New YouTube Warnings: An Attempt to Dissuade Viewers From Watching RT, PressTV and More?

New YouTube warnings warn you’re about to watch info / news funded by a foreign government. Is this an attempt to soft censor alternative views online?

New YouTube Warnings have been rolled out recently – but only on some channels, and mostly those which challenge the official narrative. Google (founded by Zionists Sergey Brin and Larry Page), now run by Zionist Eric Schmidt, owns YouTube (run by Zionist Susan Wojcicki). YouTube claims its goal is to “equip users with additional information to help them better understand the sources of news content that they choose to watch on YouTube,” according to Geoff Samek, senior product manager of YouTube News. However, is this the real point? Or is the idea to cast doubt in the viewer’s mind? To get the viewer to think: “Is this information real? Can I trust it? Is it more fake news?” When you watch a video now on YouTube from a media outlet that is not sanctioned by, and in line with, the Anglo-American-Zionist official perspective of the world, you may see one of these new YouTube warnings right beneath the video where the title used to be. The title has actually been pushed further down the page…

New YouTube Warnings on RT, PressTV and Other Alternative Channels

The new YouTube warnings were rolled out on Feb. 2nd 2018. When you go to the YT channel of Iran’s PressTV, you will see this:

“Press TV is funded in whole or in part by the Iranian government”

The warnings were being displayed on RT (Russia Today), however as of today they are not appearing. Has YouTube backed down? Just yesterday it used to say:

“RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government”

Some alternative, non-Western media outlets claim they have editorial independence. Is YouTube going to evaluate that claim? Funnily enough (or not), there are few such warnings for the American MSM. PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) gets this new YouTube warning:

“PBS is a publicly funded American broadcaster”

Large media outlets of Britain and Canada got the new YouTube warnings also:

“BBC is a publicly funded American broadcaster”

“CBC is a publicly funded American broadcaster”

But what about other major channels?

US Establishment MSM Without New YouTube Warnings

However for the YouTube channels of CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, Fox and others, there is no warning. Yet these media outlets, and many others around the world, have been infiltrated many decades ago. They are wholly owned by the CIA, ostensibly an arm of the American government, although in many ways above it. Operation Mockingbird was a CIA project to penetrate and covertly control the media. It began in the 1950s under then CIA director Allen Dulles, the very same one who had a key role in the hit on JFK.

Declassified files show how the CIA totally infiltrated the US MSM. It bought up journalists, reporters and newsmen, and once they were on the CIA payroll, it persuaded them to write CIA-sanctioned pieces, which were then inserted into TV, newspapers and journals everywhere as “news” when they were nothing more than lies and propaganda. Richard Salant, former President of CBS News, once said that “our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have.”

Former CIA Director William Colby confessed that “The Central Intelligence Agency owns anyone of any significance in the major media.”

Mockingbird was famously exposed in the 1975 Church Committee hearings (see an video excerpt here). Nothing much has changed today. Journalists worldwide are still on the payroll, and some were brave enough to talk about it, such as the late German reporter Udo Ulfkotte, who admitted he was being essentially forced to write anti-Russian pieces to better fit the New World Order narrative.

So why doesn’t YouTube give some warnings under the channels of the MSM, such as:

“CNN is funded in whole or in part by the CIA”

“NBC is funded in whole or in part by the CIA”

“MSNBC is funded in whole or in part by the CIA”

“ABC is funded in whole or in part by the CIA”

“Fox is funded in whole or in part by the CIA”

Don’t hold your breath waiting – you will suffocate.

Final Thoughts

Do you really think that the Alphabet-Google-YouTube behemoth want their viewers to be genuinely informed? That they care so much about you and just want to make sure you are getting unbiased news? Or is it more likely the new YouTube warnings are a thinly disguised effort by the technocracy to keep the internet free of alternative views by dissuading viewers from watching certain channels? Smells like more soft censorship. Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

 

Sources:

*https://youtube.googleblog.com/2018/02/greater-transparency-for-users-around.html

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDCfTIapds0

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIaFkR9uriU

The post New YouTube Warnings: An Attempt to Dissuade Viewers From Watching RT, PressTV and More? appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

BREAKING: FBI Releases Docs Claiming RT Founder Beat Himself To Death In His Hotel Room

The FBI just released the results of their investigation claiming that the media mogul and found of RT killed himself by repeatedly smashing his head and upper body into the ground.

Washington D.C. — In November 2015, the Free Thought Project reported that Mikhail Lesin, the former head of media affairs for the Russian government, and the founder of Russia Today (RT), was found dead in the hotel room that he was staying at in Washington DC.

Originally, authorities announced that Lesin died from a heart attack. However, the results of his autopsy released months later indicated a far more sinister cause of death and the heavily redacted FBI documents that were just released add to that story.

The documents, detailing the FBI investigation into Lesin’s death were just released Saturday morning in spite of the investigation ending in October of 2016.

In spite of the original cause of death noted as a heart attack, a few months later, the District of Colombia’s Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) and Metropolitan Police Department said that “blunt force injuries of the neck, torso, upper extremities and lower extremities” contributed to Lesin’s death. “The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) has released the cause and manner of death for Mikhail Lesin… Cause of Death: blunt force injuries of the head,” the statement said.

Now, FBI investigators have released the results of their investigation claiming that the blunt force trauma all over his body was self-inflicted.

“Mr. Lesin died as a result of blunt for injuries to his head, with contributing causes being blunt force injuries of the neck, torso, upper extremities, and lower extremities, which were induced by falls, with acute ethanol intoxication,” the report states.

In other words, the FBI is claiming that Lesin got so drunk that he repeatedly and violently fell on things until he killed himself.

To show just how much information the FBI is willing to release on these findings, here is the version of the amended autopsy report they released in the report.

Essentially, all other information in regards to the findings of Lesin’s death has been scrubbed from the documents as the remaining pages are almost entirely redacted.

Not only did the US remain tight-lipped on the investigation but they also refused to allow Russian authorities to cooperate.

As RT reports, back in 2016, months before the closing of the case, Moscow said it was expecting Washington to explain why Russia had not received any details from the probe into Lesin’s death, despite repeated requests.

“We are awaiting the related clarifications from Washington and the official data on the progress of the investigation,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova wrote in a Facebook post at that time. She added that if the media reports citing the forensic statement are confirmed, Russia will send an official request to the US “for international legal assistance.”

In October 2016, the US authorities announced that Lesin died of natural causes and closed the case. “Based on the evidence, including video footage and witness interviews, Mr. Lesin entered his hotel room on the morning of Wednesday, Nov. 4, 2015, after days of excessive consumption of alcohol and sustained the injuries that resulted in his death while alone in his hotel room,” the US attorney for the District of Columbia said in a statement.

Lesin’s death came at a time where he was surrounded by controversy, especially in the US. RT, the Russian-based news source that Lesin founded has become very controversial in the US—ostensibly for the fake Russiagate scandal—but in reality, for challenging the western narrative of foreign policy and privacy issues. Some US politicians have suggested that RT be banned in the US for “spreading propaganda,” while others have been blatant enough to attack Lesin personally.

According to the NY Times, until late 2014 Lesin ran the media wing of the state’s energy giant, Gazprom, before stepping down or, more likely, being forced out. He ended up in the United States, where he and his family owned properties in Los Angeles said to be worth far more than the salary of the former government minister.

Some US Senators, including Roger Wicker of Mississippi, had called for the Department of Justice to open an investigation into Lesin’s finances prior to his death.

Wicker was concerned that Lesin made too much money, something that was really none of his business.

“That a Russian public servant could have amassed the considerable funds required to acquire and maintain these assets in Europe and the United States raises serious questions,” Wicker said.

The original announcement of the heart attack back in November 2015 makes this case all the more ominous considering the fact that the medical examiner’s office also said Lesin’s body had blunt force trauma to the neck, torso, arms and legs too. How did authorities overlook his wounds?

As RT reports, Lesin was considered one of the most influential figures in the Russian media landscape. A graduate of Moscow State University with a degree in Civil Engineering, he served as Minister of Press and Mass Media from 1999 to 2004. He was also a presidential media adviser from 2004 to 2009. Lesin became chief executive officer at Garprom-Media in 2013 and remained in the position until early 2015.

"The US Has Crossed The Line": Russia Warns Trump Decision To Arm Ukraine Will "Lead To Bloodshed"

Russia has reacted fiercely to the end of week breaking news that President Trump plans to approve the legal sale of US antitank missiles and possibly other advanced systems to the Ukrainian government in a move that could change the battlefield calculus of the war between Ukrainian and Russian-aligned forces in the Donbass region along the Russian border. ABC News described the "total defense package of $47 million includes the sale of 210 anti-tank missiles and 35 launchers" which will be sure to harm Trump"s longtime stated goal of improving relations with Moscow.

Though Kiev has long had limited access to US lethal arms through private contracts with American and international arms producers, this represents a significant escalation involving the likelihood that advanced US systems would be used directly on Russian-aligned militias in the eastern Donbass region and potentially Russian forces along the border. Up until now, the White House has been reluctant to escalate the war so openly, as it did when it supplied anti-Assad fighters in Syria with sophisticated TOW anti-tank missiles.

While the US State Department claims the move is "defensive" in nature, Russian deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov charged the US with deliberately "crossing the line" and pushing the Ukrainian authorities "towards new bloodshed," adding that "American weapons can lead to new victims".

Ukrainian army soldiers perform a weapons exercise at a training ground outside Lviv, western Ukraine, Thursday, Feb. 5, 2015. Image source: AP via Common Dreams

"Kiev revanchists are shooting at Donbass every day, they don"t want to conduct peace negotiations and dream of doing away with the disobedient population. And the United States has decided to give them weapons to do that," Ryabkov said. He further slammed the US as an "accomplice in igniting a war" whose political leadership is “blinded by Russophobia and eagerly applaud the Ukrainian nationalist punitive battalions.”

Indeed a number of outspoken Russia hawks in Congress were enthusiastic over the possibility of heavier and direct arms flow to Ukraine, including John McCain, Bob Corker, and Tom Cotton - all supporters of the original Ukraine Freedom Support Act signed into law by President Obama in December 2014, though never fully enacted.

So you"re telling me Putin ordered his puppet Trump to arm Ukrainians that are hostile to Putin?

This is some crazy 5th dimensional chess. https://t.co/AH4Ma9YShs

— Serge (@Zinvor) December 23, 2017

Cotton for example - recently rumored to be Trump"s pick for CIA Director - said of the new initiative for arms exports to Ukraine: "This is a break from failed Obama era policies to make Russia pay a cost for its aggression. With this decision, the Trump administration is reminding Vladimir Putin and his cronies that they lost the Cold War, and we won’t tolerate their bullying of our friend Ukraine."

But Russian leaders have warned that through the decision the US may be dragged deeper into a quagmire which could result in direct confrontation with pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine"s east. Aleksey Pushkov, member of the Russian Senate security committee, told RT News that delivery of the more advanced systems like the Army"s M-148 Javelin Portable Anti-Tank Missile would require US military advisers on the ground, which could be targeted by separatist forces. 

Pushkov told RT, the US “has enough problems already to allow itself to be involved in adventures of the [Ukrainian] regime. And we know too well how adventurous Kiev may be.” This comes as authorities in Kiev are already requesting that Washington adds anti-aircraft missiles to its shopping list as well, according to multiple reports. 

Meanwhile German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron issued a statement calling for "disengagement and the withdrawal of heavy weapons" in the Ukrainian conflict, a scenario now much further away from taking shape than ever. But after years of covert American involvement in the Ukrainian proxy and civil war which has raged since 2014 - and which a leaked recording confirmed was precipitated by the US State Department - it appears that hawks like McCain, Cotton, and Corker are finally getting their way.

"The Whole Thing Is Completely Absurd": Kremlin Blasts Notion That Flynn "Influenced" Putin

As the U.S. media and Washington D.C. legislators continue to lose their collective minds over the Michael Flynn charges, Kremlin  press secretary Dmitry Peskov took to the podium earlier today to dismiss the notion that Flynn"s comments to former ambassador Sergey Ivanovich had any impact on Putin"s ultimate decision to retaliate against U.S. sanctions as "completely absurd."  Per the RT:

“Flynn was in no position to request anything of Sergey Ivanovich [Kislyak, Russia’s former US ambassador] let alone to expect any requests to be relayed to Vladimir Putin – the whole thing is completely absurd,” said the Russian President’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov during a media briefing in Moscow.

 

In the end Russia did postpone its response, but Peskov says that “the decision was taken by Putin alone, and cannot be attributed to any requests or recommendations.”

 

“What information Putin receives from his ambassadors is of no concern to anyone else,” said Peskov. “The Russian president makes all decisions independently on the basis, as he has said many times, of Russia’s national interest.”

For those who may have just returned from a remote island and missed the "shocking" revelations of the past three days, as we"ve detailed numerous times, former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn plead guilty last Friday to lying under oath by denying to the FBI that he urged the Russian ambassador to delay a decision on retaliating against U.S. sanctions and attempted to influence a U.N. vote.  Of course, the conversations in question happened after the election, during the transition period, and wouldn"t have been an issue but for Flynn"s seemingly inexplicable decision to lie about them.  Here"s more from NBC:

A two-page charging document filed last week listed two false statements Flynn made about his interactions with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak in late December 2016. It said Flynn falsely claimed that he had not asked Kislyak "to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the U.S. had imposed against Russia," and that he didn"t recall Kislyak telling him Russia had decided to moderate its response as a result of his request.

 

Prior to the Dec. 29 call with Kislyak, Flynn called a senior official with the presidential transition team who was with other members of the team at Trump"s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida to discuss what to say to the Russian ambassador regarding sanctions, according to the statement of offense.

 

Court documents also said Flynn falsely claimed that he didn"t ask Kislyak on Dec. 22 to "delay a vote on or defeat" a U.N. Security Council resolution, and then falsely denied that Kislyak had described Russia"s response to the request. Before that call, a "very senior member" of the transition team directed Flynn to contact foreign officials, including those from Russia, to learn where they stood and influence the vote, according to the statement of offense. The "very senior member" was Jared Kushner, three people familiar with the matter told NBC News.

 

According to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s charge, Flynn made the false statements to the FBI on Jan. 24, two days after he was sworn in as national security adviser.

Of course, the real question from here is what Flynn"s plea deal means for the White House.  Not surprisingly, the Left has celebrated the development as an indication Flynn could potentially implicate President Trump in the "Russian collusion" investigation while Trump supporters have argued that the decision to pursue Flynn over false statements clearly indicates that they have nothing else of substance.  Per the Wall Street Journal:

To Mr. Trump’s supporters, the charge against Mike Flynn for making false statements was evidence that investigators were nowhere near proving collusion with Russians to interfere in the 2016 president election, the matter at the heart of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigative mandate.

 

But Mr. Trump’s detractors viewed the plea deal as a milestone—the first senior aide to Mr. Trump to turn on his former boss—in an investigation that continues to escalate.

 

Both versions make assumptions about what information Mr. Flynn has to offer, a mystery that will reveal itself over time. For now, Mr. Flynn’s deal with the special counsel and his team suggests at the very least that Mr. Mueller believes Mr. Flynn has something valuable to share and that his investigation is unlikely to end soon, said former federal prosecutors.

 

“A guilty plea at this stage really could mean a whole lot of different things, and folks are in a hurry to have the plea meet their predetermined narratives,” said Stephen Vladeck, an expert in national-security law and law professor at the University of Texas.

So what say you...is the "Russian collusion" investigation weaving its way into the Oval Office or are escalating suggestions of the President"s downfall just another "nothing burger?"

McAdams Warns US Empire Is "Too Fragile" For A Free Press

The US Congress yesterday revoked press credentials for the Russia-backed RT America television station, claiming RT"s new "foreign agent" status disqualified it from conducting journalism on Capitol Hill.

RPI Director Daniel McAdams appeared on RT"s The Ed Shultz Show to criticize the move on the grounds that the US government should not attempt to prevent Americans from viewing whatever media they choose.

The move is really an attempt by Washington"s neoconservatives to prevent any criticism of US interventionist foreign policy, he told RT:

RT & Michael Flynn: Is That The Case Mueller Is Going To Make?

Authored by Alexander Mercouris via TheDuran.com,

With every other attempt to put together a convincing Russiagate case having failed – the indictments against Manafort, Gates and Papadopoulos make no allusion to the collusion allegations at the heart of it, and the FBI has now admitted to Congressional investigators that it cannot verify the Trump Dossier, the document which appears to have triggered the whole inquiry – it seems that the pressure is now increasingly on Michael Flynn.

Shortly after the indictments against Manafort, Gates and Papadopoulos I speculated that an indictment against Flynn might be pending.  News that his lawyers have broken contact with the President’s lawyers hardens that suspicion.  There are also rumours that Special Counsel Mueller may also be considering an indictment against his son.

The trouble is that nothing that is known about General Flynn’s activities during the 2016 election campaign give any reason to think that he was involved in any sort of illegal collusion with the Russians.

The only case that can convincingly be made against him is that he failed to register under FARA in connection with paid lobbying work he did for a foreign government.  However the government in question is Turkey not Russia.

I wonder whether this may explain the otherwise highly oppressive and legally dubious decision to force RT to register under FARA as a foreign agent?

Flynn did appear on RT on a number of occasions, and did attend an RT dinner where he was famously photographed sitting at the same table as President Putin. 

He also received payments from RT, though there were quibbles between him and RT over the amount.

Could it be that the intention is to claim that since RT is a foreign agent – an agent of the Russian government no less – Flynn is also in breach of FARA and/or his disclosure obligations to the Pentagon because he did not register or properly disclose his dealings with RT?

Whilst that would on the face of it be an attempt to use the FARA legislation retrospectively – a legally highly dubious practice, to put it mildly – it might make some sense of the otherwise legally highly questionable decision to force RT to register as a foreign agent.

There is a further possibility.  Back in January when the 6th January 2017 ODNI report was published I speculated that the long seven page appendix about RT that was mysteriously attached to it might suggest that the US intelligence community has convinced itself that RT was in some way the intermediary the Russians used to provide the DNC and Podesta emails to Wikileaks.

After all Julian Assange has had a programme on RT and RT – along with many other stations – covered the story of the DNC and Podesta leaks heavily.  It is not difficult to see how in the present hysterical atmosphere someone might have put all these facts together and come to some completely erroneous conclusions which are not supported by evidence.

I say the last because as I have pointed out previously, former FBI Director James Comey has in effect admitted that the FBI and therefore presumably Special Counsel Mueller’s investigators actually have no idea how the emails reached Wikileaks.

If this is indeed what is going on then it is legally and ethically highly dubious.  However this has been the consistent pattern of the whole Russiagate investigation from the start.

It is now clear that it was used to place members of the Trump campaign under surveillance, and has since morphed into what looks like an increasingly desperate attempt to justify this conduct.

Given the high stakes, it is not difficult to see how concerns about the retrospective use of legislation might be brushed aside.

What Makes Google"s Eric Schmidt So Afraid? (And What Should He Be Afraid of?)

Authored by Jan Oberg via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

OK, it’s from Russia Today so you should of course not trust it but somehow this video and text and the man in it seems quite factual, not fake and obviously not omitted.

It documents that Eric Emerson Schmidt, the Executive Chairman of Alphabet – an American multinational conglomerate that owns a lot and among them Google – is working on “de-ranking” alleged propaganda outlets such as Russia Today, RT – the world’s third largest television network – and Sputnik.

Who is Eric Schmidt?

On the Wikipedia link you can read more about Mr. Schmidt, one of the richest person on earth, an advocate of net neutrality, a corporate manager and owner of a lot, a collector of modern art, etc. And you can read about his heavy involvement with Hillary Clinton’s recent campaign and the Obama administration and about Schmidt’s involvement with Pentagon, too.

Eric Emerson Schmidt’s name is associated with the world’s largest and most systematic data collecting search engine, Google, that millions upon millions use. School children, teachers, parents, media people, politicians and you and I all daily “google” what we need to know.

While we do that, Google tracks everything about us and if you are searching for a thing to buy, say a camera, be sure that camera ads will shortly after turn up on your screen. And they know everything we are interested in through our “googling” including political interests and hobbies.

Playing God

This very powerful corporate leader with a open political orientation has decided - as will be seen 58 seconds into the video – that the Internet and his hugely dominating search engine a) shall cave in to political pressure, b) de-rank at least these two Russian media organizations because c) he knows they are “propaganda outlets” (it isn’t discussed at all or compared with US or other countries’ media) and d) in the name of political correctness it is OK to limit the freedom of opinion-formation.

In fact, he says in a few words that he – well, not he himself but a computer program and mechanism called an algorithm – shall decide what you are I shall be able to find. Google as Good, Google as God.

Conspicuously, his de-ranking – read censorship – policy shall not hit media (as far as we can understand from this clip at least and not from this backgrounder either) that have, for instance, been using fake news and planted stories, omitted facts and perspectives and sources and told us propaganda and worse about, say, US wars around the world.

It’s Russia’s media. And naturally you ask: Whose next? And where does that end? (“Wherever they burn books, in the end will also burn human beings.” – Heinrich Heine).

Obvious human rights violation

This type of political paternalism is not only totally unethical and foolish, it’s a violation of human rights. It cannot be defended with the argument that other countries and media outlets also use propaganda. The Western world – the U.S. in particular – calls itself ‘the free world” and gladly, without the slightest doubts, fights and kills to spread that freedom around the world and has done so for decades.

We humans have right to information without interference – at least if international law counts. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

You abuse power, Mr. Schmidt

Mr Schmidt, you are blatantly and clearly interfering in the rights of millions, if not billions, to know. To seek information. To shape their opinions.

With your few words you abuse your almost unlimited digital, political, economic and ‘defence’ power – much much worse than if you had sexually abused just one woman for which older men today are fired or choose to resign.

This has to be stated irrespective of whether we like or dislike Russia and its media. That is not the issue here. This has to be fought against because it is slippery slope, Mr Schmidt.

You ought to stand up and use your powers with principles and vision: To protect the Internet against every and each reduction of freedom. Freedom for all, also the fake news-makers however we define them. Yes, there is another solution for that problem and it is not your paternalism.

It just cannot be for you to decide what is good for others and collect data about us all which is only good for you.

Has the West really become so insecure about itself?

Censorship – de-ranking – and information warfare is not the solution to anything. A strong society or culture that believes in its own moral value and vitality does not censor. Dictatorships – “regimes” – do.

Mr. Schmidt has much more power than many state leaders but he is not up to it and how would he be able to re-rank themes and media again in the future.

Has the West, the US and Western culture become so weak, so trembling at the sight of the global future and so morally deranged that it cannot live with – does not believe it can compete factually and intelligently with – other views? With fake? With propaganda by others? If so, that is where the Soviet Union was in the early 1980s. And if so, watch the writing of the Western walls!

Education and trust

There are much better solutions – if you think. Mr. Schmidt may also google them…

It’s education – education of young and old to learn to identify what is trustworthy and what is not. Learning to learn on the Internet. It is dialogue and it is dignity – instead of succumbing to the lowest of levels that he accuses others of being at.

And there is more solutions.

Making democracy, freedom and human rights stronger – by believing in human beings, their intelligence and solidarity. When Google de-ranks, it de-humanises. It offends the intelligence of the world’s users of the Google search engine.

It sinks to the low level where fakers and liars are – devoid of morals but passionate about selling a particular message even if totally unfounded.

What are you so afraid of, Mr. Schmidt?

If I were Eric Schmidt, I think I would be afraid of being perceived as a “useful idiot” or an an evil operator on behalf of US militarism – since he is targeting Russia in a the new Cold War atmosphere.

After all is/was a member also of various US government security and Pentagon related boards. And after all, he spoke at the Halifax Security Forum filled with military defence people and hardliners who see only Russia, North Korea and Iran as problems, never the US itself. One of the panels deals with the “Post-Putin Prep”!

Regime change in Russia too in the future and with truthful news from Google?

Mr. Schmidt and his corporate fellows should also be afraid that millions will become more sympathetic to Russia Today, Sputnik and even Russia itself precisely because of his words.

There are no wars on the ground without information war. If Schmidt’s Google fights political wars with de-ranking, many of us will be de-parting to more peaceful, rights-respecting and ethical search engines than his. So until further:

#BoycottGoogleSearch

Bahamas Prime Minister Blames US Cable News For Collapse Of Journalism

Over the weekend, Bahamas Prime Minister Dr Hubert Minnis addressed the Third Annual Press Club Awards Banquet, where he blamed the collapse of journalism standards on 24-hour cable news shows in the United States. He said, the declining of standards “would not have been allowed in previous times” and urged local journalist not to be  “champions of any political party, business, group or interest in a country”.

While addressing the Third Annual Press Club Awards Banquet Munnis said,

This is not a practice that would be allowed by journalists in other countries. I am not speaking here of editorial writing. A journalist and a columnist are distinctly different roles.

 

The 24-hour cable news shows in the United States have in a number of ways led to a lessening of standards that would not have been allowed in previous times. There has been a considerable blurring of reporting and commentary.

 

It is telling when certain standards have been breached, that some in the press do not even realize that a standard has been breached.

 

Journalists are not supposed to be champions of any political party, business, group or interest in a country.

Minnis noted that journalist must report news on a fair and balance perspective while avoiding conflict of interests, adding “the best journalism criticises, celebrates and inspires”. In the United States, that is certainly not the case with 24-hour cable news networks waging an informational war against the American people flooding them in a DDOS style attack of misinformation. The constant bombardment of Russia/Trump collusion stories have sent the trust in television news to record lows.

The Jamaican Observer ends the report by saying,

Minnis said, adding that the press has an essential role in promoting good governance, transparency and accountability.

 

“By pressing public officials for accurate and timely information, the press helps citizens to learn about the decisions being made by a government on their behalf,” he told the awards ceremony.  

It seems as Bahamas Prime Minister Dr Hubert Minnis and the American people have something in common and it’s the distrust of the mainstream media. The one question we ask mainstream media execs: Was the fake news in the last election cycle worth the credibility loss?

Russia Names The 9 US News Outlets It Will Retaliate Against

After hinting that retaliation was imminent, Russian lawmakers in the Duma - Russia’s lower house of Parliament - have approved a law that would require nine US news outlets to be labeled “foreign agents” in response to Washington"s decision to require Russia Today to register as a foreign agent last week, a decision that Moscow has slammed as hypocritical and infringing on free speech.

Reuters reports that Russia’s lower house of Parliament has approved the law - which allows Moscow to force foreign media to brand news they provide to Russians as the work of “foreign agents” and to disclose the source of their funding.

The law must now pass the upper house, which is likely to happen next week. Once President Vladimir Putin signs it, it will become law. The path to passage looks relatively straightforward, and it"s likely the bill will become a law.

The Russian Justice Ministry on Thursday published a list of the news outlets that it said could be affected by the law.

Meanwhile, the outlets are the US-government-sponsored Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Europe (RFE), otherwise known as Radio Liberty, radio channels, along with seven separate Russian or local-language news outlets run by Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty.

One of the seven outlets provides news on Crimea, which Russia annexed from Ukraine in 2014, one on Siberia, and one on the predominantly Muslim North Caucasus region. Another covers provincial Russia, one is an online TV station, another covers the mostly Muslim region of Tatarstan, and the other is a news portal that fact-checks the statements of Russian officials.

Russia"s attack on US-funded media is part of the fallout from allegations that the Kremlin interfered in the US presidential election last year in favor of Donald Trump, Reuters noted.

US intelligence officials accuse the Kremlin of using Russian media organizations it finances to influence US voters. Meanwhile, the US has funded organizations like RFE since the early days of the Cold War. RFE was founded to broadcast pro-capitalist messaging to Soviet Satellites in Central and Eastern Europe.

The Kremlin denies meddling in the election and has said the restrictions on Russian broadcasters in the US amount to an attack on free speech. After the US forced RT to register, Kremlin spokespeople hinted that the government had a “surprise” retaliation at the ready.

The draft legislation would allow Russian authorities to designate foreign media as "foreign agents", making them subject to the same requirements that are applied to foreign-funded non-governmental organizations under a 2012 law. Under that law, "foreign agents" must include in any information they publish or broadcast to Russian audiences a mention of their "foreign agent" designation.

They also must apply for inclusion in a government register, submit regular reports on their sources of funding, on their objectives, on how they spend their money, and who their managers are.

They can be subject to spot checks by the authorities to make sure they comply with the rules, according to the 2012 law, which has forced some NGOs to close.

Radio Free Europe said in a statement it did not want to speculate what steps Russia might take against it next, and looked forward to continuing its journalistic work. Voice of America Director Amanda Bennett has said the station remains committed to providing independent news to global audiences.
 

Russia Warns It Will Retaliate Against American Media Next Week

It has been over a month since Russia and the US engaged in political tit-for-tat escalations, but that is about to change: after a recent crackdown by the U.S. government, which ordered state broadcaster RT to register as a foreign agent following accusations it interfered in last year’s presidential elections, and which saw Twitter ban all RT-sourced advertising (despite actively seeking RT"s business beforehand) Russia said on Thursday it would retaliate next week against the American media, Bloomberg reports.

While the Russians didn’t specify what measures would be taken, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Thursday that “practical implementation” of steps in response to the U.S. move would begin next week. Russia has previously warned its retaliation would mirror restrictions imposed by the U.S. The foreign-agent label, which applies to several state-owned outlets operating in the U.S. including Japan’s NHK and the China Daily newspaper, requires disclosure of the media organization’s foreign funding.

As reported earlier today, RT"s editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan, said on the broadcaster’s website that it has no choice but to comply with the DOJ’s demand to register as a foreign agent by a final deadline of Monday. Otherwise, the head of the channel’s U.S. subsidiary would face arrest and its bank accounts would be frozen, she said. “This demand violates U.S. law and we intend to appeal it in U.S. courts.”

What may Russia"s next move be?  One month ago, Zakharova said that “we have never used Russian law in relation to foreign correspondents as a lever of pressure, or censorship, or some kind of political influence, never. But this is a particular case..."

She cited a 1991 Russian law which, she said, stated that if a Russian media outlet is subject to restrictions in a foreign country, then Moscow has the right to impose proportionate restrictions on media outlets from that country operating inside Russia. “Correspondingly, everything that Russian journalists and the RT station are subject to on U.S. soil, after we qualified it as restriction of their activities, we can apply similar measures to American journalists, American media here, on Russian territory." She did not identify any specific U.S. media outlets that would be targeted. She said it made no difference from the Russian government’s point of view if those outlets were backed by the U.S. state, or privately-funded.

In September, Russia’s state communications regulator accused CNN International of violating its license to broadcast in Russia and said it had summoned the broadcaster’s representatives in connection with the matter. The watchdog did not publicly disclose the nature of the violation. The head of the regulator said it was a technical matter and denied that politics was involved. The U.S. Congress is investigating RT’s role in the 2016 election, as well as possible influence by state-owned Sputnik news service.

Russian authorities have signaled that CNN and Radio Liberty could be among those targeted in response to the action against RT.

DOJ To Russia Today: Register As A Foreign Agent Or Face Arrest

Congress is using a decades-old piece of legislation to force Russia Today to register as a foreign agent in the US, adding that if the site doesn’t comply with the order by Monday, the DOJ could move to shutter its operations and arrest its top executive, RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan.

Russia Today revealed Thursday that the Department of Justice has given the site until next week to comply with its new interpretation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). RT has been operating in the US since 2005.

While undoubtedly disappointing in terms of its implications for first amendment freedoms in the US, the DOJ’s declaration is hardly a surprise. Under pressure from lawmakers, Twitter last month said it would prohibit RT from buying paid ads on its platform.

The FARA was adopted in the US in 1938 to counter pro-Nazi agitation . Washington has decided to apply the act towards the company that supplies all services for RT America on its territory, including TV production and operations. Just over 400 entities are currently registered under the legislation, though that group doesn’t include a single media outlet.

RT revealed Thursday that the DOJ sent a letter to the company in September saying it is obligated to register under FARA due to the work it does for RT. Most alarmingly, the law demands the disclosure of the channel"s confidential data, including the personal data of its staff.

The move "will have serious legal consequences"and "compromise the safety of [RT] employees," the Russian Foreign Ministry previously explained.

Simonyan said on Thursday that the timeframe provided for the company by the DOJ is a "cannibalistic deadline." She previously said that the channel was being forced into "conditions in which we cannot work" in the US, and called Washington"s demand an attempt to "drive [RT] out of the country."

Simonyan had said the decision put freedom of speech in the US under question. RT has been under pressure for showing the American audience "a different point of view."

Senator Konstantin Kosachev, the chair of Russia’s Foreign Affairs Committee, told journalists on Thursday that the Department of Justice’s decision is “a dirty political game,” adding that particular Russian media has been “selected” by US lawmakers. The senator called the move “an obviously discriminatory measure.” He went on to point out that there are “dozens and even hundreds” of foreign media operating in the US, including TV channels financed by foreign states, but none of those have been targeted.

 

‘If RT leaves the US, American media might stop broadcasting in Russia’ – RT editor-in-chief https://t.co/RFSbOucC4s

— RT (@RT_com) October 1, 2017

 

The decision has nothing to do with setting up due process, Kosachev said. It is rather aimed at media which broadcast content “inconvenient” for US authorities. This means sharing information on its foreign and domestic policies, he explained, calling the decision an “infringement of freedom of speech."

As we reported last week, Moscow has warned that a move to restrict RT’s operations in the US would be met with a “surprise” response regarding American media working in Russia. "If someone starts to fight dirty, perverting the law by using it as a tool to eradicate the TV station, every move aimed against the Russian media outlet would be repaid in kind," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said.

And it appears those measures could be unveiled as soon as next week to coincide with the registration deadline, according to a report from Russian newswire Interfax.

Of course, US interests have been operating the English-language Moscow Times in Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union, and other media outlets funded by foreign states - for example, Al Jazeera - haven’t faced these types of restrictions.
 

Twitter Revises Terms Of Service, No Longer Believes In "Speaking Truth To Power"

Having been caught in a crossfire over internet free speech and Russian conspiracy theories, Twitter has quietly made a significant change in its stated "Twitter Rules" terms of service.

Following several Congressional hearings meant to root out "Russian interference" by Twitter accounts, as well as an incident in which a disgruntled, now former employee, disabled Donald Trump"s twitter account for 11 minutes, it appears that Twitter no longer believes in "speaking truth to power."

The change can be seen in Twitter"s TOS, in the “Abusive Behavior” section, which currently states that “We believe in freedom of expression and open dialogue, but that means little as an underlying philosophy if voices are silenced because people are afraid to speak up.”

This is a material change from what this section stated as recently as November 2, when the section read “We believe in freedom of expression and in speaking truth to power"...

... with believing in "speaking truth to power" replaced with "open dialogue."

The change took place just two days after November 1, when Twitter, along with Google and Facebook, were questioned by Congress in the ongoing witch-hunt, as dubbed by Donald Trump, for “Russian influence” that may have led to interference in the 2016 presidential election. As @Jack twitted at the time, the changes to Twitter’s rules were made as part of a November 3 attempt to “clarify” them.

We just published a clearer version of the Twitter Rules to clarify our policies and how we enforce them https://t.co/gPv9nt3y1M

— jack (@jack) November 3, 2017

In a statement, the company said that it wanted to make it clear that “context is crucial when evaluating abusive behavior and determining appropriate enforcement actions.”

In its testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Twitter unveiled that it used a vast array of tenuous criteria to define accounts as “Russia-linked,” and also admitted it had censored the hashtags #PodestaEmails and #DNCLeaks tweets during the 2016 US presidential election campaign in an effort to limit public exposure to leaked documents describing the Democratic National Committee’s efforts to boost Clinton as the Democratic Party’s  preferred candidate during the primaries, a process which was subsequently defined as rigged by none other than Elizabeth Warren following blockbuster claims by interim DNC chair Donna Brazile. Twitter Associate General Counsel Sean Edgett claimed many of those tweets were “automated” and hidden by anti-spam systems. He also admitted that less than 4 percent of them came from potential “Russian-linked” accounts.

Last week Twitter also announced it was banning all ads from RT and Sputnik, citing the same allegations of meddling in the 2016 US election. That, despite the company previously trying to engage RT in a special US election advertising package, which RT said it had declined.

Later on the same day Twitter revised its TOS language, Twitter announced that while it may no longer speak "truth to power", the reason why power was not allowed to speak for 11 minutes, i.e. when Donald Trump"s account was deactivated for 11 minutes, was due to a departing employee"s decision that it was in Twitter"s best interest to shut up the US president.

Earlier today @realdonaldtrump’s account was inadvertently deactivated due to human error by a Twitter employee. The account was down for 11 minutes, and has since been restored. We are continuing to investigate and are taking steps to prevent this from happening again.

— Twitter Government (@TwitterGov) November 3, 2017

Through our investigation we have learned that this was done by a Twitter customer support employee who did this on the employee’s last day. We are conducting a full internal review. https://t.co/mlarOgiaRF

— Twitter Government (@TwitterGov) November 3, 2017

A separate update will be issued on November 14 with more details on how the company reviews and enforces policies, according to Twitter.

Will "RussiaGate" Result In Social Media Regulation?

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Oriental Review,

Whether preplanned or inadvertent, one of the most likely and far-reaching consequences of the fake news RussiaGate scandal is that Facebook and other social media giants might soon come under strict regulation by the state.

The artificially contrived and “deep state”-driven RussiaGate scandal has been inflated to epic proportions and has already resulted in the unexpected suicide of the US’ soft power, but this never-ending conspiracy theory is now poised to affect the rest of the world in a completely different way due to the likely “regulation” that Washington might soon impose on social media giants like Facebook. “Traditional” media has long been clamoring for the American government to do something about the astronomical rise of social media, which has poached millions upon millions of people away from newspapers and TV stations and redirected them to their smartphones instead. From the perspective of social media and many of its users, however, these people weren’t “poached”, but liberated from their prior status as a captive audience to conventional influence techniques and allowed to roam freely in cyberspace as they searched for alternative non-mainstream interpretations of current and past events.

The rise of social media coincided with that of Russia’s publicly funded RT and Sputnik media outlets, whose reporting and analyses soon went viral all over the internet because they satisfied the crucial information desire that so many people were craving for years. Their explosive popularity led to them gaining a sizeable following among Western audiences, who voluntarily shared their content online and contributed to what Facebook describes as “organic growth”, or the natural trending of non-advertised posts. While posing a challenge to Establishment narratives all across the world, neither RT nor Sputnik were seriously viewed as  “threat” by the US and its allies because they had yet to be blamed for affecting any real-life change outside of the internet “matrix” of clicks, likes, and shares.

That all changed during the 2016 US election, however, since the Mainstream Media’s monopoly on information was wielded in such a blatantly and obviously biased nature against Trump that countless Americans began countenancing what would have previously been unthinkable to many of them just a year prior, and that’s trawling foreign-based media outlets in order to get a more accurate sense of the truth that their own country’s media barons were suppressing. This certainly says a lot about the deep distrust that was already prevalent among many Americans towards their own government, but it hit its climax the more that the Mainstream Media began concocting openly fraudulent “news” stories about Trump in a bid to derail his candidacy, with this effort becoming unquestionably clear when compared with the flowery coverage given to anything that Clinton said or did. As is now known, Americans rebelled against the Establishment by voting Trump into office, and the “deep state” was left scratching its head about how this could happen.

The author explained the domestic dynamics at play in his November 2016 article right after the election titled “Dear Foreign Friends, Here’s Why Trump Won (From A Clevelander)”, but the general idea is that the Democrats’ weaponization of identity politics miserably backfired as Americans sought out a radical solution to bring balance to their “deep state”-destabilized country. Nevertheless, the Establishment couldn’t bring itself to recognize the obvious, take the loss, and move on to fight another battle later on, hence why they decided to continue pressing the cringe-inducingly ridiculous narrative that “Russian trolls” somehow swayed the election due to their social media activity, and hinting that there might even be a whiff of outright collusion between Presidents Trump and Putin in organizing this movie-like conspiracy.

This narrative is convenient for many geopolitical reasons that are outside the scope of this analysis, but the domestic benefit that was expected to be derived from this storyline is that “traditional” media and the Establishment finally had the pretext that they were looking for to “regulate” social media. Bringing Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and others into compliance with already existing American laws about revealing the source of election-related advertisements is one thing, but pressing these platforms to restrict the activity of Russian publicly financed media outlets like RT and Sputnik, as well as speculatively “shadow banning” some of their staff and supporters, is a bridge too far into dystopia, as is doing so on the US governments’ double-standard FARA witch hunt which alleges that the two are “foreign agents”. As a result, it appears as though the “good ‘ole days” of “freewheeling” across Facebook and sharing whatever content one finds enjoyable is soon coming to an end as Washington begins to “regulate” social media on the basis of “safeguarding democracy”.

Of course, the real reason is that some vested power interests also have a stake in supporting their decades-long allies in the “traditional” media against their new social media rivals, to say nothing of the self-evident imperative in suppressing non-mainstream news and analyses through the US’ War on Russian Media. The forthcoming “regulation” might even go further than what’s presently being observed, as there’s a chance that Washington could seek to label social media platform like Facebook as being “media companies” in their own right, which would then instantly force them to comply with the existing legislation that their “traditional” media counterparts have had to contend with for years. In a sense, this would “level the playing field” between “traditional” and social media, but it could also destroy the very essence of social media itself. Not only that, but if the US comes to consider Facebook and Google as “monopolies”, then they could be broken up and “regulated” even further.

What’s terribly ironic about all of this is that the US government’s international stance has always been in favor of “internet freedoms”, routinely attacking Russia, China, and Iran for implementing national security-based legislation aimed at thwarting the risk that Color Revolutions and Hybrid Wars could dangerously recruit across social media, but now all of a sudden “the land of the free” is doing the same thing as the countries that it regularly smears as “dictatorships”, though without any convincing reason and depending solely on a trumped-up fake news conspiracy theory. As is typical, the ruling Establishment and their “deep state” supporters condescendingly believe that their true intentions are invisible to the naked eye because of their presumption that the populace is stupid and politically unaware, though the very fact that their “perfect candidate” was defeated by a “dark horse” like Trump totally disproves this notion.

The reality is that most Americans, and the rest of the world at large, see the US government’s “regulation” of social media for what it actually is, and that’s a dictatorial power grab which crushes any remaining doubt that “the land of the free” is anything but, and that the “freedom of speech” is only allowed if one is either supporting the Establishment or behaving as its “controlled opposition”. The number one thing that “American Democracy” can’t accept is the free flow of information and interpretations that challenge the prevailing state-supported narrative, which in and of itself negates the very basis of what the world always thought that “American Democracy” was supposed to be about, and this powerful revelation proves that the US government’s accusations that its geopolitical rivals are “authoritarian” was never anything more than a psychological projection of its own self.

Russia Has A "Surprise" Planned For US If It Bans RT, Sputnik Ads

A day after certain members of the Senate Intelligence committee expressed their profound disappointment with Facebook, Twitter and Google for appearing to blow off lawmakers’ concerns about a “sophisticated” Russia-backed propaganda campaign purportedly being carried out on their platforms, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova is hitting back, warning that Russia has “a surprise” response planned if US lawmakers overtly ban Russia Today and Sputnik from running advertisements on twitter and other US social media platforms.

According to Interfax and Sputnik, Zakharova said Russia would be forced to respond to the ban, which she said constituted “intimidation and blackmail.”

She also singled out Twitter, which was the first - and so far, the only - to prohibit Russia Today from running ads, criticizing the company for kowtowing to pressure from lawmakers and US intelligence agencies.

"By imposing this ban, Twitter demonstrates its commercial insolvency and absolute dependence on the will of the US security establishment, which directly controls the decision-making process in this company, as we see it at the moment," Zakharova said.

Additionally, the ban would only serve to further strain already tenuous relations between the US and Moscow.

"Of course, Washington"s policy for further degradation of US-Russian relations is regrettable. This is an absolutely short-sighted policy, fraught with negative consequences, including for the United States itself," Zakharova said.

Twitter banned all ads from RT and Sputnik last month under pressure from lawmakers.

While the Sputnik news agency has stated in its press-release that it had never paid for promotion on Twitter, RT has responded with numbers — the broadcaster"s editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan, has revealed the amount of money spent on Twitter ads during the US election race; the number totals $275,000, in comparison to the presidential nominees who spent about $1 billion each.

Simonyan also famously published the “full” sales pitch it received from Twitter ahead of the election last year. RT said it turned down the “multi-million dollar advertising proposal.” On Twitter, advertising largely consists of the platform promoting a user’s tweets in exchange for money.

Earlier today, Buzzfeed published emails from a Twitter ad executive to RT pitching a $3 million advertisisng campaign, which the company said would amplify RT"s voice seven-fold.

According to the Russian diplomat, the existing legislation in Russia allows, if necessary, to declare the foreign media outlets operating in the country as ""foreign agents" or "undesirable organizations."

Russian President Vladimir Putin has previously vowed to give a mirror-like response if the US decides to further restrict activities of Russian media outlets.
 

Twitter Bans RT, Sputnik Ads "For Attempting To Interfere With The US Election"

In a blog post this morning, Twitter"s Jack Dorsey explains why the social media company is banning RT and Sputnik from advertising on their platform...

Twitter has made the policy decision to off-board advertising from all accounts owned by Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik, effective immediately. This decision was based on the retrospective work we"ve been doing around the 2016 U.S. election and the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that both RT and Sputnik attempted to interfere with the election on behalf of the Russian government. We did not come to this decision lightly, and are taking this step now as part of our ongoing commitment to help protect the integrity of the user experience on Twitter.

 

Early this year, the U.S. intelligence community named RT and Sputnik as implementing state-sponsored Russian efforts to interfere with and disrupt the 2016 Presidential election, which is not something we want on Twitter. This decision is restricted to these two entities based our internal investigation of their behavior as well as their inclusion in the January 2017 DNI report. This decision does not apply to any other advertisers. RT and Sputnik may remain organic users on our platform, in accordance with the Twitter Rules.

 

Twitter has also decided to take the $1.9 million we are projected to have earned from RT global advertising since they became an advertiser in 2011, which includes the $274,100 in 2016 U.S.-based advertising that we highlighted in our September 28 blog post, and donate those funds to support external research into the use of Twitter in civic engagement and elections, including use of malicious automation and misinformation, with an initial focus on elections and automation. We will have more details to share on this disbursement soon.

Notably, the "off-board"-ing move comes less than a week before the company will testify on Russian election meddling on Capitol Hill, where he"ll join colleagues from Google and Facebook.

RT is not taking this lying down, asking an awkward question that we suspect will also get asked next week in Congress...

Hope @jack won’t forget to tell @congressdotgov how @Twitter pitched @RT_com to spend big $$s on US elex ad campaign. pic.twitter.com/7GqoEoSaY8

— ????????? ???????? (@M_Simonyan) October 26, 2017

We are sure this move will please Mark Warner, but the bigger questions are how will Putin respond, and whether Facebook and Google (which owns YouTube) are likely to follow Twitter"s freedom-of-speech-denying lead.

The NYTimes Asks Reporters To Stop Being Partisan On Social Media

Days after James O"Keefe released his latest undercover video which took direct aim at the New York Times" Audience Strategy Editor, Nick Dudich, who repeatedly admitted to promoting content that intentionally seeks to, among other things, damage President Trump"s businesses as a means towards forcing his resignation, The New York Times became the latest mainstream media organization to “clarify” its social media policy for journalists, reminding them that “partisan” posts (i.e. posts explicitly bashing President Donald Trump) will no longer be tolerated.

America’s paper of record joined the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post in gently reminding its journalists that abiding by stringent standards of the “unbiased” press, while occasionally uncomfortable when reporters are forced to swallow controversial opinions, is necessary to retain what little credibility the media has left in the eyes of the public.

Interestingly, the paper’s public disclosure of its standards – which Executive Editor Dean Baquet said was done “in the interest of transparency” -  comes amid an escalating feud between President Donald Trump and NBC which began after the latter published an anonymously sourced report claiming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called Trump a “moron, and has most recently expanded to encompass a debate about whether the FCC should revoke television networks’ operating licenses for biased or unfair coverage.

“We’ve always made clear that newsroom employees should avoid publishing anything on social media that damages our reputation for neutrality and fairness. This memo offers more detailed guidelines.

Department heads will be responsible for ensuring that these guidelines are followed by all staff members in their departments. Violations will be noted on performance review.”

Here’s a summary of the new guidelines:

• In social media posts, our journalists must not express partisan opinions, promote political views, endorse candidates, make offensive comments or do anything else that undercuts The Times’s journalistic reputation.


• Our journalists should be especially mindful of appearing to take sides on issues that The Times is seeking to cover objectively.


• These guidelines apply to everyone in every department of the newsroom including those not involved in coverage of government and politics.


• We consider all social media activity by our journalists to come under this policy. While you may think that your Facebook page, Twitter feed, Instagram, Snapchat or other social media accounts are private zones, separate from your role at The Times, in fact everything we post or “like” online is to some degree public. And everything we do in public is likely to be associated with The Times.


• On that same note, we strongly discourage our journalists from making customer service complaints on social media. While you may believe that you have a legitimate gripe, you’ll most likely be given special consideration because of your status as a Times reporter or editor.


• Avoid joining private and “Secret” groups on Facebook and other platforms that may have a partisan orientation. You should also refrain from registering for partisan events on social media. If you are joining these groups for reporting purposes, please take care in what you post.


• Always treat others with respect on social media. If a reader questions or criticizes your work or social media post, and you would like to respond, be thoughtful. Do not imply that the person hasn’t carefully read your work.

And the list goes on (you can read it in full here).

• If a reporter is still unsure about posting, the Times recommends that they first ask themselves:


• Would you express similar views in an article on The Times platforms?


• Would someone who reads your post have grounds for believing that you are biased on a particular issue?


• If readers see your post and notice that you’re a Times journalist, would that affect their view of The Times’s news coverage as fair and impartial?


• Could your post hamper your colleagues’ ability to effectively do their jobs?


• If someone were to look at your entire social media feed, including links and retweets, would they have doubts about your ability to cover news events in a fair and impartial way?

We’re glad the Times cleared that up. Its new guidelines can effectively be summarized as “don’t publish anything on twitter that you wouldn’t publish in the Times.” That said, the standard still allows ample room for the paper"s reporters to pass off partisan rhetoric as "impartial" fact. That is, if it"s enforceed. It"s likely many of the paper"s reporters will continue tweeting partisan attacks - the default subscriber boosting position - despite the new "guidelines."