Uncovering the Slanted Coverage of Russia
Michael Averko
November 10, 2008
This past Friday's (November 7) MSNBC show Morning Joe and the PBS aired Worldfocus (written in accordance with that show's preference) reminded me of how CSPAN chose to categorize the Russian government funded 24/7 English language television news station Russia Today (RT). Chalk up three more examples of a continuing bias, which subconsciously influences many into having some misconceived notions.
As part of a feature on the international coverage of the American presidential election, several foreign news telecasts were carried by CSPAN on November 5. During the airing of the RT feed, CSPAN captioned "Russia Today, State-Run." In contrast, the German government funded Deutsche Welle (DW) did not have the "State-Run" label, when CSPAN showed that station's news feed.
RT's Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan denies that her station is scrutinized by the Russian government. RT is biased in the sense of reflecting mainstream Russian views. This does not prevent that station from covering topics like racism in Russia and negative attributes of the Soviet era. RT's coverage of the last Russian Duma (parliament) election had plenty of criticism from Russia's political opposition. This included stern comments from Gennady Zyuganov, Gary Kasparov, Grigory Yavlinsky, Boris Nemtsov, and Eduard Limonov (I did not see RT's coverage of the last Russian presidential election). There was an RT feature with former Rodina (the name of a now defunct Russian political party) leader and current Russian ambassador Dmitry Rogozin, which critically questioned his role as head of that party (although showing instances of embracing Russia's multiethnic dimension, Rodina received criticism for some insensitivity directed at people from the Caucasus). In other features, RT has been comparatively soft with analysts known for being overly critical of the Russian government.
These observations are not meant to downplay imperfections in Russian media and body politic. Rather, they are to note the overlooked aspects. Prominent American television channels/networks like CSPAN, MSNBC and PBS have at times provided multi-opinionated and insightful shows on Russia related issues. At these stations, there are other moments when this kind of journalism is lacking. A matter which relates to the mentioned shows aired on MSNBC and PBS.
Concerning the MSNBC show Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough cited a November 7 New York Times article questioning the Georgian government's account of the outbreak of hostilities in South Ossetia (the Georgian government says it acted in a reasonably defensive manner, after being provoked by elements in South Ossetia). He suggestively presented the New York Times piece as if it gave new and not so well known insight. The reality is quite different. Scarborough's two in-studio guests provided politically tilted commentary, with no opposing view.
The Council on Foreign Relations' President Richard Haass said that the conflict in the Caucasus involved negativity on both sides, with Russia having acted disproportionately. Haass' comments resemble the American government's take. A stance which did not call Georgia's August 7 strike on South Ossetia disproportionate. Keep in mind that the Russian counterattack against the Georgian government did not cause as much loss of life or damage as the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, each of the two wars of the last decade in Chechnya and the 2003 attack on Iraq.
Following Haass was former American National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who expressed a series of unchallenged thoughts, which could be otherwise credibly second guessed.
Brzezinski said that Russia was following a "zero sum game" of wishing the West ill-will on the basis that it benefited the Kremlin. Among other things, this opinion overlooks how Russia was the first nation to reach out to the United States following the 9/11 tragedy.
He went on to compare Russia and China in a way that portrayed Moscow as more aggressive and negative than Beijing. Without meaning to appear hostile towards China, its one party state, restrictive media (in comparison to Russia's), military action in Tibet and firm position on Taiwan serve as counterpoints to Brzezinski's commentary.
Brzezinski expressed an ongoing misrepresentation of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's thoughts on the Soviet Union's demise. In totality, Putin regrets the misery caused by the way the Soviet Union broke up. His comments on that matter are not meant to deflate other sufferings of the last century. Putin does not challenge the large scale suffering incurred by World War II and has acknowledged Soviet wrongdoing during the Stalin and post-Stalin periods. This acknowledgement is better than how Turkey officially deals with the past treatment of Armenians and some other formerly occupied peoples of Turkish dominated rule. Putin is on record for not favoring a return to the Soviet Union or Russian Empire. This understated point is not easy to find when compared to the cherry picking of Putin's comments on the subject; that overlook his overall remarks made over time. With hectic schedules, high profile political figures are vulnerable to periodically stating thoughts which are not well defined and can be tap danced on by their detractors.
For his part, Scarborough referred to Russia's foreign policy as resentment based. A complete overview of this claim would delve into the scorn some have of Russia; followed by an exchange of opinions on where there is and is not legitimate resentment.
This suggestion is a marked difference from Friday's Worldfocus segment with Haass (he gets around) and The New York Times' Deputy Editorial Page Editor Carla Robbins. The terms "bone headed" (from Haass) and "hissy fit" (by Robbins) were used to describe Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's November 6 state-of-the-nation address. I suspect that Haass and Robbins are not as prone (if at all) in displaying that rhetorical manner when describing Western neoliberal and neoconservative analysis on Russia.
Medvedev´s hard line state-of-the-nation address was no doubt in reply to some of the comments made by newly elected President Barack Obama during the US presidential campaign. American mass media punditry spins Medvedev as starting things off on a wrong track. This view overlooks some of Obama's comments during his bid for the American presidency. In the sport of ice hockey, it is understood that chippy play can result in payback. This applies in other instances.
>>>>
The last paragraph was added on January 25, 2009.
As part of a feature on the international coverage of the American presidential election, several foreign news telecasts were carried by CSPAN on November 5. During the airing of the RT feed, CSPAN captioned "Russia Today, State-Run." In contrast, the German government funded Deutsche Welle (DW) did not have the "State-Run" label, when CSPAN showed that station's news feed.
RT's Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan denies that her station is scrutinized by the Russian government. RT is biased in the sense of reflecting mainstream Russian views. This does not prevent that station from covering topics like racism in Russia and negative attributes of the Soviet era. RT's coverage of the last Russian Duma (parliament) election had plenty of criticism from Russia's political opposition. This included stern comments from Gennady Zyuganov, Gary Kasparov, Grigory Yavlinsky, Boris Nemtsov, and Eduard Limonov (I did not see RT's coverage of the last Russian presidential election). There was an RT feature with former Rodina (the name of a now defunct Russian political party) leader and current Russian ambassador Dmitry Rogozin, which critically questioned his role as head of that party (although showing instances of embracing Russia's multiethnic dimension, Rodina received criticism for some insensitivity directed at people from the Caucasus). In other features, RT has been comparatively soft with analysts known for being overly critical of the Russian government.
These observations are not meant to downplay imperfections in Russian media and body politic. Rather, they are to note the overlooked aspects. Prominent American television channels/networks like CSPAN, MSNBC and PBS have at times provided multi-opinionated and insightful shows on Russia related issues. At these stations, there are other moments when this kind of journalism is lacking. A matter which relates to the mentioned shows aired on MSNBC and PBS.
Concerning the MSNBC show Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough cited a November 7 New York Times article questioning the Georgian government's account of the outbreak of hostilities in South Ossetia (the Georgian government says it acted in a reasonably defensive manner, after being provoked by elements in South Ossetia). He suggestively presented the New York Times piece as if it gave new and not so well known insight. The reality is quite different. Scarborough's two in-studio guests provided politically tilted commentary, with no opposing view.
The Council on Foreign Relations' President Richard Haass said that the conflict in the Caucasus involved negativity on both sides, with Russia having acted disproportionately. Haass' comments resemble the American government's take. A stance which did not call Georgia's August 7 strike on South Ossetia disproportionate. Keep in mind that the Russian counterattack against the Georgian government did not cause as much loss of life or damage as the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, each of the two wars of the last decade in Chechnya and the 2003 attack on Iraq.
Following Haass was former American National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who expressed a series of unchallenged thoughts, which could be otherwise credibly second guessed.
Brzezinski said that Russia was following a "zero sum game" of wishing the West ill-will on the basis that it benefited the Kremlin. Among other things, this opinion overlooks how Russia was the first nation to reach out to the United States following the 9/11 tragedy.
He went on to compare Russia and China in a way that portrayed Moscow as more aggressive and negative than Beijing. Without meaning to appear hostile towards China, its one party state, restrictive media (in comparison to Russia's), military action in Tibet and firm position on Taiwan serve as counterpoints to Brzezinski's commentary.
Brzezinski expressed an ongoing misrepresentation of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's thoughts on the Soviet Union's demise. In totality, Putin regrets the misery caused by the way the Soviet Union broke up. His comments on that matter are not meant to deflate other sufferings of the last century. Putin does not challenge the large scale suffering incurred by World War II and has acknowledged Soviet wrongdoing during the Stalin and post-Stalin periods. This acknowledgement is better than how Turkey officially deals with the past treatment of Armenians and some other formerly occupied peoples of Turkish dominated rule. Putin is on record for not favoring a return to the Soviet Union or Russian Empire. This understated point is not easy to find when compared to the cherry picking of Putin's comments on the subject; that overlook his overall remarks made over time. With hectic schedules, high profile political figures are vulnerable to periodically stating thoughts which are not well defined and can be tap danced on by their detractors.
For his part, Scarborough referred to Russia's foreign policy as resentment based. A complete overview of this claim would delve into the scorn some have of Russia; followed by an exchange of opinions on where there is and is not legitimate resentment.
This suggestion is a marked difference from Friday's Worldfocus segment with Haass (he gets around) and The New York Times' Deputy Editorial Page Editor Carla Robbins. The terms "bone headed" (from Haass) and "hissy fit" (by Robbins) were used to describe Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's November 6 state-of-the-nation address. I suspect that Haass and Robbins are not as prone (if at all) in displaying that rhetorical manner when describing Western neoliberal and neoconservative analysis on Russia.
Medvedev´s hard line state-of-the-nation address was no doubt in reply to some of the comments made by newly elected President Barack Obama during the US presidential campaign. American mass media punditry spins Medvedev as starting things off on a wrong track. This view overlooks some of Obama's comments during his bid for the American presidency. In the sport of ice hockey, it is understood that chippy play can result in payback. This applies in other instances.
>>>>
The last paragraph was added on January 25, 2009.