I can’t agree with this analogy, RT wasn’t banned before Russia started an invasion.
The difference is that prior invasion it’s a different opinions, after the shooting begins it’s part of the warfare and not a public debate activity.
For example it’s completely okay to claim that Zelensky should go and Ukraine and NATO caused the war, totally not acceptable to claim that Zelenksy left the country and requested amnesty in Poland. At war time yok can’t afford BS like that because the impact can have immediate and irreversible consequences.
There are people alive today who grew up in an India subjugated by the UK. It wasn't so long ago in the grand scheme of things.
Besides, everyone was once invaded by the British.
Objectively, the facts are that the UK once invaded India and some Indians alive today personally experienced that subjugation. But what any of that means or implies is subjective.
This doesn't mean that Indians shouldn't be cautious but gives them an opportunity for healthy debate thanks to input from outside. Because there's no immediate and irreversible dangers, they can counter the British arguments or get something from it to make their own position better.
Asians should flag the British media as foreign, can’t expect British do it for them.
The reporting in the west is certainly ideologically biased with lots of ignorance and naturally often steeped in sensationalism.
Russias reporting is very often an intentional hostile psyops directed by state forces. Whatever take damages western society most is getting air time.
Its the same with western NGOs vs russian influence campaigns.
Those NGOs were in Russia since the 90s and havent changed a bit. Its the russian state that changed in a way that those NGOs are now hostile and detrimental to the cleptocracy. Now they are all banned.
In contrast Russias support of extremist groups in the west has no ideological consistency and is only aimed at doing maximum damage.
Not that you're wrong, they're trying, but we are just so much bigger.
Youtube at least tags BBC videos with "BBC is a British public broadcast service."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20050...
Zelensky then decided to purge him and his entire party, charging him with treason. This led to Kyva making increasingly unhinged claims and recommendations. Among those were that Russia should nuke Ukraine, and that Zelensky had secretly fled to Poland. Some Russian outlets (I cannot find this story on RT, but perhaps I missed something?) ran this story such as here [2].
The article certainly doesn't state it as a fact. Instead it recounts the events in a relatively impartial way - two Ukrainian lawmakers said he fled. Rumors of something similar were spread shortly before the article was published and Zelensky rejected them while providing video evidence of himself in Ukraine. It also mentions that the US reportedly offered to help him escape Ukraine, and also that he rejected the offer. End of article.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illia_Kyva
[2] - https://sputniknews.com/20220304/zelensky-left-ukraine-for-p...
There is a a difference between someone operating as a news channel actively continuously repeatedly spreading misinformation with the intention to undermine a government and a documentation which seem to be mostly correct but unpleasant to hear information.
Also there is a difference between restricting availability in your jurisdiction (country, country union, i.e. case RT) and trying to restrict it beyond that.
While it is questionable banning BBC in India is well in the right of the Indian government, it banning BBC (content) outside of India is on the other hand not something which should be possible/allowed/tolerated.
akin to how Europe has banned RT
It's just that it's more about selective reporting and creating news in a way that people come to conclusions not backed by truth without making up information (tho in practice it's often not that much better then making up information as most people will be tricked into believing misinformation you just never wrote down).
Like for example a reporting about a demo consisting of a march and then multiple speech and announcements at a plaza being written highlighting that extremists taking part in it and making it look as if only a small number people took part in it. But selectively ommiting (or hiding in subtle formulations) that 80+% of protestors where "normal" people and that while the number of people during the march where small the number at the plaza wasn't.
(One of the most stupid parts is that the "independent state media" using such tricks often doesn't realize that this is perfect to convince people of conspiracies and "media is all lies" etc., e.g. in that example they did claim "they lied there where 20 times the number of people (compared to the march) here see picture of plaza" and then backed down later one to "we miscounted it where only 15 times" making many people believe that this (15x) is the truth and media is outright making up things (the truth was 3-4 times of people at the plaza compared to the march)).