06:12 GMT05 December 2020
Listen Live
    Russia
    Get short URL
    0 96
    Subscribe

    UK's media regulator Ofcom is trying to influence the channel's editorial policy by wrongly accusing RT of biased coverage of the Ukrainian military conflict, RT Editor-in Chief Margarita Simonyan believes.

    MOSCOW, November 11 (RIA Novosti) – In accusing RT TV-channel of biased coverage of the Ukrainian conflict, British media regulator Ofcom is trying to influence the channel's editorial policy, RT Editor-in Chief Margarita Simonyan told RIA Novosti Tuesday.

    "Obviously, the accusations of partiality are nothing but an attempt to influence our editorial policy. Every day we see tons of biased materials on the BBC, where the voice of countries and governments running counter to the British position is not heard. No one is about to deprive them [the BBC] of a license," Simonyan said.

    "I can imagine the uproar if Roskomnadzor [Russian Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Telecom, Information Technologies and Mass Communications] was to level similar accusations at the BBC," Simonyan added.

    On Monday, Ofcom issued a message accusing RT of one-sided coverage of the events in Ukraine earlier this year and threatened the TV channel with sanctions.

    In a statement on her Facebook page, Simonyan stressed that the despite the pressure the channel will not change its editorial policy as it remains "the only alternative source of information for our audience in the UK".

    The accusations by Ofcom come right after RT launched its London-based English channel, RT UK on October 30, aimed specifically for the UK audience.

    Related:

    UK Broadcasting Watchdog Accuses RT TV of One-Sided Ukraine Coverage
    RT to Launch UK TV Channel on October 30
    Editor-in-Chief Confirms RT Reporters Come Under Fire in Syria
    Russian, Argentinian Presidents Launch Broadcasting of RT in Argentina
    Hackers Attack RT News Website
    Tags:
    TV channel, RT, Margarita Simonyan, Russia, United Kingdom
    Community standardsDiscussion