Thread by @benimmo

Thread on Sputnik, and some of the ways it fulfils its official task of "securing the national interests of the Russian Federation in the information sphere."

Yep, that's a quote.

medium.com/dfrlab/putinat…

@DFRLab #DigitalSherlocks

The company which services Sputnik in the US, RIA Global, registered as a "foreign agent" under FARA.

It says its principal is the Rossiya Segodnya agency, and claims RS "acts completely independently based on its editorial policies."

Really?

Here's a useful document: the Rossiya Segodnya charter, which defines, as one of RS' main goals, "securing the national interests of the Russian Federation in the information sphere."

Acts completely independently?...

Source: fapmc.ru/rospechat/rosp…

Here's the RS director, Dmitry Kiselev, saying that RS "explains Russia's actions," just like Putin does.

Because a journalist is just as much a government spokesman as the head of state, right?

And, as first pointed out by @HuffPost, the RS style guide says that staff must "maintain allegiance to the larger national and public interest" and "stay true to the national interest of the Russian Federation."

National interest, again.

huffingtonpost.com/entry/fbi-docu…

Looking at Sputnik's coverage, it matches that description.

This piece quoted a Russian arms exporter as saying Russia's air defences work "flawlessly" in Syria.

How is that even news, as opposed to advertising?

Here's another gem. Quoting an arms writer as saying that Russian air defences are "second to none."

The original seems to be this piece ria.ru/defense_safety…, only it doesn't mention the phrase "second to none."

Mistake? Misattribution? Or made-up quote?

On the political coverage, here are some Sputnik tags:

"Anti-Russian bias."
"Anti-Russian sentiment."
"Russophobia."

For reference, these are uses of the word "Russophobia" and its variants by Sputnik, RT and the Russian Foreign Ministry, 2011-17.

There's a pattern there.

It's not just the same themes: sometimes, it's the same words.

Compare Sputnik radio hosts in the US with overt Russian government representatives (December 2017).

"Acts completely independently"?

And of course, there's the attempt to smear anyone who exposes what's actually happening on the ground.

Of particular interest here: the source for Sputnik's first ever hit piece on the White Helmets.

A 9/11 Truther site.

Credibility.

Compare that with this quote on Skripal, from an "author".

What kind of author, I hear you ask?

Looks like a 9/11 Truther.

This was Sputnik stock language on Bana Alabed, who lived in Aleppo during the siege. Note the killer opening, "Many have called into question."

How many? Who? From where?

This reads like a paragraph whose whole point is to discredit.

Also worth asking how stories like these secure the national interests of the Russian Federation. Sputnik on Clinton, 2016.

Adding to the joy, misattributed comments.

Malice or incompetence? Sometimes it's hard to tell.

And these are some of the Sputnik headlines and leads on Brexit before the referendum.

"Waffen EU."

Upsum:

Sputnik is an agent of Rossiya Segodnya.

RS's job is to "secure the national interests of the Russian Federation."

Sputnik's coverage fits that mission.

Speaking on behalf of the state is not journalism.

/ Thread ends.