NAB, DirecTV, Google, Others Act Against Russia-Sponsored Content

Media companies and organizations, including Google, DirecTV and the NAB, are taking action against Russian-sponsored content in reaction to the invasion of Ukraine. “The First Amendment protects freedom of speech; however, it does not prevent private actors from exercising sound, moral judgment,” said NAB CEO Curtis LeGeyt in a statement Tuesday, asking all broadcasters to cease airing “state-sponsored programming with ties to the Russian government or its agents.”

The action against RT is a concrete way for media organizations to have an impact on the crisis in Ukraine, said University of Maryland journalism professor Lucy Dalglish, a First Amendment attorney. “This may be the only thing they can do, to not let the Russian empire take over their airwaves.”

DirecTV was planning to drop Russia-sponsored news outlet RT America mid-year, but announced Tuesday it was accelerating that timeline and dropping the channel immediately due to the Ukrainian invasion. Roku said Monday it was removing RT in Europe from the Roku Channel store. Google said Tuesday it was blocking YouTube channels tied to RT and Russia-funded radio programmer Sputnik across Europe. FreeCast’s Select TV virtual MVPD is dropping RT, CEO Bill Mobley emailed. Facebook blocked access across the EU to RT and Sputnik this week, in response, it said, to the EU's and individual governments’ requests. That followed it restricting access to several accounts in Ukraine, including some of Russian state media organizations.

NAB “gets it very wrong by becoming part of the cancel culture and calling upon broadcasters to cease carrying the Russian viewpoint,” said John Garziglia, a retired broadcast attorney and owner of Virginia-based Reston Translator, which rebroadcasts Sputnik. Sputnik and RT didn’t comment.

NAB member stations broadcast misinformation “countless times every day,” but the trade group has never spoken out against them, Garziglia argued: “That the NAB chooses to request suppression of speech by its members only now suggests that it simply wants to be part of a patriotic movement taking vodka off the shelves.” Garziglia said Reston Translator will continue airing Sputnik.

Broadcast industry officials told us fewer than 10 broadcasters but likely fewer than five are currently airing Russian state-sponsored content in the U.S. “While we know that airings of such programs are extremely limited, we believe that our nation must stand fully united against misinformation and for freedom and democracy across the globe,” said LeGeyt in the NAB statement.

Florida company RM Broadcasting defended its decision to continue airing RT content. "One of the fundamental rights that Ukraine is fighting for is freedom of speech and freedom from censorship, and RM Broadcasting is dedicated to the unfettered exchange of information and ideas," the company said in an emailed statement. "The public is explicitly notified throughout the broadcast day of the source of the material, so that people may make an informed decision on whether to listen or turn the dial -- and that freedom of choice is the ultimate underpinning of our republic."

NAB vociferously opposed an FCC rule that would require broadcasters to air disclosures of any foreign-sponsored content and check would-be lessors against federal databases of foreign actors (see 2202280033). Filings from the trade group argued it oversteps FCC authority and violates First Amendment protection. Broadcast industry executives said the industry opposes the burden imposed on stations by the rule, not the disclosures. “We would welcome a revised rule that does not exceed the Commission’s authority while still ensuring uniform and appropriate disclosures,” an NAB spokesperson said. The FCC declined comment.

NAB, DirecTV and other private entities are “well-within their authority” to cease carrying the channels or request that their members do so, said Dalglish, the Maryland journalism professor, who has opposed government agencies using the Foreign Agents Registration Act against state-controlled media. Many broadcasters are also journalism organizations, but Dalglish said she doesn’t see an ethical issue with journalistic outlets acting to silence propaganda arms. “The first thing we teach journalists is to report the truth,” Dalglish said. “That’s not a primary tenet held up by RT, so I don’t see an ethical problem with this.”

Garziglia said he condemns Russia’s “unprovoked aggression” but said the programming could provide viewers with “important hints or information as to the Russian point of view.” To ask that it not be disseminated contradicts the First Amendment, he said. Dalglish said she does see some value in watching RT to see what state-sponsored propaganda looks like, but that doesn’t outweigh the importance of preventing misinformation.

House Communications Subcommittee ranking member Bob Latta, R-Ohio, Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., and other lawmakers we spoke with Tuesday said they’re not aware of any recent Capitol Hill influence aimed at urging media companies to act against RT and other Russian misinformation sources, but nonetheless welcomed the result. “I’ve raised these issues again and again with the FCC” and others but “that was some time ago,” Eshoo told us. She and other Democrats urged the FCC to act against what they called Russian propaganda broadcast in the U.S. before the 2020 election (see 2002130060).

“The broadcasters themselves have been talking” about how to deal with Russian propaganda in recent days and it’s up to media companies to “decide for themselves whether they want to have that on their channels or not,” Latta said. RT “isn’t news, it’s all propaganda that they’re putting out to try to influence the rest of the world,” so it’s a good thing “broadcasters are looking at this and saying it’s not something they want as part of their programming.”

Eshoo "certainly” thinks recent actions by DirecTV, Google and others are justified since Russian President Vladimir Putin “is upending every international law,” Eshoo said. “He’s a pariah in the world community and these companies should not want to be joined at the hip” with him. “It’s a good idea for providers to look at the services that are coming through their systems and if they’re causing harm to people,” said Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Calif. “They have a responsibility to their customers to not allow anything that could be harmful” to appear on their services. RT “does some legitimate news” coverage “but they transmit a lot of disinformation as well,” he said.