Jesus, did they shut down RT altogether?

UPDATE: Apparently, the RT problem - whatever it was - was resolved.

____________________

I'll check back later.

And while we're on the subject of internet access...

It's inevitable — this week, the Federal Communications Commission will drive a stake in net neutrality.

On December 14, the agency will vote to repeal the net neutrality rules it put in place in 2015. With Republicans commissioners who oppose the rules outnumbering Democrats who favor them three to two, the outcome of the vote isn't in any doubt. Your protests and #netneutrality tweets will do nothing — this is really happening.

  Business Insider

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Make sense?

I think Chris is missing the point.  These are two Russian media outlets.  They're banned for the same reason the French fries in the capitol were renamed "freedom fries".  Punishment.  (Ridiculous, I know.)

What next?  Anyone who says anything remotely pro-Russia on Twitter gets banned?  How about if you just had a nice visit to St. Petersburg and post a picture?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Let's bring back the House UnAmerican Activities fascists

Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to US Secretary of State Colin Powell [...] was among the 2,300 experts stigmatized in a report last week by the ‘European Values Think-Tank’ for sharing their views on RT.

The Czech institute, funded from the US and other Western governments, called RT’s guests “useful idiots” – a term Russian Communist leader Vladimir Lenin is credited with coining.

“Such actions as this illustrate a new McCarthyism in America,” Wilkerson said in an email to RT.

[...]

Those who ordered and compiled the report also employed “the Karl Rove strategic technique,” he added. “Very simply stated, that technique is to accuse your opponents of doing what you are doing in order to get the spotlight removed from what you are doing. You do it loudly, constantly, and repeatedly, until you have overwhelmed your opponents, dulled the minds of the ignorant and apathetic, and generally made your points – the points people accept and believe,” Wilkerson explained.

  RT

The GOP handbook.

“However, in McCarthy’s time there were Eisenhowers and Achesons and others of high character and ability. Today, there are very few such men and women. So, it is very much more dangerous today,” he warned.

And, more importantly, Edward R Murrows. ...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Russia Did It - Part ad Nauseum

[The continuing drumming of the idea that Russia stole the election from Hillary Clinton is] fueled even further by the belief among U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia wanted to help Donald Trump capture the presidency. Yet neither country is a stranger when it comes to directly trying to sway the election of other nations. In fact, the U.S. has a long and stunning history of attempting to influence foreign presidential elections, recent research by political scientist Dov Levin shows.

Levin, a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute for Politics and Strategy at Carnegie-Mellon University, found that the U.S. attempted to influence the elections of foreign countries as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000. Often covert in their execution, these efforts included everything from CIA operatives running successful presidential campaigns in the Philippines during the 1950s to leaking damaging information on Marxist Sandanistas in order to sway Nicaraguan voters in 1990. All told, the U.S. allegedly targeted the elections of 45 nations across the globe during this period, Levin’s research shows. In the case of some countries, such as Italy and Japan, the U.S. attempted to intervene in four or more separate elections.

Levin’s figures do not include military coups or regime change attempts following the election of a candidate the U.S. opposed, such as when the CIA helped overthrow Mohammad Mosaddeq, Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, in 1953. He defines an electoral intervention as “a costly act which is designed to determine the election results [in favor of] one of the two sides.” According to Levin’s research, that includes: peddling misinformation or propaganda; creating campaign material for preferred candidates or parties; providing or withdrawing foreign aid, and; making public announcements that threaten or favor certain candidates. Often, it also includes the U.S. covertly delivering large sums of cash, as was the case in elections in Japan, Lebanon, Italy, and other countries.

  Vocativ

And here's Glenn Greenwald talking about the affair, if you care to have more.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

The Report - Part Whatever

The US would probably have been better off without that ridiculous report. Or they should have published it under the banner of the new Ministry of Truth.

The New York Times called the document “a damning and surprisingly detailed account of Russia’s efforts to undermine the American electoral system.” The Washington Post wrote that it’s a “remarkably blunt assessment” and “an extraordinary postmortem of a Russian assault on a pillar of American democracy.” According to The Wall Street Journal, U.S. intelligence agencies have supplied the public with “surprisingly detailed findings.”

These assessments by three of America’s most influential newspapers are themselves surprising and remarkable, in light of the fact that the U.S. intelligence community revealed nothing new on Friday, repeating conclusions already publicized by the White House and officials like U.S. National Intelligence Director James Clapper.

[...]

The most remarkable thing about the government’s assessment released on Friday is that more than a quarter of the report is merely an annex dedicated to the colossal significance of the RT (Russia Today) television network.

[...]

Thanks to the C.I.A., F.B.I., and N.S.A., Russia Today can count on continued, likely expanded, Kremlin funding.

[...]

[T]he report [...] stresses that Dmitry Kiselyov, the Kremlin’s so-called “chief propagandist,” has treated Donald Trump sympathetically on his television show, while disparaging the U.S. democratic process. Kiselyov’s broadcasts — which air in Russian, for domestic viewers — are cited as an example of “messaging to Russian audiences” that presumably reveals the Kremlin’s preferences and intentions.

  Kevin Rothrock

I have to laugh every time some prominent idiot says something to this effect. Is that supposed to be an insult? Another country doesn't have America's best interests at heart? Another country promotes its own self interests? Then they're obviously evil.

The U.S. intelligence community says the Kremlin’s influence campaign was “multifaceted,” which is why the report also discusses the role played by Russian “Internet trolls,” focusing on the Internet Research Agency based in St. Petersburg.

[...]

In 2016, the Internet Research Agency’s two biggest feats were getting attacked by Molotov cocktails in October by Ukrainian activists, and being falsely accused by The Washington Post of masterminding the “#TrumpWon” post-debate Twitter hashtag in September.

[...]

The premise of this thinking is that Evgeny Prigozhin, the supposed owner of the factory, is taking cues from Vladimir Putin, given their long personal history and Prigozhin’s close business ties with the Russian state. Prigozhin is infamous, however, for diverting bits of his massive wealth to futile projects to disrupt and infiltrate the Russian opposition. He clearly believes that this kind of work keeps him in the good graces of the Kremlin, but attributing his efforts to direct orders from Putin is a stretch.

[...]

By far a more disturbing aspect of the declassified report, however, is that the U.S. intelligence community seems to accept RT’s own self-aggrandizing assessment of its global influence. The assessment even cites an unpublished Nielsen study supposedly claiming that RT rapidly expanded its audience in several American cities.

Also, when reviewing RT’s popularity on YouTube, the report completely ignores critics who say it owes its success to buying and redistributing licensed content about largely apolitical news events.

Although I regularly scan the RT website, I don't watch the RT channel. But it does carry programs by such iconic American TV personalities as Larry King. I wonder - and maybe I'm going out on a limb here - if its increased popularity could be because more Americans are finding its programming entertaining, or - and this is way out there - more Americans are beginning to realize what a load of crap American TV propaganda is.

Go ahead and peek at RT’s YouTube channel right now; the most popular videos are disaster footage — crashing meteorites, “golden voice” homeless men, and earthquakes.

So, maybe they just don't get enough charge from the bazillions of channels of vicarious thrills published by USG corporate "news" and individual YouTubers.

Or, hey, maybe they're becoming more politically aware and would like to know what other countries are saying.  I know that's a stretch, but wouldn't it be awesome?

After so many leaks and rumors, it is a relief finally to have the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment in writing. Now we know what the accusations are, and we have a vague idea about why Washington believes what it does.

Unfortunately, America’s case against the Kremlin suffers from some major flaws that should be acknowledged, even by individuals who argue reasonably that the Russian government likely used hackers to attack and undermine democratic institutions in the U.S.

I don't know why they'd waste precious funding. We do a good job of that ourselves.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway. UPDATE:

best part of DNI report: "alleged wall street greed" @JordanFreiman pic.twitter.com/9h3elJ9JdB

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) January 7, 2017

There Goes Britain

Not only do they not want refugees and immigrants, but it looks as though at least one banking group has decided foreign news outlets shouldn't be allowed to function in Great Britain. At least, foreign news outlets they don't like.

RT UK’s bank accounts have been blocked, RT’s editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan reported. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova reacted, saying it seems that in leaving the EU, London also left any freedom of speech obligations behind there.

“Our accounts in Britain have been blocked. All of them. ‘Decision not to be discussed’. Hail to freedom of speech!” RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan said on her Twitter account.

[...]

The National Westminster Bank has informed RT UK that it will no longer have the broadcaster among its clients. The bank provided no explanation for the decision.

“We have recently undertaken a review of your banking arrangements with us and reached the conclusion that we will no longer provide these facilities,” NatWest said in a letter to RT’s London office.

[...]

The bank said that the entire Royal Bank of Scotland Group, of which NatWest is part, would refuse to service RT.

The letter said the decision was final and that it is “not prepared to enter into any discussion in relation to it.”

[...]

“This decision is incomprehensible, and without warning. It is however, not at odds with the countless measures that have been undertaken in the UK and Europe over the last few years to ostracize, shout down, or downright impede the work of RT. RT UK will continue its operations uninterrupted,” RT press office stated.

“We have no idea why it happened, because neither yesterday nor the day before yesterday, nor a month ago, nothing special happened to us, nobody threatened us in any way. Hypothetically, this may have something to do with new British and American sanctions against Russia, which may be announced soon. It may not. Our legal department is dealing with the issue now,” Margarita Simonyan told RBK business news website.

  RT

That could be. In which case, I would expect there to be some issue with RT in the US coming soon. If not, surely another bank will be happy to service their account. It is money, after all.

It was unclear whether the British government was behind the move, but the foreign office was aware of the news when contacted by the Guardian, and referred inquiries to the Treasury. The move – if confirmed – casts into doubt the ability of the Kremlin-backed news channel to carry on broadcasting.

  Guardian

I don't know if that "Kremlin-backed" business means the Kremlin actually funds RT or if the Kremlin simply approves of RT. After all, I think I could call The New York Times an American-backed news source as relates to its operations in other countries.

The British news source The Guardian characterizes it as such:

Russia Today – now known as RT – is the main instrument of propaganda for the Russian government in the English-speaking world. The channel presents itself as a left-leaning alternative to “mainstream news” under the slogan “Question More”?

In reality, however, its reporting assiduously reflects the Kremlin’s anti-western worldview. It has portrayed Russia’s military intervention in Syria as a campaign against terrorists, and reflects its official position that no civilians have been killed by Russian jets.

The channel typically invites studio guests who endorse the Kremlin’s anti-US views. Guests have included Jeremy Corbyn, Ken Livingstone and George Galloway. Another frequent contributor is the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, who hosted his own chat show on RT.

Ironic or hypocritical? The Guardian reflects the west's anti-Russian worldview. Western television channels typically have guests that are highly critical of Russia and promote the west's policies ad nauseum.

[David Clarke, a former foreign office adviser and the chair of the Russia Foundation, said] Clarke said the Kremlin used RT not for straight propaganda purposes but “information warfare”. “The clue is in the strapline [tag line] ‘Question more’.

[...]

[Clarke said] the BBC’s office in Moscow would now be “in the frontline” for possible Kremlin reprisals.

“The BBC is the flagship British broadcaster. It’s a public body but in the Russian mind it’s an arm of the state and they will see it as a proxy. They will look at kicking British journalists out of Russia, I guess.”

Let's see if I understand. RT as an arm of the Russian state is bad and should be blocked in Great Britain. BBC as an arm of Great Britain and western policies is good and should not be blocked in Russia. Do I have it?

He added: “The channel is designed to undermine rational debate. It’s a multi-layered thing and just one instrument they use.”

Yes, "Question more" is a well-known method to shut down rational debate.

Jesus, Guardian, could you get any more obvious? Up until a year or so ago, The Guardian was a rational, relatively unbiased news source. Now, it's basically just another western propaganda tool.

I assume even if the US follows, there will be no interference with RT's English version website.  At least for now.

Is ramping up this anti-Russian business wise?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Someone Should Be Questioning Obama's Health

Barack Obama slammed Donald Trump for his appearance on RT last week, accusing the Republican nominee of trying to “curry favor” with the Russian president, whom he compared to Saddam Hussein in one of his harshest comments yet about Vladimir Putin.

Obama blasted Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump for offering a soundbite to the Larry King Politicking Show that airs on RT.

  RT

Unhinged.

The Larry King show is syndicated. RT is simply one of several outlets that pay for the right to publish it. Is Larry King trying to curry favor with Putin? All the guests Larry King has ever had- them, too?

It’s not the first time that the name of Vladimir Putin has been brought up in the US presidential campaign, but this time the US president used this 'argument' while openly campaigning for Clinton against Trump. The situation has become “really ludicrous and it borders on the ridiculous,” believes Gregory R. Copley, editor of Defense & Foreign Affairs.

Borders nothing. It's gone full in locked up tight.

“He loves this guy,” Obama added of Trump’s alleged cozy relationship with Putin. “Now their nominee is out there praising a guy, saying he’s a strong leader, because he invades smaller countries, jails his opponents, controls the press, and drives his economy into a recession.”

Things Obama and his predecessors have never done.

Jesus wept.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.