RT and Sputnik’s reaction are further proof of the information manipulation activities denounced in the CAPS-@IRSEM1 report @Defense_gouv @francediplo 
On 4 September, we published a report on information manipulation, which is currently available in French online (the English version will be available soon). Since then, both RT and Sputnik have responded. diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/politique-e…
Let us begin by reiterating that RT and Sputnik are the property of Rossiya Segodnya, which is the Kremlin’s communications organization, whose objective is to “secure the national interests of the Russian Federation in the informational sphere” @benimmo
Responding to our report, they implemented three common methods: a strategy of abundance, saturation of the debate; the distortion of statements and an attempt to discredit.
1/ A strategy of abundance and saturation of the debate. While their response could fit in only one article, RT and Sputnik have to date written no less than 14 articles on our report, which is an average of 2.8 per day.
Their objective is to occupy the space of the debate for as long as possible by covering the subject through various different angles and thus increasing their appearance in search engines.
2/ Distortion of statements. (a) They affirm that we recommend “not accrediting the journalists” of RT and Sputnik, even though we never write this anywhere in the report. Recommendation 19 concerns “foreign propaganda organs.” We then cite the President (p. 184).
(b) In addition, while the report specifies numerous times that it is “not an official position” and that the opinions expressed are only those of the authors, RT and Sputnik speak of an “official report” and simplifies it: “France proposes to…”.
(c) They transformed the issue into one of conflicting “points of view,” while we specifically explain this is not the case:
“We must not condemn the defense of national interests—Russian media have a legitimate right to defend Russian viewpoints, including those of the regime—but the manipulation of information” (report, p. 171)
The problem isn’t that RT and Sputnik defend a Russian point of view; this is strictly their right and we defend pluralism in the media and the diversity of opinions. The problem is that they frequently invent facts, falsify documents, translations or interviews.
The report contains numerous examples of these manipulations, one of the most recent of which was a report on Syria in which RT falsified the translation of a statement given by a witness from Ghouta
They made him say that the chemical attack was simulated, while in reality he was talking about famine... reuters.com/article/france…
There are numerous other examples of these falsifications on specialized websites such as @EUvsDisinfo and @StopFakingNews
(d) RT and Sputnik claim that our report marks the beginning of a “clampdown against the press”… It is ironic that the Kremlin media (148th in the @RSF_en ranking) is concerned about the freedom of the French press (33rd). rsf.org/en/russia
3/ An attempt to discredit. In two ways: (a) on the positioning, by accusations of having a bias. We attended American universities, worked for NATO, CAPS and IRSEM are supposedly “bastions of russophobic neoconservatives,” etc.
Biases are inevitable and those who criticize us also have ones themselves. Let’s stick to the facts. That we attended American universities has nothing to do with the fact RT falsified the translation of a report on Syria, to use this example alone.
The Kremlin media, but also some French media, find another example of anti-Russian bias in the fact that the report does not speak about American interferences and manipulations.
They rely on a list of examples dating from 1965 to 2003, forgetting that the report is not an exhaustive history of state manipulation—the list would be long indeed—but rather an analysis of the ones that confront our democracies today.
(b) The second type of attempt to discredit concerns knowledge. Sputnik wrote an article to correct us on the highly important matter of the origin of the elves, which we had said are located in Lithuania: “Lost! This initiative, although Baltic, actually originates from Latvia.”
This is false. The elves are indeed of Lithuanian origin, even though there are now elves all over the region. thedailybeast.com/the-baltic-elv…
CONCLUSION. In reacting to our report, RT and Sputnik have further illustrated our point. They have relied once again on the methods of amplification and distortion that we denounce.
Our report, like any work, certainly contains some errors and we are prepared to discuss them, but in practicing rational argumentation, using demonstrations and sources, rather than relying on baseless accusations, or even information manipulation. (END)
