With its TV channel under Ofcom investigation, RT’s future in the UK could lie in its irreverent, unregulated website

The poisoning of the former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, in Salisbury is unlikely material for a humorous video. But that didn’t stop the Kremlin-backed broadcaster RT from posting an emoji-laden clip on its viral video strand ICYMI, mocking British journalists’ reporting of the attack and questioning the competence of the perpetrators.

“It’s been a huge novi-cockup,” jokes the presenter Polly Boiko in a plummy British accent, going on to suggest Skripal’s pets – which were locked in his home without food when it was sealed off during the police investigation – were “the true victims” of the saga.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Polly Boiko on Russia Today. Photograph: RT.com

Media coverage of RT has tended to focus on its 24-hour TV news channel, which is under investigation by the regulator Ofcom for seven potential breaches of broadcasting impartiality standards after the Salisbury incident.

What has received less scrutiny is RT’s successful and unregulated online operation, which reaches millions of people each week with its excitable rewrites of mainstream news stories, livestreamed video coverage of protests and constant questioning of anything deemed to be an established news source.

24-hour Putin people: my week watching Kremlin ‘propaganda channel’ RT Read more

“People judge RT by its television output, which is completely the wrong way to judge it as the viewing figures are not very impressive,” said Prof Stephen Hutchings, of the University of Manchester, who is conducting an academic research project on the channel. “Their success is down to their online output.”

Crucial to this success is the tone, exemplified by ICYMI and other parts of RT’s online operation which combine tabloid desire for screaming headlines with the snark and memes associated with internet culture.

“The irreverence is very much part of their strategy,” explained Hutchings. “It’s targeting a youth market for which that kind of irreverent discourse is the norm. They can work with the grain of online culture, they’re very good at that.”

The approach seems to be working. Posts on RT’s English-language Facebook page have attracted twice as many likes, comments and shares in the last three months as those on the Sun’s page, according to data provided by the audience measuring business EzyInsights.



This has been achieved by focusing on extreme topics and conspiracy theories, with headlines that are unlikely to appear elsewhere in more traditional media such as: “Syrians support Assad but BBC won’t report it, British baroness tells RT.” One video speculates about whether concerns raised by US bankers could prompt the US to bomb Iran.

What’s less clear is how much thought goes into this approach. Former employees of the site describe a chaotic workplace staffed largely by inexperienced young journalists, where a bias towards covering fringe political views is often supplemented by a more powerful desire to write anything that would bring in viral traffic.

“It was very much driven by clicks, in terms of how much online traffic an article would generate,” said Olivia, a journalist who spent three months working in RT’s London office at the start of the year, and who asked for only her first name to be published. “There wasn’t really a lot of regard for what was being published so long as it got in the shares and likes and did well on social media.”

This meant a focus on stories that were guaranteed to fire up a particular demographic, ranging from attacks on the BBC to criticism of safe spaces on university campuses. “Anything that is quickly written, gets a lot of clicks, sticks it to the British establishment and is popular with trolls gets commissioned,” said another former RT website employee.

Most staffers said that with the exception of stories on issues such as the war in Syria, RT’s management team were usually more interested in being contrary and chasing traffic than pushing a centrally agreed line from Moscow. One of the ironies of this approach is the extent to which it relies on using original reporting from other outlets, which is then twisted to carry a more incendiary headline. Sometimes the rewritten version will attract more readers than the original source.

“They’ll take a little story about foreign policy in the Guardian, put in some snarky tweets and ramp up the headline,” explained another former RT staffer. “I just remember thinking I don’t know what good journalism looks like but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t look like this.”



Public criticism of RT delights management, according to the former staffers, who say articles in other outlets are held up as evidence that the station is getting under the skin of the perceived media establishment. It was this approach that led to the broadcaster running adverts on the London underground in which it described itself as a “propaganda bullhorn”.

According to Hutchings, the trend means RT’s long-term future in the UK could be as an unregulated online-only publisher that relies on social media for distribution. “They would love for Ofcom to ban them,” he said, suggesting the channel would benefit from the publicity.

Boiko, the ICYMI host, said RT’s audience could understand perfectly well the “concept and the intent” of her team’s videos, which she said offered a “sharp, satirical take on the biggest headlines” and were meant to challenge viewers “to think critically and get them talking – and perhaps smiling – along with us”.

Asked whether she had ever received instructions from RT’s management on how to cover a story, she replied: “No.”