Reader TTS

A little while ago, I was approached by a producer on Press TV to appear on one of his employer’s shows. Once I had got over wondering what misdemeanours I was guilty of to have merited such

a request, I swiftly informed him of my lack of keenness for backing up the anti-Semitic narratives and mandated support of the Iranian government in all its evil forms which constitutes

the single purpose of that station. Still wondering how exactly he thought I would have toed the line given my thoughts on the Islamic Republic, I took some pride in refusing to take the

bucks of the Ayatollahs and congratulated myself on this moral stand. Perhaps now used to such a rejection, the producer dismissed me with a classy “OK Boomer” — which seems rather odd,

given that I saw not a day of the previous century. Anyway, the news last week that Ofcom has belatedly revoked the license for Chinese channel CGTN to broadcast in the UK, highlighting a

lack of “editorial control” for the station’s creators which made it unsuitable for consumption as a viable news programme. A report found that it had become the “distributor” rather than a

“provider” of news, or rather of the whims of the Chinese Communist Party apparatchiks who control it. It was in fact from Beijing that “ultimate control” was leveraged. The motives of

CGTN’s various parent companies were “wholly or mainly of a political nature as a result of its relationship with the Chinese Communist Party”. The decision was based on a complaint by Peter

Humphrey, a British journalist who wrote over a year ago about CGTN for _TheArticle_ here. This necessary development does, however, lead us to wonder who exactly searches out for such

stations when looking for impartial news coverage in the first place. Would you, for example, go first to Russia Today for the news on Alexei Navalny’s persecution, or to Press TV if you

wanted a full update on the speed of the Israeli vaccine rollout? Not many readers of _TheArticle_ would, I suspect, but we’re playing with a different crowd here. Nor does it take a

particularly self-respecting citizen to work out the motives of such governments in creating offshoots of their propaganda channels across the world. For the average Russian, RT in the UK

probably gives a more balanced coverage of European affairs than it does of domestic concerns. Lured by the money and a receptive audience, many a British commentator or politician has been

drawn in to participate, or even host, one of the many shows which create distracting white noise, while blatantly ignoring the notion of impartial coverage. Alex Salmond, for example, took

the gold and happily cosied up to tyrants for the cameras. George Galloway’s presence seems unsurprising, since he has made a career of backing up Britain’s enemies, whether they be

torturers, violent misogynists, religious hardliners, or, preferably, all three, at the earliest chance. Thus it seems that if your promising political career has been mired in controversy,

there’s always a glitzy chair at RT to ease a place into obscurity. Whether it’s the coverage of the Salisbury poisoning or the occasional charade of Russian elections, RT can always be

relied on to provide propaganda, backed up by a batch of newfound sycophants for a mask of reliability. How the station can continue to broadcast, or at least evade Ofcom, in its postures as

an impartial broadcaster, is a mystery. Press TV presents an even more malign spectacle. Unsurprisingly for a station in the pocket of such a regime as Iran’s, it indulges in pernicious

anti-Semitism in its usual guise of criticism of “Zionism” and all of its supposed proponents. Israel of course remains the main enemy, as does the United States and Britain, or at least

their credibility. Often the anti-Semitism is quite open: in 2007 Press TV interviewed the former Green Party candidate Nicholas Kollerstrom, and reprinted an article of his which claimed

there was “never a centrally-controlled program of exterminating Jews in Germany”. He went on to recycle an old piece of Holocaust denial in claiming gas chambers were never used. Jeremy

Corbyn was later questioned on his cash-infused relationship with the broadcaster as he tried to become leader of the country, though I’m not sure whether he should be more ashamed for

appearing on the channel, or they for humiliating their studios for giving him a place. Whatever the case, Corbyn duly paid homage to the line from Tehran on multiple occasions, and took his

place as the insider who was voicing opposition to the allegedly ever-present Israeli influence over the British media and government. “There seems to be a great deal of pressure on the BBC

from the Israeli government,” he informed viewers at one point, going on to say that “I think there is a bias towards saying that Israel is a democracy in the Middle East” and the same bias

towards the notion that “Israel has a right to exist”. None of this is out of the ordinary in the plethora of Corbyn’s anti-Jewish utterances. Yet it took Iran to actually drag a jailed

journalist to read out a confession on air for Britain to take Press TV off the airwaves in 2012. Not that this means they show any signs of stopping their enthusiasm at Corbyn’s shared

priorities. To speak of Zionism disparagingly does not make one an anti-Semite, it’s just that almost everyone who does happens to be one. Press TV’s talking heads are incredibly reliable on

both counts, and their place on Britain’s screens is a vice rightly revoked. The Chinese government already seems poised to retaliate over the ban of CGTN last week. Beijing has,

predictably, accused the BBC of essentially being a propaganda outlet of the UK as well, but the real substance of the case lies in the increasing antagonism from the UK towards Xi Jinping’s

government. While Ofcom followed protocol in revoking the CGTN licence, Downing Street’s attitude towards China shows no sign of softening. Rightly so; the persecution of the Uighur Muslims

plainly constitutes the genocide from which the money and goods from China do much to make Western leaders, and indeed citizens, avert their eyes. As China profits from the global pandemic

it unleashed, fragile Western democracies falter. Pushing back against such channels, and ridding our television screens of sugar-coated propaganda, constitutes a small example of such

pushback. Whether Britain can actually lead Europe in a stand against the genocide remains to be seen. Beijing’s feigned outrage may well cover for their increasing worry about resistance to

Xi’s plan to ingratiate himself with the West. The distinction must always be made between Chinese people and their government, never one and the same thing. Fighting back against such

forces represents a defence of liberal values against which outlets such as CGTN are deployed. Yet, unless leaders can counter China where it really matters, there will always be a

comfortable sofa available from which to praise the People’s Republic for politicians whose careers are receding almost as fast as their hairlines.