RT Expert View: In the eye of the beholder

02 November, 2008, 01:29

This week RT solicits views on Russia’s image in the Western media. Some foreign commentators seem to be eager to see a ‘sinister Kremlin plot’ whenever there is even the slightest chance to blame the world’s woes on the Russian Government.

Peter Lavelle, RT’s political expert and anchor

“Western media has little to be proud of regarding its Russia coverage as of late. Lawyer Karina Moskalenko, representing Anna Politkovskaya's family interests, was found to be an innocent and unfortunate victim of mercury poisoning – not a Kremlin political target. There was a lot of noise when this story broke, but I haven't noticed anyone making a retraction when the truth was revealed.

”Then the BBC televised a report refuting its original interpretation of the South Ossetian conflict. The report claimed to ‘path-breaking’. It was not. A fair and balanced view of the conflict can be easily found – though not in Western mainstream media.

“Can we now expect the mainstream to be a little more careful when reporting on Russia? The same prejudice and bias will probably remain, but maybe there will be a better attempt to check some basic facts before a lot of ink is wasted.”

Sergei Roy, editor, www.guardian-psj.ru.

“Russian journalists, and those in the West who still have some illusions about their profession, often grow indignant about what some call gross misrepresentation of facts about Russia in the mainstream Western media, and what others, less diplomatically inclined, call barefaced lies.

”These feelings, and epithets, are humanly quite understandable, but, in my hard-gained opinion, are rooted in misunderstanding. The fact of the matter is that, as far as Russia is concerned, what is known as the mainstream Western media is simply not in the business of reporting facts and objectively analyzing them. It is rather part of an intensive propaganda warf waged against Russia, and should be treated as such.

“If any proof of this simple truth were needed, the behaviour of the Western media during the US’s Georgian puppet’s aggression against South Ossetia in August this year provided mountains of it.

“In fact, a chap called Yasha Levine even offered an analysis of the propaganda warfare during that time (see ”The CNN Effect: Georgia Schools Russia in Information Warfare” at http://exiledonline.com, August 13, 2008) and came up with the conclusion that Georgia beat Russia hands down in what he refers to as ‘psyops’.
 
“In my response to this analysis (see ‘Who Fought the Propaganda War Against Russia?’ at www.guardian – psj.ru, under Editor’s Column) I pointed out that he was wrong on at least one point. It was not Russia’s information machine pitted against Georgia’s – it was the combined political machines of the Russophobic West and its media empires that Russia was – and still is – up against.

“Levine’s paper itself provided ample evidence of this. Its title is ”The CNN Effect,” remember? So far as I know, CNN is not a Georgian company. It merely plunged into the fray on Saakashvili’s side with extreme ardour, resorting to cheap, vicious tricks like showing footage of Tskhinval destroyed by US-armed-and-trained Georgian troops while saying they were pictures of the Georgian town of Gori destroyed by Russians. If that’s journalism, it’s lousy journalism. If it’s propaganda warfare, it’s excellent propaganda warfare – until the lies are shown up for what they are. Only propaganda warriors are not unduly worried about that sort of thing: by the time they are found out, they will be ready with more lies – pardon me, with other psyops.

“The other day we were treated to yet another stunt from the psyops bag of tricks. I’d be inclined to call it ”delayed reaction objectivity.“ More than two months after the event, when the truth about what happened to Tskhinval on August 8/9 had found its way into quite a few media outlets already, the BBC showed a ‘path-breaking’ film about the nocturnal bombardment of the sleeping city and the horrors that followed.

”Sure, the BBC could pat itself on the back for being so awfully objective – provided, of course, that people’s memories do not go back even two months. Well, mine does. I vividly recall BBC World’s footage of a nationalistic rally in Tbilisi during the five-day war. Not satisfied with offering the public generous helpings of Saakashvili’s crazed rhetoric, ‘journalist’ Liz Doucet did her best to repeat them verbatim, with all suitable fervour, to ram the points her hero had made into the viewers’ hearts and minds. A fat lot she cared about the hundreds of civilians slain in their sleep on her hero’s orders.

“Instead of being ‘professional and objective’ nearly three months after the event, the BBC could have borrowed some Russia Today on-the-spot footage of events as they were unfolding – and showed it then.

“But that would have been poor propaganda warfare. And in this, it’s all tricks. No treats.”

Patrick Armstrong retired in 2008 after 30 years as an analyst for the Canadian government, specialising in the USSR and then Russia.

”The mainstream media claims that it is objective and carefully checks facts. In numerous cases these claims have been shown to be false. This is one of the reasons why it is leaking credibility, audience, profits and stock value.

“Bias and sloppy reporting on Russia is, therefore, a specific example of a more general problem. Two examples this year show the rapidity with which stories are spun. When Badri Patarkatsishvili was found dead in February in his house in England, the Daily Telegraph wrote: ‘While the investigation into the death of Mr Patarkatsishvili – a sworn enemy of Russian President Vladimir Putin – remains at an early stage, even speculation that the Russian state could be involved will fan diplomatic flames.’ But Patarkatsishvili was the enemy of Georgian President Saakashvili, not Putin. Once the Telegraph learned that, the story sank from view: evidently the unexpected death of the principal enemy of a ‘democrat’ like Saakashvili is not news. The Moskalenko case likewise had a sudden resolution. But a quick Google search shows the damage has been done and the vague suspicion that Putin poisons people he doesn’t like remains.

”Many Russians believe that there is an ‘information war’ directed against Russia. They would observe that virtually every source of the Litvinenko story, and almost everyone involved, was working for Boris Berezovsky and that he has stated his desire to overthrow the authorities in Russia by any means necessary. Orion Strategies has a contract from the government of Georgia to influence opinion in the USA and one of its owners is an advisor to John McCain. And how many other lobbies are there with surreptitious influence on editors and politicians? There are anti-Russian forces at work shaping the spin.

“But one should not forget the attraction of the easy story. For many, Russia is an enemy and that is always the easy way to write the story. In another place, I have attempted to show how easy it is to make charges against Russia and how more difficult it is to refute them. The anti-Russia story writes itself: little research is required, the audience expects it and no one will challenge the author. And as one story evaporates, another takes its place.

”Will anything change? The BBC’s piece was, in its way, ‘path-breaking’ because it actually sent a reporter to Tskhinvali to talk to people rather than re-writing press releases from Tbilisi. It is encouraging that relatively few news outlets adopted the nudge-nudge wink-wink style of the Washington Post on the Moskalenko affair (‘Perhaps this was an unfortunate accident; the police in Strasbourg say they are still investigating. But history suggests otherwise…’). Perhaps the MSM will, in the Russia case, become objective and check its facts.

“But I suspect that it will not and will still be reporting biased and sloppy stories on Russia and other things as it slowly, and deservedly, sinks into the ‘dustbin of history’.”

Joera Mulders, independent Russia watcher, Amsterdam

“People who spend at lot of time following Russian news and news about Russia tend to over-focus on the quality of news about Russia. Silly items like ”two priests killed in Russia“, insinuating intolerance where its very likely a case of an ordinary burglary turned ugly, are not part of a grand Russophobe scheme: they are the result of the way contemporary news outlets work.

”Not all articles, but many are simply copy-pasted press releases. This news is quick and entertaining, but fails on depth, analysis and personal responsibility.

“Who wrote the initial press release about Karinna Moskalenko's alleged poisoning? And how many copied the suspicions of her colleague and husband adding a little extra info about Moskalenko´s work and the Politkovskaya case, all easily available through Google.

”Few reporters who copy-pasted and rewrote this newsflash will feel personally responsible for carrying the story. In this light, I doubt whether the publication of the police findings refuting the suspicion of Kremlin malice will be seen as a conscious retraction. It was just another message coming down the news chain. And if it hadn't been entertaining because of the unexpected simplicity of the matter – a thermometer – would it have been published?

“The five-day war with Georgia is a much more complex matter, involving actual reporting by individual journalists and consciously chosen editorial policies.

”Still, I don't think we as the audience can or should expect a mea culpa from those media outlets who at an early stage failed to determine who started the military conflict and from there bring that important fact throughout their coverage of the issue. Journalists and editors will argue that they acted upon the information that was at hand and that after more information has become available, changed their coverage accordingly. And they're partly right.

"Georgian aggression took place overnight. When the journalists woke up, the Russian army was slowly entering South Ossetia. When the broad public woke up the Georgian army had vanished and South Ossetian fighters and the Russian army were causing a massive flood of Georgian refugees.

“Even though I can understand the reasons why issues are brought as they are, I do have high hopes for better coverage of Russian-related affairs. I'd wish more foreign correspondents would simply read Russian newspapers and weeklies, watch the few quality political talk shows and so discover the wealth that is inside of them. No press freedom, no diverging political ideas? Please, that is a lazy excuse. There are so many interesting different opinions in Russia; there is so much to cover. I am sure the western reader can appreciate a little bit more complexity in coverage of Russian affairs.”