Editor of The Economist magazine called to boycott Sputnik and RT, Russian propaganda tools

Journalist and editor of the British magazine The Economist Edward Lucas during the Munich Security Conference, Feb-8-2015 Photo: Dzintars Rasnačs / Facebook

Journalist and editor of the British magazine The Economist Edward Lucas during the Munich Security Conference, Feb-8-2015
Photo: Dzintars Rasnačs / Facebook 

2015/02/09 • Russia

Editor of the British magazine The Economist Edward Lucas accused Russian journalists in “production of lies” and said that the employees of these two media outlets “need to be pushed out to the margins of the media space.”

During the Munich Security Conference, journalist and editor of the British magazine The Economist Edward Lucas urged journalists to boycott internationally broadcasted Russian radio channel, Sputnik, and Russia Today TV channel, according to “Echo of Moscow”.

Lucas accused Russian journalists in the “production of lies” and said that the employees of these two media outlets “need to be pushed to the margins of the media space, so they would no longer be treated as real journalists and were seen only as cranks and propagandists.”

Lucas even promised to use his personal influence to counteract the careers of those who cooperates with RT and Sputnik.

In November, editor-in-chief of the Russian TV channel Russia Today Margarita Simonyan accused Britain of censorship after the British state regulator Ofcom threatened Russia Today with withdrawal of its license due to biased coverage of events in Ukraine.

Translated by: A. N.
Source: GordonUA.com

Tags: , , , , ,

  • W8post
  • canuke

    I’m all for freedom of speech, but this is based on truth. When deliberate lies are propagated, this crosses the line of free speech and needs to be challenged. RT long ago crossed this line.

    • Mojo

      Then what do you call BBC?

      • canuke

        You dare equate RT to the BBC? One is a joke, while the latter has almost a century of ethical, world renowned journalism.

      • Americana

        Please explain why it is you consider the BBC to be propagating lies or producing propaganda as opposed to the BBC doing a relatively straight relaying of the news, Mojo. There will always be OPINIONS hosted by the various news organization web sites as part of the overall presentation of contentious news subjects, but the actual news and editorial decisions KEEP OPINION separate from influencing the NEWS SIDE of the organizations. That’s true for most legitimate news organizations w/some news organizations sliding more towards opinion-veiled newscasts. But I’d like to hear your explanation as to why you find the BBC less than honest in its news presentation.

        • Mojo

          It’s absurd you think BBC is flawless
          Two examples, enjoy >> m.youtube.com/watch?v=afBr10f38TI

          (http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/amena-saleem/bbc-trying-shore-support-israels-assault-gaza)

          I don’t see RT as perfect. I watch many news channels, I don’t stick to one.

          • Americana

            I didn’t suggest the BBC is flawless. I said it’s not as biased as you seem to portray. In watching that video of the ship running the Israeli blockade, the first statement by the BBC reporter was that “the Israeli commandos in the hovering helicopter were carrying non-lethal arms but also carried pistols”. From that, one should be able to deduce that the Israelis STILL HAD THE CAPABILITY OF LETHAL FORCE even if their higher calibre rifles weren’t loaded w/lethal bullets. The BBC also showed quite a bit of the infrared video taken by the Israelis that showed the raid from the Israeli perspective allowing one to identify which were the Israeli commandos who fired shots and where they were on the deck relative to those aid workers who were shot.

            A news organization is only as strong as its strongest links and its weakest links. What determines the quality of the journalism that arises from each and every journalism organ is the oversight and editorial analysis that backs up each report. Would I have worded some of that BBC video report differently? Yes, absolutely. For the woman reporter to have said that the Israeli commandos weren’t carrying lethal arms but were carrying pistols is an absurd factual oversight. Why? Because the commando forces in Israel and the U.S. and the U.K. and so on are trained to have extreme competency w/pistols for close-quarters combat. The lethality of those Israeli commandos wasn’t likely reduced at all by the fact their rifles weren’t loaded w/bullets. But does that render the entire report moot? Not at all. Journalism is a full-contact intelligence game and one needs to listen and analyze everything, from several sources, in order to come away feeling as fully educated as one can be. I agree w/you that reading numerous sources is the only way to equip oneself w/the reality of the world’s news.

          • Americana

            Don’t get me wrong W8Post, I’m not endorsing that BBC report by Jane Corbin in any way. Although I only pointed out one major anomaly, there are NUMEROUS OTHER FACTUAL ANOMALIES which I’m sure Mojo picked up on. Those strange points that were made by Corbin could lead one to say the report is biased, but it’s possible for the takeaway analysis of the event to be EXACTLY what Corbin arrived at — which is that running the blockade was the single most important political point about the Mavi Marmora. Why? Because if one humanitarian ship had done it successfully, more would inevitably follow. When Jane Corbin made a big thing out of the fact the drugs had long since passed their expiration date, well, the fact is, expired drugs are often dumped on the Third World. It doesn’t mean the shipment wasn’t valued and wash;t expected to play a role in Gazans’ health care. I’d give much of this BBC report a failing grade. Though I would fault it less for its bias than for its poor quality of reporting in terms of its analytical stance and its interpretation of the resistance put up by those on board. For instance, I found the ex-Marine’s statements to be quite forthright and unimpeachable as far as someone delivering humanitarian aid.

      • Betty J Rousey

        BBC has exacting standards, and anyone who doubts that is the kind who also believes President Obama was born somewhere other than Hawaii…When someone is editorializing (opinion), it is stated as such, AND any facts included to back up that opinion are FACT. Straight news is completely factual, and if there is even a first name wrong, it is corrected for all to see. Comparing BBC NEWS to RT propaganda is a farce.

  • edwardlucas

    just to be clear, I am not “The Editor” of the Economist — I am just a journalist there (in fact the energy editor)

  • evanlarkspur

    Civilized people have first recognized the necessity of “freedom of speech” in civil democratic societies and systems of government. But they have then come to recognize the need or at least desirability of excluding “hate” speech from that right, though the definition of exactly what constitutes hate speech is still under debate. However, clear prohibitions on speech that incites to riot, that threatens another’s life, that threatens people based on their race or ethnicity also limit “free speech.” RT and its cohorts often stray over the line into speech civilized people have rejected.
    More, “freedom of the press” protects legitimate press. But people who make up lies and disrupt truth to promote hatred and warfare aren’t “journalists” and have no such protection.

    Russia likes to distort our freedoms and use them against us. We must have no tolerance for this.

  • Czech Friend

    Absolutely! The West and US is only too late to realize how dangerous the Putler’s propaganda is. It is a hate-speech institutionalized. A weapon of mass destruction in an informational warfare. Go read a comment section of any leftist website in UK and you will understand how much work has Putin’s Antiamerican propaganda already done.

  • mikael

    Dont blame RT,SPUTNIK, and others , Blame the MSM media who is not telling the truth instead !What alternatives do we “the small people” have if we want to follow what happends in the “big World” ? listen to Corporate media`s lies?

    • Betty J Rousey

      American media is owned. BBC and Al Jazeera are not controlled by corporate owners the way ours is. But NPR runs a close second to to BBC, and was equal to them until the Kochs started their philanthropy to NPR. That will have to stop.

  • sandy miller

    It’s amazing to me that so many newspapers and websites in addition to RT and Sputnit allow Russian propapagandists….I even saw one on the Ali show on AlJeezra the other night. It was blatant and sickening.

  • Brent

    A journalists job is to REPORT the news. Too many want to MAKE the news. RT and Sputnik take it further and outtight FABRICATE the news. Their outright lies and spreading of propaganda is no longer journalism. They are like novelists writing fiction for entertainment purposes. They don’t deserve to be protected by laws that apply to journalists because they are no longer journalists.

    • W8post

      Must have been journalist in his past…(perhaps KGB info?)

  • HandyGuy

    I too believe in freedom of speech, but there are
    limitations. In an airplane you can’t yell or say…”High Jack” in a movie theatre
    you can’t yell fire or on a ship man overboard just for a joke. Because all
    those things even in a joking format are LIES and they do harm to the innocent.
    Russia
    pays people just for that reason. The world has to stop the bully, we teach school
    kids to report them to stand up to them to challenge them…here we let this Russian
    clown and his paid bullies get away with it.

  • jmundstuk

    Euromaidan press: So change the headline!