By Nicolai N. Petro
Western media coverage of three recent incidents-- the state's demand that the Union of Russian Journalists vacate part of its premises, the resignation of journalists from the Russian News Service, and the detention of Garry Kasparov and others as they were on their way to the city of Samara to join a protest rally--illustrates the need for some serious changes in Western reporting about Russia.
All three took place over a short period of time, so Western press accounts have tended to lump them together, as the latest in series of efforts by Russian president Vladimir Putin to suppress democracy and muzzle the press. This interpretation rests on the omission of several key facts that, curiously, the Russian media has done a much better job of reporting.
For example, in the first incident, Russian news sources reported that the journalist's union was subletting office space that it had been given rent free by President Yeltsin. Since the commercial use of space given pro bono publico has in the past been deemed contrary to the intent of the donation, and a possible violation of the tax code, the state property agency exercised its right to unilaterally change the terms of the lease, albeit in a very lenient manner. Instead of revoking the lease entirely, it merely insisted that the territory currently used in commercial use, 929 square meters, be returned to the state.
Western accounts, by and large, described the conflict as an act of journalistic defiance, but scarcely mentioned the commercial issue at its heart. Since the territory at issue, one-third of what the union leases, is not being used for anything related to journalism, however, it is hard to see how its loss can be deemed an imposition on any of its journalistic activities.
The second incident concerns a rift between journalists and the general management at the Russian News Service (RNS), one of the nation's largest news providers. It too received widespread media coverage, both inside and outside Russia, but whereas western media focused almost entirely on the disgruntled journalists, the Russian media also reported management's side of the story.
Thus, Russian readers learned not only that Alexander Shkolnik, RNS's general director, categorically denies imposing any estrictions on the coverage of opposition politicians, but that during the past three weeks his news service interviewed leaders from the Communist Party, the Liberal Democratic Party, and the Union of Right Forces--literally the entire political spectrum!
To be fair, many western media accounts did mention, in passing, Shkolnik's claim that his decisions have been purely commercial. But since no evidence was provided to back up his claim, it was made to appear flimsy and implausible, particularly in contrast to the extensive coverage given to the journalists who had resigned.
Since it has not been mentioned in any Western press account, Shkolnik's explanation for his new policies deserves to be quoted in full:
"The problem was also that, when I came to RNS, we had very low ratings. We were in 33rd place. Looking into the matter, we found that our audience is a specific category of people who listen [to us] while in their cars on errands. That is to say, [they are] more-or-less successful and well-to-do people, who are positive and socially active. Putting some sort of dreary pessimism ["chernukha"] on the air for this audience would be the same as putting an article about homeless people into a glitzy magazine. We, the leadership of RNS, asked that our correspondents think, first and foremost, not about their own personal political interests, views, or attitude toward what is happening in our the country, but about the interests of our audience." [source]
The final, and most notorious, incident concerns the detention of Garry Kasparov and more than two dozen others as they were on their way to Samara to join a protest march there on May 18, 2007. Although their accounts differ slightly, all those detained regard their delay as nothing but a pretext to sequester their tickets until it was too late to get a flight to Samara that day. This view has been dutifully seconded by all mainstream Western media outlets.
This version of events, however, is hotly disputed by the transportation police, which says that the group was detained because at least one of their tickets could not be processed by the airport computer, since it had been purchased under a different name. Security considerations, they say, then required that the entire party's travel documents be checked. Most importantly, they insist that these were returned to the group by noon, at which point there were still two flights they could have taken to Samara, one at 1:30 P.M. from Sheremetyevo airport, the other at 3:25 P.M. from Domodedovo airport.
Russian media accounts thus reveal what most western accounts obscure, namely that the essential facts are in dispute. Rather than getting to the bottom of this discrepancy, however, most western reports of the incident chose to simply accept Kasparov's version of events, and use it as a platform from which to decry Putin's ostensible pattern of political repression.
The omission in all three incidents of relevant information is very troubling, for it suggests the erosion of the crucial distinction between objective reporting and advocacy when it comes to Putin's Russia. The editorial sympathies of leading Western news outlets like the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Economist are quite transparent--they regard their hostility toward Russia's president as a badge of honor, and that is their prerogative. But the assumption that, regardless of a paper's editorial stance, its day-to-day reporting strives for greater detachment, no longer appears warranted.
Paradoxically, those looking for more balanced reporting would do well to consider some of the Russian press outlets that now have good English language web sites. Among the most interesting are the RIA Novosti and Interfax news services, newspapers like Kommersant and the Moscow Times, and Russia Profile which, although it receives partial funding from the state run RIA Novosti, is editorially independent.
Not only do they offer a richer and more interesting variety of sources and commentary, but increasingly they provide information that one simply cannot find in the Western media.
Nicolai N. Petro is professor of political science at the University of Rhode Island. He has served as special assistant for policy in the U.S. State Department, and as civic affairs advisor to the mayor of the Russian city of Novgorod the Great. His books include: The Rebirth of Russian Democracy (Harvard,1995), Russian Foreign Policy (Longman, 1997), and Crafting Democracy (Cornell, 2004).
His web site is: www.npetro.net
Comments
There is a very detailed account of the incident at Sheremetievo airport here:
http://www.x.se/enm
Security reasons, indeed. And yes, there were two flights to Samara in the afternoon, but there were no tickets to be had, and the FSB naturally knew this.
Posted by: Kalle Kniivilä | June 3, 2007 10:38 AM
Mr. Petro may be right about the Western media's omissions of one or another side of the cited stories, but recent events have shown such omissions to be warranted for the most part. The notion that news agencies have no responsibility to cover news relevant to most people--as opposed to the well-to-do who Shloknik cites as RNS's audience--is a major problem with the design of much of the Russian media's news coverage today.
Moreover, the side of the transportation police in the case of Mr. Kasparov's flight to Samara most likely should not have much weight exactly because it is the voice of Kremlin-based authority, which has shown itself openly hostile to the opposition movement led by Mr. Kasparov.
I agree that there ought to be more extensive coverage of Russia in the Western media, but I do not think that the Russian news outlets RIA Novosti--which is state-run--or Interfax--the organization that sponsored the press conference where Mr. Lugovoi made what seem to be preposterous accusations of the British intellgence agency MI6--are the right places for Westerners to go to get better coverage. I think that Kommersant, Moscow Times, Vedomosti, and many of the major Western news outlets, including the Washington Post and the New York Times, are better sources for non-Kremlin-influenced coverage of current events in the RF.
No media coverage is perfect, but state-run news should be the last place one looks.
Posted by: Zeke Pfeifer | June 3, 2007 11:09 AM
Yuri,
"Better"? Nothing aimed at You Yuri. But Western media doesn't need "Better", they need honest, intelligent, and transparent coverage of Russia and the CIS. And reporters tend to be like mice, they will follow the herd, the next story will support perceptions, not reality... the next story will also draw a line from the last story, and lay the foundations for tomorrow's negative story about Russia.
For this, your site is a breath of fresh air because it goes against the grain. The way your site reports, is more like plotting points, not drawing lines from one previouse BAD story to the next bad story...
All three, Western public, media and government have these stereo types, they have these predispositions about Russia. Most of these judgments and opinions are dead wrong and highly hypocritical and distorted.
But then, maybe all these wrong opinions have a purpose? It's like playing a baseball game, you need to get the adrenalin flowing, need to get your team members excited, pumping up the positive attitudes by using language that is pure positive about "us", and pure negative about "them". To this, errors about the other teams are good.
Basicaly, we need to BS ourselves to give the good fight, but the winner will be those that are simply better, despite the news and marketing.
I mean, most people in American knew Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and I think most, deep in their hearts and minds knew there were no wmd, but the fairy tales had a mission. And all the talk before March of 2003 about nation building and fighting the war on terror, yellow cake, was to relieve pressure about the fact the war on Iraq was wrong, yet, it conveniently fixed the bumbling of US security that created 9/11.
To that, I think most people in America view Russia with jealousy. And whatever our coverage of Russia is, we tend to exaggerate bad news in Russia or we tend to create false trends (such as back sliding of democracy) simply because Americans look at Russia and are poised and waiting to line Americans consumerism, profits, etc...
Americans tend to look at the entire world has "her" resource, or commodity and cheap labor... Few in America look at Russia as a partner.
Americans aren't stupid, they simply want what Russia has. Be it oil or gas or simply the desire to plant the US flag ontop of the Kremlin, you know? for democracy, like we are doing in Iraq, and did to Western US states 200 years ago.
This isn't complicated, America is in a miserable position due to "peak oil" and many other internal pent up economic catastrophes. And the US will use Europe, Nato and other means to surround Russia to simply save America's required growth and hegemony.
There are resource war today, some with weapons, others with propaganda. I think the lack of "better" news about Russia is planned, part of global competition.
Posted by: Luther G. Quick | June 3, 2007 11:43 AM
This is a well-written article. It's nice to read and occasional piece such as this, with insight from an academic.
Posted by: Dmitroslav | June 4, 2007 1:59 PM
Since RussiaBlog focuses on positive news, then there is no official place for this post. Therefore, I will try to post it here.
The escalation of a new cold war is easy to explain.
Putin is quite worried, as he should be.
Basically, the US has lost credibility. What worries Russians and Putin is not so much the missile defense system in Eastern Europe, it’s the future applications.
It was Bush who rattled on about wmd in Iraq, but later, the entire project is completely different. Did anyone ever think Iraq would be a civil war? It was Bush who mustard up America to go get the terrorists, but later, Bin Laden was never found. Too many times America builds all this momentum, screws up, can’t admit to mistakes, can’t become accountable and in doing so, morphs and reuses the mission and transforms some theater into a completely different purpose, and in most cases simply to cover ass while expanding control for US interests. The US has a history or screwing up, and making such mistakes as a tool for deferent but equally value of interests.
It’s like our dog jumping onto our kitchen table with her eye on the Filet Mignon, but she settled for the ham while she slipped and lost footing - this is America.
To repeat, nobody believes America or Bush because of recent history and track records. If such a missile defense is built in Poland, and later used against Russia, let’s say as market mechanisms ratchet up oil and gas prices, who says America and Europe will not use such infrastructure to pressure Russia? In reality, America will use it for a new agenda. America’s agenda today might be ok, but this is about what mistakes will bring. And baby we have gotten a lot of mistakes from the good old U S of A recently.
Putin is right… count your fingers after shaking Bush's hand.
I don’t know, but Europe seams mighty stupid here... If I ran a classified for a job and I received Bush's resume, and America’s success in Iraq, I would stop and analysis this, I would see 100% failure and I would THINK. In civilian life, report cards and grades like America has lately would cause others to keep a distance.
Either the global political leaders that follow Bush are complete idiots, or I'm missing something here. But if I failed like Bush, I would retire and work at McDonalds.
Posted by: Luther G. Quick | June 4, 2007 3:25 PM
Well, you are right Luther. As far as Bin Laden is concerned,well that one is not clear, and certainly never intended to be. For example, why does the FBI website claim that the language he (BL) speaks is "Arabic= "pashtu"? Last time I checked, Pashtu was an Indo-European language and ARabic is another completely different group of languages called "Semitic". So, where's the beef? Well, you obviously aren't really interested in finding someone, if you don't bother to even figure out what moo is applicable, so to speak. Besides, there's a guy right here in Seaside who followed BL around for three years, and claims he is just a weirdo, (probably get's high on weed or something). Again, what's the beef? Obviously, its not about terrorism. There must be another conductor on the train! (And for that, the FBI didn't even give me my two mill! wtf. Losers.)
Lady White Beefalo
Posted by: Lois DuPey | June 7, 2007 9:25 PM
"To that, I think most people in America view Russia with jealousy."
You're an idiot. I think most people in America think Russians are shady and crazy, no one wants to be like Russians here. Keep your worthless police, homeless children, hate crimes, and all the other crap that goes on 100% worse than here.
Posted by: Jenn | June 19, 2007 10:45 PM
Dear Jenn,
Yup, you are right, I am an idiot.
You see, when America owes 60 trillion $ it's far better than Russia being #3 in cureency / gold reserve holdings... All that oil / gas Russia has just gets in the way... someday Russia will have no energy like the US, then she will be rich... And America has 50 million children below poverty; this is good sign, right?
A Soyuz that is designed to launch with sheets and chunks of ice and foam, and already breaking 1700 launches... nooooo... to be advanced, we got to have a shuttle that falls from simple failures...
You could say Russia's Soyuz and other aerospace hardware is using old tech, but maybe, this stuff that was designed 50 years ago was in fact taken from the future back then... Maybe 150's designes were in fact 60 years advanced that even today's US shuttle can;t touch...
Yea, got to be like America, yapping about what America wants to do for her children but has no action except a crashing dollar, no manufacturing base, no jobs, no healthcare, a looming military draft, and oh yea - mission accomplished in Iraq.
Be real Jenn, maybe Americans don't say it, and maybe they don’t even know it, but Russia and her partners may not have been the first capitalist, but they will be better than America.
Bill Gates didn't create the first OS or the first PC, but he built his company right. And to that, America might have built an ok society on the backs of blacks, Chinese, Irish slaves, Mexicans, and Americans Indian and so forth but don't think for a moment democracy and capitalism can't be better.
Personally, I feel the CIS regions will deliver the sweet spot to democracy and capitalism that will leave the next 2-3-4 generations in the US/EU all in awe and friggen "jealousy".
Posted by: Luther G. Quick | June 26, 2007 2:22 PM