There is a small problem however: Sputnik Radio only started broadcasting in the US in June 2017, months after the presidential election.
The letter, signed by Representatives Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Mike Doyle (D-PA) and Frank Pallone (D-N.J), called Sputnik Radio, “a radio network funded by the Russian government, was used as part of the Kremlin’s effort to influence the 2016 presidential election”.
While it already seems fairly naive to suggest that a Russian-operated radio station might outweigh the $1.2 billion that Hillary spent on her campaign, such views do not even take into account that the US mainstream media fully supported Clinton’s campaign.
Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, founder of the House Media Fairness Caucus, has pointed out that 91 percent of Trump campaign coverage was negative, 96 percent of media campaign contributions went to Democrat Hillary Clinton, and 55 percent of the public was weary of the openly anti-Trump bias in press coverage.
But to blame Sputnik Radio, goes beyond fake news and anti-Russian war propaganda, because Sputnik Radio was only started 8 months after the 2016 US presidential election.
In the letter penned by the three US government representatives, they even cite an article from the New York Times, but it seems that they missed some crucial information.
We’re writing in response to recent troubling press reports that a radio network funded by the Russian government may have used U.S. airwaves to influence the 2016 presidential election. We ask that you investigate these troubling reports and apply all applicable laws and regulations to enforce the public interest standard for licensed stations that broadcast this network.
An article published by the New York Times Magazine (9/13/17) titled “RT, Sputnik and Russia’s New Theory of War” suggests that Sputnik, a radio network funded by the Russian government, was used as part of the Kremlin’s effort to influence the 2016 presidential election. In Washington, D.C., listeners can tune their radios to 105.5 FM to hear Sputnik and the Russian government’s effort to spread misinformation to influence U.S. policy and undermine our elections. This means the Kremlin’s propaganda is being broadcast over a license granted by the FCC and the Russian government may be using our country’s own airwaves to undermine our democracy.
The fake news article from the NYT, “RT, Sputnik and Russia’s New Theory of War“ actually later states clearly that Sputnik Radio didn’t start until after the election, but the three Democrats missed that detail.
Clinton’s few rallies were notably poorly attended, which is why she had opted for lavish closed-door fundraisers with wealthy donors and celebrities. Outside these fundraisers, Hillary Clinton’s candidature was met with growing resistance. But inside these closed fundraisers the mainstream media’s pro-Clinton coverage effectively served as free press releases.
The Huffington Post reported, “Theater goes nuts as Hillary Clinton appears in the audience.” Newsweek reported, “Hillary Clinton still receives popular vote…at NYC theater anyway.” The Hill posted a video of the audience cheering. Hello Giggles and Uproxx also reported her appearance in positive press release-like articles. The Washington Post reported the occasion stating that her polling numbers were looking great.
The truth is that Clinton’s popularity was never very high and it has decreased since the election. And it had very little to do with Sputnik Radio or Russia.
The real story is that journalists had openly displayed their bias by contributing to the presidential campaign of Clinton, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.
More than 96 percent of their donations had benefited Clinton: Some 430 people who work in journalism had given to the Democratic nominee.
Meanwhile, the Committee to Investigate Russia, a new “nonprofit effort” designed to “help Americans understand and recognize the scope and scale of Russia’s continuing attacks on our democracy” have declared war on Russia.
To promote the launch, the Neocon board members flooded American cable television on Tuesday. One told CNN, “I don’t know that the public understands the gravity of what the Russians were able to do. […] And so I started reaching out to people who are patriots.”
The committee has released a two-minute video starring the actor Morgan Freeman who famously played Nelson Mandela. Freeman begins the promo by declaring, “We have been attacked. We are at war”… with Russia.
Morgan Freeman says “we are at war” with Russia.
This is ghastly, dangerous rhetoric based on nothing more than baseless hysteria. https://t.co/ZsJFbff8vM
— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) September 19, 2017
Morgan Freeman has been weaponized. https://t.co/OL6EO1IhFN
— Christopher Miller (@ChristopherJM) September 19, 2017
