RT bashes Turkey, but omits mentioning Assad regime's misdeeds

Russian-based international news outlet Russia Today (also known as RT) has been caught omitting key information in a live news broadcast.

In a clip that has since been posted onto RT's Youtube account, anchor Gayane Chichakayan talks of the tensions between the US and Turkey (and they are building) over airstrikes on Kurdish sites, and the clip referenced a press release from France. A snapshot is shown below.

The "..." significant. RT has omitted some words linking the whole quote together

(Source: RT YouTube)

After a short investigation, Left Handed Dude discovered the original source of the French quote, linked here. It is a press release from the official France Diplomatie website, where the French government shows concerns over the continuous bombardment of Syrian people. The piece is quoted as follows:

"France expresses its concern at the continued deterioration of the situation in the region of Aleppo and northern Syria"

Here is the really important bit that RT took the quote from

"It [France] calls for the immediate cessation of the bombing, those of the regime and its allies across the country, and those of Turkey in the Kurdish areas"

RT chose to neglect mentioning the subject the French referred to primarily: Bashar al-Assad and his allies, and their attempts to crush dissent in Syria. Instead, the channel chose to use the French press release to make Turkey the sole focus of attention. Except they haven't gotten away with it.

Maarat al-Numan and Azaz struck

Source: BBC News website

RT's omission comes, just as news has filtered through that 3 Syrian hospitals had been struck yesterday, 2 in Maarat al-Numan, and 1 in Azaz, a town close to the Turkish border, and a Kurdish stronghold.

Azaz is shown here to be under Kurdish control (at least according to this map sourced from the BBC), on the border with Turkey. Maarat al-Numan is not shown but is located in the cream-coloured region beneath Idlib. The cream colour indicates the region is under rebel control.

Maarat al-Numan has been held by the Syrian Free Army, following a lengthy skirmish in 2012-13. The strikes on both hospitals have reportedly killed 22 people, as reported by CNN

Following the hospital attacks, Medecins Sans Frontieres claimed it believed the Syrian regime or the Russians were responsible, as reported here. No independent confirmation has been made yet, the BBC added.

A limited ceasfire is supposed to go into operation on 19th February. Left Handed Dude will keep an eye on developments as they come.

What is RT?

RT celebrated its 10th anniversary in December 2005, and started properly broadcasting to the US in 2009, and then a UK version, RT UK, was launched in 2014.

The British Audience Research Bureau, which compiles UK TV viewing figures, claims that the RT channel had a total quarterly audience reach of 2.57m viewers in the third quarter of 2015, according to its most recent audit (link here).

The Russian government reportedly spent 21bn Rubles to fund it in 2015, but cut that down to 19bn Rubles for 2016. With oil and gas making up a large proportion of Russian government revenues, and the price of oil having crashed over 75% in USD terms, cuts are being made all over the place.

The outlet's YouTube account has been up and running since 2009, when the channel began regularly broadcasting content in the US. Secretary of State John Kerry has called RT a "propaganda bullhorn" and below is evidence of some of RT's kookier material.

RT has come under fire, especially since the start of armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine back in early 2014. The international community considered the events in Crimea as an annexation, but RT refrained from using the term itself.

Ofcom has been frequently warning RT about broadcasting unbalanced news, at least on UK screens. It is doubtful RT is changing its angle anytime soon.

Examples of the anti-Western angle shown by RT are evident, based on the coverage of Russia's sanctions and its economic troubles.

Russia was hit by sanctions, from the EU and the United States following the annexation of Crima but RT spun the sanctions as useless (regular RT guest Gerald Celente called them "toothless" here) and beneficiary to the Russian economy.

This all came, despite the fact that the Ruble has more than halved in value since 2014, the Russian economy has slumped into a recession, and Russian consumers have been stifled by high inflation.

The Indy and Indy on Sunday to cease print publication in March

Today's edition of the Indy. Photo by Peter Adams

It has been confirmed that the Independent and Independent on Sunday newspapers are to cease printing in March. Launched in 1986, the papers have been owned by Alexander Lebedev since 2010.

It is understood that the Indpendent/IoS are to become the first British national newspapers to become fully digital. This all comes just 5 months after it was reported Independent newspaper increased its cover price by 20p.

The paper's spin-off publication, the i Newspaper is reportedly going to be sold by Mr Lebedev, to Johnston Press, for a deal worth £25m, as reported by the Guardian.

The i newspaper has experienced more fortune than its mother paper. The i was launched in October 2010, as a cut-price alternative to the Independent, known affectionately by its readers as "the Indy".

The i started with a cover price of 20p from Mondays to Fridays, but in recent times, it has extended its print run to Saturdays, and the cover price has risen to 40p for week-day editions.

It's the first major closure of a printed national newspaper, since the complete closure of the News of the World, amidst the phone hacking scandal in July 2011.

An audit by ABC back in June 2015 revealed the possible reason for the 20p cover price hike, and was grim reading. The audit confirmed that the Indy had seen a tumble in print readership.

In the middle of 2015, the audit found that the Indy had readership of approximately 57k readers per issue, compared with over 220k readers for editions of the i newspaper. Some sources have reported that the Indy's readership has fallen by an eye-watering 85% since its peak in 1990.

The move into a wholly-digital format will be a exciting new venture for the Indy, but many have turned to Twitter, to voice their sadness at the shift.

US Presidential election: New Hampshire caucus

CC image courtesy of Ida-Mae Astute on Flickr

(NOTE: I wrote the bulk of this piece before results were announced for New Hampshire. The article is concluded with info about that too)

The US Presidential election has shifted to the next big battleground state of New Hampshire. As the election gets inexorably closer, things get prickly. To get to the top, politicians require sheer strength of will.

The latest round of debates represent a shift towards a more darker side of politics. Only one of the dozen people currently running is actually going to sit in the Oval Office by this time next year. Let's have a look and see who's come out fighting, and who's struggling to stay afloat.

Democrat debate in New Hampshire

With Martin O'Malley dropping out of the Democrat field following a poor showing in Iowa, it's a two-horse race now. Voters must choose: Feel the Bern, or Vote Hillary.

This time 8 years ago, Mrs Clinton was beginning to struggle against the young and charismatic Barack Obama. During the 2008 primaries, many felt the blows dealt by Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton were probably a tad too much.

Some of the biggest zingers in NH this time round were related to Mrs Clinton's perceived  closeness to Wall Street. Mr Sanders reached out to viewers with this zinger:

"The Middle Class bailed out Wall Street in their time of need...now it is Wall Street's time to help the Middle Class..."

Mrs Clinton chose to focus on the achievements accrued during the Obama Presidency, when she chose to speak of the Affordable Care Act; the government has intervened, to ensure that a large chunk of the population, who reside on the lower end of the income scale, has access to affordable health care.

"I want to build on it...", said Mrs Clinton. "...Get costs down, get prescription drug costs down. Senator Sanders wants us to start all over again...It is helping people right now".

(Post-caucus update)

Senator Sanders went on to win New Hampshire, with about 60.9% of votes, to Hillary Clinton's 38.2%. Polls in the run-up to the result indicated Mr Sanders would beat Mrs Clinton, but the margin had widened somewhat on the actual night itself.

Current score: Senator Sanders in the lead, with 36 delegates, with Mrs Clinton trailing close behind on 32 delegates.

The GOP corner

Where shall we begin. It was unintentionally funny really. Take a look at this moment of TV gold.

The awkwardness began even before the debate began! It was when the candidates were filing onto the stage during the live broadcast that Ben Carson seemingly panicked. He just stopped in the wings, and refused to come on, even though he had a camera right on him.

But never fear! Donald Trump is here! He got called onto the stage, but noticed this bizarre moment of panic by Mr Carson, and kindly stopped to stand awkwardly with Carson in the wings briefly.

Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio got called up, and just strolled through the wings, as if nothing was wrong.

It took until Jeb Bush was called onto the stage that it became painfully funny.

He awkwardly had to maneuver past the pair, as if it was a secondary school corridor, and they were the jocks and Mr Bush was the nerdy-stereotype kid, on the way to the next lesson.

The highlight of the Republican debate in NH was the epic fall from grace by Marco Rubio. Watch the horror unfold in the video below.

Admittedly, he didn't have far to fall, given that he has never actually been able to steal the limelight from the Donald during the campaign.

In Iowa, he surprised some by coming third, but the NH debate was a comedown of sorts, or at least an adjustment back to reality, after a bubble, following Iowa.

Mr Rubio answered a direct question with a scripted but typical and easily-forgettable answer. It should have been fine after that:

"And let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing, he knows exactly what he's doing" he said.

What happened next was something of a 404 Error/cannot compute moment for Mr Rubio. He somehow ended up saying a rehashed version of the phrase later on. Chris Christie noticed, and ripped him for repeating, and as a result, painted him as a Washington automaton.

All Rubio could do was repeat the assertion another time, but the damage was done. The audience were cheering, and now the "Marco Rubio is a robot" idea has stuck, at least for the time being.

On the caucus night itself, Donald Trump came first with 35.3%. It's Mr Trump's first proper victory over his fellow competitors, and most of the other Republican contenders failed to get into the double digits for a poll share.

Two contenders chose to drop out of the race today, following a dismal showing in both Iowa and NH. At the time of writing, Carly Fiorina and Chris Christie have suspended their campaigns.

What's the score now? Trump leads the field with 17 delegates, to Ted Cruz's 11.

Final remarks

NH was a bit of a wacky caucus, in this lengthy race to elect the 45th President of the United States. On the Democrat side, Senator Sanders has shown resilience, despite the assumption by many that establishment candidate Hillary Clinton will sweep him aside.

At this point, let's assume the Clinton campaign will pip Senator Sanders, but by a slim margin. Enough to remind her how close she was to losing it all, for a second time.

The Republican side is a mess. The two frontrunners, Trump and Cruz, are the savage wolves in the sheep farm. They are tearing chunks out of each other, and dirtying the reputation of the GOP as they do it.

All the establisment GOP types can do is sit and watch as the GOP makes itself unelectable for another 8-year cycle. Probably time to get a good long book and set an alarm for 2024 perhaps?

US Presidential election update: What is going on?

Why the long face? 

Photo by Michael Vadon / CC BY

Here in the UK, the Prime Minister is bound a fixed term of five years. When the allotted time runs out,  they tend to dissolve Parliament in late March or early April.

The campaign is short and sharp, with the whole charade finished by the first week of May (usually).

The average US Presidential campaign lasts 18 months. In that time, you could gestate an elephant. Hilary Clinton announced her intention to run for President, as a Democrat nominee all the way back in April 2015. 

Donald Trump, the scourge of anyone with two brain cells to rub together (and hairstylists for that matter) announced his run at Trump Tower, back in June 2015.

The election is about 9 months away, (enough time to gestate a person) but people are being assaulted by a new tranche of news from across the Atlantic.

In a corner of the United States, called the great state of Iowa, the Presidential nominees are finally submitting themselves to the democratic process.

For the first time in this long-running campaign, Republican and Democratic Party members are holding caucuses to elect their party's main candidate to receive the keys to the White House, from President Obama.

It's not like the UK's election cycle at all. Here, we have our MPs, and the party leader is the MP that has the most support from their peers.

In the US, you have the House of Representatives, and the US Senate. Presidential candidates can come from these two houses, or they can do a Donald Trump, and simply come from the private sector, and put themselves forward.

How did it all pan out this week?

The Democrat caucuses were quite simple. There was the assumed front-runner, Hilary Clinton, facing off against self-described democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, plus the distant third hopeful, Martin O'Malley.

Mrs Clinton is listed as the assumed front-runner, because she really did seem like she would sweep into this race, without any major contenders.

For a time, it seemed unclear whether Elizabeth Warren would run against her, but then she ruled herself out.

Entering into this race, Mrs Clinton was probably thanking her lucky stars that she wasn't facing a youthful, charismatic rival, similar to Barack Obama. 

Then Bernie Sanders entered into the race. Slow to catch fire at first, Mr Sanders has now been able to catch up with Mrs Clinton, and the results for the Iowa caucus for the Democrats were much closer than people could have imagined.

Mrs Clinton came first, but secured 49.8%, compared to Mr Sanders, who managed to garner 49.6%. Spare a thought for Martin O'Malley, who secured just 0.6%.

Mr O'Malley quit the race after Iowa, so it's now a two-horse race for the Democrats.

There was a debate between Mrs Clinton and Mr Sanders on MSNBC the other night. Expect to see a post about the debate and its fallout imminently.

What about the Republicans?

This leaves us with the literal elephant in the room: the Republican caucus. What a night that was.

Like the 2011-12 Republican primary campaign, the 2015-16 one has produced a large number of contenders, and they don't seem to be showing much signs of dropping out anytime soon.

You might remember previous Left Handed Dude posts in 2015 about Mr Trump, back when he commanded sizeable leads in opinion polls over his rival contenders.

The Iowa caucus has been something of a brutal wakeup call to Mr Trump. He came second with 24.3% of votes, when all the polls indicated he would win. Pipping him to the post was fellow anti-establishment right-winger Ted Cruz, who won 27.6% of votes.

Coming in third was Marco Rubio at 23.1%, and the other candidates were unable to muster vote shares higher than 10%. They ranged from Ben Carson's 9.3% all the way down to Rick Santorum's measly 1%.

At the time of writing, much hot air has been expended over claims that Ted Cruz's campaign published untrue stories about Mr Carson having quit the race, as the caucus was ongoing.

Here is a clip from MSNBC, which includes an apparent recording of someone announcing the fake story.

If the allegations are true, it will be one of the first incidents during this long campaign, where a sitting candidate will have become victim to dirty tactics.

Mr Trump claimed he felt "honoured", but was also reported to have admitted that skipping the previous televised GOP primary debate might have harmed him in the Iowa caucus.

It's interesting to see that Trump has now confirmed he's chosen to turn up to the next Fox News debate, in March.

Maybe his campaign is more vulnerable than people thought, after the prolonged oxygen of publicity? Maybe it was just built on sand?

Flashback: The Gang of Four (1981)

It's early 1981, 25th January 1981 to be precise. The Labour Party has had a new leader, in the form of Michael Foot for a number of months, and he has subsequently shifted the party to the left. Foot is an anti-nuclear leader, and was party of Labour's 1945 landslide intake. Some of his PLP colleagues are restless.

The frustration reaches fever pitch. It suddenly boils over and then they break cover. Four Labour MPs, (Shirley Williams, David Owen, Roy Jenkins and Bill Rodgers), the so-called Gang of Four announce they are leaving the Labour Party, to establish the "Council for Social Democracy".

Two months later, this unusual organisation blossoms into the Social Democratic Party, or SDP. This pivotal moment in postwar British politics comes to be known as the Limehouse Declaration.

Implications of a Labour split

The Limehouse Declaration was a brave move, but not necessarily a wise one, with hindsight. Unshackled by the strains of being led by a disagreeable leader, the Gang of Four seemed to have managed to fill a perceived vacuum in British politics.

Somewhere, amid all the Tory-led calls for spending cuts galore, and the Labour-led calls to scrap Trident, they believed there was a neglected third way.

The SDP soon realised, however, that it lacked the sheer magnetism of a pre-established party, and so it was only natural for the SDP to form an alliance with the Liberal Party, from days of old.

The Liberals had once been a party of government (in the Victorian/Edwardian era), but by 1981, they were a diminished force.

Labour had absorbed much of their voter base by this point. Then along came the SDP. The two parties got cosy, but it took until 1988 for a merger to take place.

At last, the two parties could run for office under a single leader, and they became known hereafter as the Liberal Democrats.

The problem is that the SDP/Liberal alliance failed to inspire much enthusiasm, and when Labour eventually shifted to the centre under Neil Kinnock, they actually ended up splitting the leftist/centre left vote. As a result, you could argue that the Thatcher era was a product of the left/centre left not getting its act together.

But what about now?

At present, it is fair to say that there is some sort of residual restlessness within the Labour Party, following the election of new leader Jeremy Corbyn. Former Shadow Cabinet minister Rachel Reeves used an interview on today's Daily Politics to claim that Mr Corbyn was guilty of a "dereliction of duty".

Reeves also claimed that Labour was making a mistake, in shifting against Trident. In her view, "They [the party leadership] have opened up this issue of Trident. There wasn't an issue in the country".

Reeves simply doesn't believe the country is particularly anti-Trident, and that Labour is becoming too introverted; she is implying that it is choosing to talk about what it wants to talk about, which isn't the same thing  as what the electorate are worried about.

Could there be a 1981-style split? It's the 35th anniversary of the Limehouse Declaration, but all we seem to be seeing is the occasional gossip about disquiet amongst PLP members.

This comes, along with hearsay about the possibility of some move against Mr Corbyn, but only if Labour peforms poorly in the local and mayoral elections in the spring.

Some of the gossip has implied that action against Mr Corbyn might not even take place until after the EU referendum, and we don't even know when that is going to take place!

Gossip is worth bearing in mind, but at present, it's just that; gossip, and as we know, gossip is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. The moderate movers and shakers are just talking at the moment.

Nothing concrete has been done by Labour moderates to depose Corbyn, but they seem to have learnt from past mistakes; now is no time for a new SDP.

At least not yet, that is. They are sitting tight, waiting for the next big gaffe. There may be many more, before they get the straw that breaks the camel's back.

It's a question of whether they take the gamble of cashing in now, and creating a new party, or sticking with what they know, and trying to influence proceedings from inside.

Syria airstrikes to go ahead

The government got its way in the House of Commons last night. The motion, to begin air strikes against ISIL in Syria passed with a majority of 174. 67 Labour rebels went into the Aye lobby, against Mr Corbyn's wishes, and sealed the fate of many people in a faraway place.The Ayes had it, the Ayes had it.

Last night's debate in the House of Commons was truly one of the most dramatic moments in recent political history. The population at large is roughly split down the middle, about whether we should get involved in Syria.

The Prime Minster was rebuked on multiple occasions for labelling Mr Corbyn and the anti-strike group as "terrorist sympathisers". A video has already gone viral, showing 12 MPs (Mr Corbyn included) asking Mr Cameron to apologise. Mr Cameron was resolute, despite one MP even commenting that apologising would greatly "improve his standing" in the house.

Mr Corbyn presented the case against strikes, scrutinising the claims that 70,000 moderates are willing to assist in the fight against ISIL. He noted that "it is quite clear that there are no such forces". He continued, stating that

it is quite clear that there are no such forces.

Hilary Benn, Shadow Foreign Secretary, made a memorable speech in favour of strikes. During his speech, Mr Benn dubbed ISIL "fascists", who "hold our values in contempt...our belief in tolerance and decency...our democracy...the means by which we will make our decision tonight...in contempt".

Mr Benn ended his speech, to loud cheers from both sides of the house. As Mr Benn turned to sit down on the frontbenches, Mr Corbyn had to shuffle from side to side awkwardly, stony-faced, to make room for him. It serves as a perfect metaphor for what just happened. For a moment, it was as if Mr Benn was the leader, and Mr Corbyn was just an observer, a victim to the events about to unfold.

Parliament prepares to vote on airstrikes

As Parliament buzzes with nervous MPs, preparing to vote on airstrikes in Syria, ISIL watches and waits. Like some carcinoma, a cancerous growth or an ink blot strewn over the Middle East, ISIL is already under siege.

A broad coalition of countries, Britain included, are already bombing Iraq to smithereens, in a bid to isolate what the Prime Minister has repeatedly called a "death cult".

Why does Britain's possible involvement in Syria matter? One of the things that could be a real gamechanger, if we enter into strikes on Syria is our capabilities.

Britain possesses Brimstone missile systems. Brimstone missiles are rocket-powered, and radar-guided. It is understood Brimstone missiles are good at hitting small targets.

Proponents for UK involvement will argue that we might be able to target high-profile targets, and effectively decapitate ISIL in a matter of days.

However, things start to get messy, when you inquire into the government's plans for a post-conflict Syria. There are supposedly 70,000 moderate fighters, willing to aid us, once we start bombing Syria.

However, the government has actually admitted that extremists might have joined the ranks of these "moderates". The situation on the ground in Syria is far from black and white.

We have to remember that Syria has been at war with itself; a bloody civil war for about four years. Attempts by the government to launch strikes against President Assad failed in 2013. Now a death cult has exported terror from one continent to another.

Boko Haram and al-Shabaab pledged allegiance to ISIL, a few months ago. They're now essentially an extension of ISIL, inflicting pain and misery on a new horizon.

MPs are debating about airstrikes right at this moment. As many as 50-99 Labour MPs are likely to defy Mr Corbyn, and vote with the government, for air strikes. As we saw in 2003, the big two parties are still broad churches of opinion, with a lot of overlapping ideals.

We're going to hear people attempt to make compelling arguments today, about why we should entangle ourselves in another costly intervention, to root out a menace that was essentially created out of the chaos, caused by our last entanglement in the Middle East.

We're also going to hear people insist that bombing is not the answer; not now, not ever. The problem with adopting a resolute pacifist stance is the following. If you value your life, how long are you willing to endure someone slapping you in the face, and if you believe you shouldn't strike back to stop them, what words can you say to stop them?

What seems to have disappointed some is the fact that Hilary Benn, son of Stop the War campaigner and former MP, the late Tony Benn, is in favour of strikes.

Despite the headline-grabbing drama of Mr Corbyn seeming to lose control of his party over this issue,  most Labour MPs are actually likely to vote alongside him. The stumbling block is just the sheer numbers. The rebellious Labour MPs are all it takes for the government to get its majority in the vote.

Thousands took to the streets, to protest against strikes, last week, echoing the estimated 3 million people who came out in protest against Tony Blair's Iraq invasion vote.

Our political system is stuck in a sticky Catch 22: either we strike Syria, and risk pushing another country over the brink, or we don't strike, and have to come up with another way of combatting ISIL.

The clock is ticking.