A little too late

4

November 24, 2016 by AK

They should have done it in 2014:

Lawmakers [MEPs] voted on November 23 in favor of a motion condemning Russian state media outlets like the television channel RT and the news agency Sputnik for disseminating “absolutely fake” news.

They said the Kremlin was using “a wide range of tools and instruments”, including think tanks, multilingual TV stations, “pseudo news agencies”, and social media to spread fake information, challenge democratic values, and divide Europe.

During the first year of the Donbass conflict, it was covered by reporters working for publications of different political colors. Their work contrasted favorably with the questionable output of Russian media. The credibility advantage was on the Western side and should have been pointed out and praised.

Since then, mainstream media in the UK, EU, and US has been accused, with some evidence, of taking sides with the political establishment against the Leavers [while the Sun, the DM, and the DT were clamoring for Brexit], anti-immigrationists, and Trumpists. It does not help that the MET who acted as rapporteur for the anti-RT resolution is a member of Poland’s Law and Justice party, which has taken control of state media.

One wonders if demand for truthful reporting is not exaggerated. Perhaps most people would rather consume comforting lies.


4 comments »

  1. JCass says:

    “Since then, mainstream media in the UK, EU, and US has been accused, with some evidence, of taking sides with the political establishment against the Leavers, anti-immigrationists, and Trumpists.”

    You must be joking about the UK “mainstream media” and Leave. A list of which newspapers supported Leave or Remain:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/which-newspapers-support-brexit_uk_5768fad2e4b0a4f99adc6525

    I’m less sure about Trump coverage. I think even most Leavers here think he’s a dangerous clown so there’s not much mileage in newspapers backing him.

    • AK says:

      You’re right, I forgot about the tabloids – the Daily Mail and the Sun – because I was thinking about the BBC (allegedly anti-Brexit) and the FT and the Economist. And how could I forget Ambrose Evans-Pritchard’s “The European Union always was a CIA project, as Brexiteers discover”? The author is a very knowledgeable, sometimes insightful, observer but the piece was paranoid.

      Things are different in the US – not a single major newspaper endorsed Trump as candidate. The New York Times and the Washington Post went off the rails in their coverage of Trump’s campaign. There’s something about the man that drives reporters to throw rules of objective journalism to the wind.

      • JCass says:

        Well, not just the tabloids. The Telegraph and the Sunday Times, for example, as well.

        The US newspapers may not have endorsed Trump but they certainly gave him plenty of coverage – and I’m pretty sure the Donald is a believer in “no publicity is bad publicity”. He exists in a symbiotic relationship with the media: he’s partly a media creation (“The Apprentice” etc.), partly an expert media manipulator. His candidacy would have been impossible without them.

        • AK says:

          Yes, that’s one contrast between Trump and the Russian opposition. Alexei Navalny’s team is good at social media but national TV channels are simply ignoring them.

Leave a Reply

Archives

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 10 other subscribers

%d bloggers like this: