|“Articles about the situation in Russia get written in roughly the same pattern. The basic story-line uses the axiom “Putin bad,” adding on some actual news of the moment…”|
In Newsfront, February 8, 2016
Translated from Russian by Tom Winter, February 9, 2016
It’s funny to read the view of the situation in Donbas from the representatives of the Western press. Especially given the fact that most of them could hardly find the approximate location of the people’s republics on a map.
|CNN! When I went to school, Ulan-bator was in Mongolia! And is”Slovyansk” really in Crimea?|
However, their problem with the ignorance of geography and materiel does not prevent them from making grand conclusions “from a learned expert’s viewpoint” with the tone of of one with a hold on the ultimate truth as they convey “reliable information” to their readers about Putin’s imperial ambitions and his influence on the course of the Civil War.
In reproaching Russian colleagues for “one-sidedness and propaganda,” Western journalists prefer to get round one very significant fact. In 90% of reports and articles by Russian journalists, exposing armed aggression against Donbass, they are eyewitness of the facts they report.
It is difficult to suspect one-sidedness from special correspondents who are actually reporting from Gorlovka at the very moment Gorlovka is getting shelled by Ukrainian howitzers. However, this does not prevent the Western press passing off on-the-spot news, as propaganda.
Of course, parroting the twisted facts and printing the “exclusive” stuff fed to them by their Ukrainian siblings is the acme of objectivity by the standards of the New York Times. The “man in the street” seldom ponders the fact that it’s only the Russian journalists who report directly from combat zones.
Representatives of the New York Times prefer to “observe” the course of implementing the Minsk agreements, breach of the ceasefire, the valor of “the strongest army of the continent” and the “deceit of the separatists” exclusively through the monitor screens in their editorial offices.
Articles about the situation in Russia get written in roughly the same pattern. The basic story-line uses the axiom “Putin bad,” adding on some actual news of the moment, all multiplied by the degree of animosity of the client country, and given out at the mercy of the author’s fantasy.
Especially “authoritative” publications can afford more and send for the opinion of Russian sources and experts — who are wanted and in hiding.
The result they get is a smelly grotty porridge of stale arguments, spiced-up farfetched facts and strident commentary.
However, the Western man in the street, long since fed on fast food and ersatz, takes it in with an incredible appetite and admirable punctuality.
Of course, it is foolish and naive to expect honesty and fairness from the enemy in the midst of the information war. And with each new publication and commentary appearing in the once-respected publications that value their reputation — all their materials about Putin, Russia, and the situation in Donbass — are making them more and more just grocery-store tabloids.
Virtually every one of those who are at pains to tell the viewer and reader of the “Russian occupation” of the Crimea and Donbass, “the monstrous scale of Putin and his associates’ corruption,” as well as the imminent economic and political collapse of Russia don’t want to recognize actual monstrousness. Their “truth” and their talking-head forecasts are needed only among themselves. So far as self-justification is concerned, it’s not always related to adequate and appropriate conduct.
So the Western press can busy itself with any number of altered readings, but in the soul of the Russian people all this will never find a positive response.
What they call propaganda for us is patriotism. And despite all the forces and resources spent on the “exposure” and the demonization of Putin, we will just keep on drinking our morning coffee from Putin coffee mugs while wearing our Putin-picturing T-shirts.
I will not argue that many of the flag-bearers of the West’s anti-Russian propaganda do not understand. Quite the contrary.
But the mechanism is already running and the point of no return is passed. Stopping it and changing the rhetoric is to admit defeat and error. Those journalists who dared have been immediately criticized and have even lost their jobs. A striking example – the recent high-profile stories slamming the French director, who directed Masks of the Revolution, and the editor of the Polish television channel who dared to apologize for the terrible lies and incompetence of his colleagues.
Although the moral of all these anti-Russian fables is about the same, the result may contrary to what they expect: The battle for the minds of adequate thinkers in the west will be lost for good and all. And the trickle of foreign “legionnaires” acting on the side of Russia will turn into a raging torrent, which will at last deprive propagandists of any reserves of sanity.
Already today western rhetoric causes laughter. In response to the increasingly absurd speculation and accusations we just want to shrug our shoulders, put the index finger near the temple and draw circles in the air.
But for the New York Times, being included in the rage, like a horse with the bit in its teeth, there is no reason to stop. And the more they keep on feeding their readership with blackened fables, the more they openly betray their own complexes and fears.
With each new scandal, intrigue, and denunciation, that “make good box office” with the anti-Russian media, there comes to my mind the entrenched image of the jackals, shaking with anger and fear, waiting for the moment when they can jump out from behind a bush and triumphantly scream “Akela has missed.”*
But no misses. Notwithstanding the regular spitting in the back, sidewise steps, and other small dirty tricks.
Waiting gets unbearable, anger heightens, patience bursts, the mind does not stand up. As a consequence – hysterics. The reason for that is again — Russia.
However, all of this shameless hula is a direct indication that Russia is heading the right direction. It would be much worse if Russian actions brought on Western approbation, and Russia was being nominated for Washington approval prizes and the Nobel Peace Prize.
And so, reading again and again how everything in Russia is bad and how horribly terrible Putin is, you can be sure that all is well and the country is steadily moving in the right direction.
*A reference to Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book. Akela is the leader of the wolf pack; the skulkers behind him are alert for any mistep so they can fault him.