Last night, @BBCRadio4 aired a documentary which repeatedly accused me and other academics of spreading Russian disinformation.

In a glaring and twisted irony, this amounted to an apparent smear operation that would not seem out of place on Kremlin media. Here’s why...
In my case, the primary evidence offered for this grossly defamatory allegation was a thread I tweeted on 4th April, in which I called for journalistic caution in reporting on the Bucha atrocities...

This appeal for caution was predicated on the fact that widely reported claims at the time had not been substantiated and were not mentioned in recent posts by local officials following the Russian withdrawal, including the city’s mayor and police department...
Rather than engage with the actual meaning of my tweets, the BBC chose to uncritically endorse obvious manipulation by people who have been actively trying to silence and delegitimise any dissenting viewpoints since the start of the Russian invasion…
The manner in which the programme achieved this was so cynical and unguarded it beggars belief, even for those of us increasingly sceptical about the BBC’s commitment to basic journalistic standards, let alone its own lofty public service values…
For a start, my selectively quoted thread that was the focus of the programme’s lead sequence included an explicit caveat, emphasised in capitals, which the BBC wholesale and deliberately ignored:
“TO BE CLEAR: a civilian massacre may well have occurred for which Russia should be held responsible and accountable, on top of other heinous war crimes”...
In what can only be seen as a deliberate attempt to mislead, mention of this tweet was omitted in spite of the seriousness of allegations made against me based on the content of the thread...
and the fact that I made repeated reference to it in both my interview responses and pre-broadcast reply (which I was not offered but volunteered, having been alerted to absurd and damaging allegations about me put directly to my employer - more on that below)...
The secondary 'evidence' that the programme relied on relates to an allegation that I share material produced by @PLnewstoday, who is embedded in a pro-Russian fighting unit and was accused early on in the conflict of reporting on an allegedly staged attack...
The allegation against me appears to be based on a single tweet on 17 April in which I indirectly shared a video by @PLnewstoday (nothing to do with the alleged staged attack) containing raw footage of an interview with local residents in Mariupol...
That footage appeared to include testimony of a nurse claiming to have witnessed attacks by (neo-Nazi) Azov fighters on local civilians accused of collaborating with the Russians...
Though I am not aware of any evidence casting doubt on its authenticity, my opening tweet of that thread offered this explicit warning: “Of course, it is possible that such interviews are staged or in some way disingenuous”...
Once again, the BBC outrageously made no mention of this obviously relevant tweet and ignored my pre-broadcast reply explicitly highlighting it...
Perhaps worst of all, the programme uncritically featured commentary by former BBC journalist @paulmasonnews who almost laughingly accused me and others of being Putin supporters based on the fact that I've offered a critical perspective on some of the mainstream coverage...
This, in spite of my obvious record of posting and publishing damning critiques of Putin’s regime especially in relation to disinformation, including several tweets since the start of the invasion. And in 2017 - long before Paul showed much interest in Kremlin disinfo...
I wrote that RT’s coverage is conditioned by an overarching narrative that “is nothing more than a cynical exploitation and co-option of progressive discourse aimed ultimately at promoting the regressive and autocratic agenda of Putin…
fpc.org.uk/wp-content/upl…
Of course Paul is much more of a ‘public figure’ than I am, making the BBC’s wholesale failure to offer me any right of reply to his entirely baseless allegations all the more egregious...
In a further ironic twist, the programme gives an unchallenged platform to @mariannaspring, the BBC's specialist disinformation reporter, who accuses me of guilt by 'omission'...
Yet curiously, having been asked repeatedly to give examples of disinformation/false news stories carried in western media, including the BBC, not a single one of these made the programme cut...
In the interview I made reference to this story fed to the Wall Street Journal by Bellingcat which briefly dominated headlines before it was comprehensively debunked by both Ukrainian and US officials... bbc.co.uk/news/world-eur…
And I included reference to this edition of Panorama on antisemitism in Corbyn's Labour, for which there was a total failure of accountability... novaramedia.com/2020/07/22/bbc…
As a matter of practice, I always record such interviews for personal reference. Listening back to the unedited audio, I was reminded of the producer's attempt to stop me discussing the Panorama episode on the basis that it was not 'relevant'...
This, in the midst of a 2.5 hour interview in which I was repeatedly asked for examples of disinformation and propaganda in western media, including the BBC...
and in spite of its obvious relevance to a programme that attempts to critically examine my position that all media - to varying degrees - are vulnerable to disinformation (ridiculously insinuating that this position somehow lends credence to Kremlin propaganda)...
During the interview, the producer was overruled by the programme's presenter @chloehadj, who pointed out (with a wink) that it WAS in fact relevant and that I should be given a chance to explain my views (though of course not sufficiently so to be included in the programme)…
I subsequently attempted to engage with Chloe in polite and reflexive discussion of the programme's themes via email. I asked for her feedback on my analysis of the Panorama programme which she promised (still waiting), and responded courteously to her follow up questions...
We even exchanged emails on the very day that, without mentioning it to me, she put grossly defamatory, personal allegations about me directly to my employer, including this question:
"Is the university aware that Justin Schlosberg is sharing articles containing disinformation about the war in Ukraine and about Coronavirus?"
No cited evidence or examples were provided, despite coronavirus not being mentioned prior, during or after my interview (indeed I'm unaware of any allegations or criticisms about anything I have shared on this topic)...
Of course I complained about this and provided a robust reply ahead of the BBC's stated deadline for inclusion in the programme (last Friday). But in a callous breach of basic editorial standards and the Broadcasting Code, this reply was wholly omitted...
It's inconceivable that this omission, along with key interview responses and tweets which fatally undermined the programme’s preferred narrative, could have been accidental...
@chloehadj acknowledged receipt of my pre-broadcast reply and made clear that much of her ‘research’ for the doc was based on an in-depth analysis of my personal twitter feed…
I’m afraid that seemingly leaves only one alternative: they were omitted in a deliberate attempt not to expose the programme’s vacuous allegations and uncritical endorsement of the government’s repressive agenda on academic freedom...
For the BBC to do this in any context is embarrassing. To do so on a programme about disinformation in a war that has claimed thousands of innocent lives is beyond shameful.
NB I have asked @chloehadj and @bbcpress for a response to these points and will append here if and when I receive it, as well as include in any follow up publication.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Justin Schlosberg

Justin Schlosberg Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jrschlosberg

May 31
Here's a fuller version of what the BBC partially quoted in the article below:

"I’m one of those people who believes first and foremost that the Russian invasion was an act of inexcusable aggression...
I’ve long been very concerned about both the nature and extent of the disinformation strategies and campaigns of the Kremlin under Putin’s leadership. I’ve authored a number of articles and led research in this area...
But I’m also concerned about disinformation that can sometimes come from Western governments, that can sometimes be spread and amplified by western media and I’m particularly concerned in the fog of war about how propaganda can very often be reported as fact."
Read 4 tweets
Apr 28
Thanks for sharing Emma. Some questions if I may (and feel free to ignore or continue discussion offline):

1) Are you aware that Facebook actually altered it's moderation policies following invasion to de-blacklist Azov and allow users to call for violence against Russians?
2) How does that square with your suggestion that moderation policies are not overwhelmingly privileging Ukrainian nationalist/Western narratives?
3) Are you aware of a video posted by a local Ukrainian battalion commander in the aftermath of Russian withdrawal from Bucha which shows him encouraging one of his soldiers to shoot anyone without a blue armband?
Read 10 tweets
Apr 28
The principle blind spot amongst some on the left is that Russia was 'provoked' into war with Ukraine or that the invasion was a defensive move against NATO expansion and US imperialism...
This is a conceptual trap that not only overlooks the callous cynicism behind Putin's decision to invade, but also that 'security' has been the pretext for asserting regional dominance and waging wars of imperial conquest since the Romans.
Journalists have a responsibility not to reduce war to simplistic binaries of good vs evil, in either direction.

The only real struggle is between state-corporate power (which transcends the East/West divide) and the oppressed many.
Read 4 tweets
Apr 22
There is now very little difference between platform censorship in Russia and the West.

This individual appears to have been silenced by Facebook simply for sharing an article critical of US foreign policy in the middle east...
Even in the grip of post 9-11 patriotic fever and the Bush-Blair rush to war, there was nothing like the chilling of free speech that we are witnessing today...
Far worse than the censorship itself is the response of virtually all professional journalists, liberal-left politicians and even civil society groups, who are either standing by in silent complicity or actively encouraging it...
Read 6 tweets
Apr 17
There have been several accounts like this entirely absent from mainstream news coverage. Of course it's possible such interviews are staged or in some way disingenuous. But that's true of all such accounts in the thick of war...
Bottom line is there's no more reason to disbelieve this woman's heartfelt and shocking account of brutal, targeted attacks on civilians by Azov, than any of the opposing views featured on the likes of BBC...
The question is not who is telling the truth, but why are mainstream journalists only interested in one version of the truth?
Read 7 tweets
Apr 9
If you want to understand the phenomenon of media amnesia and how respectable, liberal news outlets can become swept up in war-time propaganda, compare and contrast these two articles from @guardian 18 months apart...
The first reports on Facebook's hosting of "Neo Nazi network with UK links" and @CCDHate's warning that Azov - a "neo-nazi extremist movement" - is recruiting far-right activists in the UK to fight in the Ukraine conflict...

theguardian.com/technology/202…
The second, published 13 March this year, describes Azov as one of the "volunteer brigades that fought the separatists in the 2014 war", that simply "had far right affiliations", and has "since been folded into the Ukrainian national guard"...
theguardian.com/world/2022/mar…
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(