Is blocking Russian media the best strategy?

Western governments are stepping up their efforts to block Russian news media. They fear that that Russian propaganda directed at their citizens, apparently targeting elections in the West and social stability as a whole, is a threat to their national security.

It’s not a good look when governments that claim to champion freedom of the press begin broad censorship efforts. But are such actions nonetheless justified in the case of Russian media? 

Within days of Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the European Union ordered its 27 member nations to cut off citizens’ access to Russia’s RT television channel and its Sputnik news agency on the grounds that they threatened “public order and security.”

Others followed suit. Canada and Britain have banned RT. Major U.S. cable networks have dropped it. Moldova and Kazakhstan have blocked some Russian channels and websites.  

Now, the EU has extended its ban to four more outlets spreading Russian narratives: the RIA-Novosti news agency, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, Izvestia and the Voice of Europe.

Advocates of such measures say these Russian outlets are news in name only. They argue that while their coverage mimics the style of Western news channels and websites, their content is unremittingly pro-Russian. Russian outlets, they say, mix truths, tendentious arguments and outright falsehoods in a bid to undermine the cohesion and morale of the populations they target. 

Russian officials retort that censorship simply exposes the hypocrisy of countries that claim to be democratic. RT unsuccessfully fought the EU’s 2022 ban in court, claiming infringement of freedom of expression.

Some Westerners also oppose banning Russian media. They argue that doing so breeds curiosity that could actually bring the outlets new followers; that the impact of Western media still overwhelms that of Russian outlets; that declaring any journalist an enemy threatens all reporters; and that watching a little RT is unlikely to turn most people into fans of Vladimir Putin.

Russia itself blocks thousands of Western television channels and websites, but Moscow has never claimed to value a free information environment. Soviet and Russian ideology have long asserted that Western media, despite their claims of objectivity, ultimately serve the interests of their governments. Given that view, Russian officials consider it natural that their own outlets should advance Russian narratives and support their homeland. As RT chief editor Margarita Simonyan has stated, “When Russia fights, we are on Russia’s side.”

Western attempts to bar Russian media are indeed sometimes successful, but the blockages are hardly airtight. In the EU, orders to shut down Russian channels and block websites must pass through a long chain of national governments and telecom companies, whose compliance can be spotty. When Moldova banned six Russian channels, many Russian programs simply moved to channels that hadn’t been censored. Russian outlets use copies of their banned sites and other devices to evade the bans. Or, to put it in Simonyan’s words, “We spit on your sanctions.”

Even if the blockages of specific Russian outlets were complete, Russian narratives would still reach citizens through social networks and a dense ecosystem of other pro-Russian websites. Other limitations also exist. Counter-disinformation officials in the EU and member nations are reluctant to go after outlets that have not been specifically named in EU legislation. Moreover, pro-Russian websites and social media accounts may be operated by EU citizens, who have a right to their own freedom of speech.

To boot, the EU’s latest ban is puzzling in its timing and targets. The EU said only that the four are directly or indirectly controlled by the Russian government, support the invasion of Ukraine and stand for “the destabilization of its neighboring countries.” These outlets, however, are not widely known in Europe. Some operate only in Russian, although they can be read by diaspora populations.

And while the EU announcement accused Russia of election interference, the ban came only three weeks before the European Parliament elections. When questioned, an EU spokesperson said the reasons for the timing and choice of outlets were confidential.

If Russian media outlets are truly a security risk, though, is there an alternative to simple censorship? There is. Governments and pro-democracy non-profits could work first to make clear that the outlets are distributing Russian government arguments. Many viewers may mistakenly believe that RT is just another European news channel. This might have been the intention behind the network’s name change in 2009 from Russia Today to simply RT.

“Naming and shaming” can also help. French President Emmanuel Macron, for instance, has denounced RT and Sputnik by name, although few other Western leaders have. However, some experts counsel against giving additional publicity to an adversary’s information sources. 

The real lasting solution, however, starts closer to home. Western media need to rededicate themselves to accurate, objective news coverage. If citizens are convinced that their own major news sources are unbiased, they will have no reason to seek out fringe sources of news, Russian or otherwise.

Thomas Kent is a senior fellow for strategic communication at the American Foreign Policy Council and a specialist in Russian propaganda.