read alternate news out lets

  9. Raleigh
    February 26, 2017 at 23:58

    Just finished reading “kicking the kaemlin” by Bennetts. Not familiar with that author or you either. Bennetts describes the news media of Russia being under some direct control of Putin, presumably restricting what kind of dissent might make it on the media. Bennett also describes Putin as a man unwilling to forget those who dissent and gives examples of Putin punishing those that disagree. He also states that Putin has a very closed, Christian sense of morality. If you have a moment I’d like to get your opinion of the freedom of the media to criticize Putin. Thanks.

    • Dave
      February 27, 2017 at 08:46

      Did you read the article? It says in black and white that foreign critics of Putin are regular guests in Russian talk-shows..

  10. Bill Bodden
    February 26, 2017 at 23:31

    I suspect that the U.S. public trails far behind.

    American corporate television channels do have debates with propagandists from the Democratic and Republican parties forming opposing sides of their charades on behalf of the Washington, state and regional establishments.. Rarely, if ever, do these outlets feature authors and representatives associated Consortium News or similar websites.

    • Realist
      February 27, 2017 at 02:56

      Right. Because Consortium News and 200 other independent news sources were pointedly identified as “fake news” sites by the Washington Post at the behest of some phony “think tank” supporting the Clinton campaign because, finding no evidence for any of it, they refused to link Putin with Trump or accuse Russia with “hacking the election.” Later, Obama signed a piece of legislation with a budget of several billion dollars attached for some new federal agency to act as a watchdog against such fake news so the American public can be warned and Google can censor the listings of “anti-American” websites on the internet, lest our minds be polluted with Russian propaganda. That whole business is what put the Donald onto the whole nagging meme of “fake news.” The Clintonista’s and their neocon allies concocted it and it deservedly comes back to bite them.

      I would like to know why no Russians or Americans expert in Russian studies, such as Professor Stephen F. Cohen, are ever invited onto American talk shows on MSNBC or CNN. It’s like the American network propagandists are not only fearful of the truth, but even letting the American public know there is another side to the issue, including boatloads of facts which are withheld from American viewers and American readers. On Day One of the Ukrainian coup in the Maidan, Cohen, having been the go-to guy on Russia for over a generation, was interviewed on MSNBC. He apparently said what the powers that be did not want to hear–that there are two sides to the story–and he has been as rare as an Alabama snowstorm in July on American television ever since.

      We remain, as ever, the paradigm of all that is good and holy, the only exceptionals in the world.

      • Bart in Virginia
        February 27, 2017 at 10:14

        In addition to Professor Cohen, I would add Juan Cole and Pat Lang as no longer in favor.

      • Bill Bodden
        February 27, 2017 at 14:06

        I would like to know why no Russians or Americans expert in Russian studies, such as Professor Stephen F. Cohen, are ever invited onto American talk shows on MSNBC or CNN.

        Simple, Realist. Our cable infotainment channels are reserved for Washington establishment (Democrats and Republicans) propagandists. Non-presstitutes are not welcome, especially after Glenn Greenwald took David Gregory to the woodshed several months ago.

      • Rob Roy
        February 27, 2017 at 17:50

        Realist: I agree with you the most knowledgeable person to speak on Russia is Stephen F. Cohen. I was glad to hear him on Democracy Now! once regarding the so-called “hack” into the DNC by Russia…which did not happen. He hasn’t been invited back since and Democracy Now! has gone to the dark side on Russia/Putin. I think some people want to get rid of Trump so much, they will try even an obviously dumb way to get there.
        As for “…… nagging meme of ‘fake news,’ ” please for god’s sake stop using the word “meme” when you don’t know what it means and how it must be used. It’s the go-to word these days and so far I haven’t seen it used properly yet.

        • Realist
          February 27, 2017 at 20:19

          Wait just a minute. The definition of the word is:
          an element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation.
          a humorous image, video, piece of text, etc., that is copied (often with slight variations) and spread rapidly by Internet users.

          How does that not apply? “Fake news” is a concept or a belief within the human population (“an element of culture”) that many people now have which was passed to them first by a faction within the media and is now spreading throughout American society, certainly as a concept if not a belief. The spread did not involves genetics, as does the spread of “genes” but rather verbal communication and imitation. In fact, the word was deliberately chosen to point up the parallels yet differences in the spread of cultural information to that of genetic information.

      • Loyd
        March 1, 2017 at 19:22

        Cohen appeared on Morning Joe on 12/19/16, after the US election. He was also on Smerconish on CNN on 7/30/16. Might want to dig a little deeper when stating your facts.

        • Realist
          March 5, 2017 at 09:28

          You idiot! You just made my case. It’s been THREE YEARS since the Maidan coup. Moreover, that Smerconish interview lasted all of about three minutes. The FACT REMAINS, he doesn’t get asked to comment on the “mainstream media.”

          Apparently, YOU missed that he’s on the John Batchelor Show every week, but that’s not “mainstream.” Stop trying so hard to score points, Loyd. It makes you look desperate.

Comments are closed.