Distorting Russia; How the American media misrepresent Putin, Sochi and Ukraine.

[Purveyor]

Stephen F. Cohen
February 11, 2014 |

This article appeared in the March 3, 2014 edition of The Nation.

The degradation of mainstream American press coverage of Russia, a country still vital to US national security, has been under way for many years. If the recent tsunami of shamefully unprofessional and politically inflammatory articles in leading newspapers and magazines—particularly about the Sochi Olympics, Ukraine and, unfailingly, President Vladimir Putin—is an indication, this media malpractice is now pervasive and the new norm.

There are notable exceptions, but a general pattern has developed. Even in the venerable New York Times and Washington Post, news reports, editorials and commentaries no longer adhere rigorously to traditional journalistic standards, often failing to provide essential facts and context; to make a clear distinction between reporting and analysis; to require at least two different political or “expert” views on major developments; or to publish opposing opinions on their op-ed pages. As a result, American media on Russia today are less objective, less balanced, more conformist and scarcely less ideological than when they covered Soviet Russia during the Cold War.

The history of this degradation is also clear. It began in the early 1990s, following the end of the Soviet Union, when the US media adopted Washington’s narrative that almost everything President Boris Yeltsin did was a “transition from communism to democracy” and thus in America’s best interests. This included his economic “shock therapy” and oligarchic looting of essential state assets, which destroyed tens of millions of Russian lives; armed destruction of a popularly elected Parliament and imposition of a “presidential” Constitution, which dealt a crippling blow to democratization and now empowers Putin; brutal war in tiny Chechnya, which gave rise to terrorists in Russia’s North Caucasus; rigging of his own re-election in 1996; and leaving behind, in 1999, his approval ratings in single digits, a disintegrating country laden with weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, most American journalists still give the impression that Yeltsin was an ideal Russian leader.

Since the early 2000s, the media have followed a different leader-centric narrative, also consistent with US policy, that devalues multifaceted analysis for a relentless demonization of Putin, with little regard for facts. (Was any Soviet Communist leader after Stalin ever so personally villainized?) If Russia under Yeltsin was presented as having legitimate politics and national interests, we are now made to believe that Putin’s Russia has none at all, at home or abroad—even on its own borders, as in Ukraine.

Russia today has serious problems and many repugnant Kremlin policies. But anyone relying on mainstream American media will not find there any of their origins or influences in Yeltsin’s Russia or in provocative US policies since the 1990s—only in the “autocrat” Putin who, however authoritarian, in reality lacks such power. Nor is he credited with stabilizing a disintegrating nuclear-armed country, assisting US security pursuits from Afghanistan and Syria to Iran or even with granting amnesty, in December, to more than 1,000 jailed prisoners, including mothers of young children.

more...

http://www.thenation.com/article/178344/distorting-russia#

[Bluenorthwest]

1. He did not even mention the anti gay laws as he critiqued the distortions of others

in reporting about Sochi. This guy reads like a homophobe. Creepy. But the comments are just frightening.

[Purveyor]

2. The doubt "The Nation" employs homophobes. eom

[OKNancy]

3. I was just going to note that myself

Russia could be a paradise of peace and co-operation, but there is no distortion when it comes to their anti-gay laws and culture.
I will never have positive feelings about Russia or Putin as long as that is the case.
I'm irritated to see so many on DU apologize for Russia.

[Igel]

4. It's strange.

I can't account for the Russophilia.

It was this way during the Orange Revolution and the business with Georgia. Putin could do wrong.

Even now there are people who defend Yanukovich as a simple, albeit corrupt (but no more than anybody else) soul.

Then there's Mezhihir'ya, that huge estate with the world's largest log-cabin construction, precious-metal fixtures, private zoo, and documentation on billions in pilfered money, huge bribes on a continuing basis, and tit-for-tat deals with lucrative contracts for his family's business traded for inflated government contracts. He's in the 0.001% and the self-proclaimed avante garde of the 99% act as though they're bought and paid for by him.

Sometimes I almost think that people who would have reflexively defended the USSR can't quite let go.

[libdem4life]

5. I highly recommend the book "Russka" by Edward Rutherfurd, a European historical

novel author. It was a long read, but I came away with a vastly changed opinion of Russia, particularly the people and the cultural landscape. He took the people, their culture and wove political events, social details, gave humanity to their leaders, in and out of the fascinating stories of generations of a fictional family. I proceeded to read all of his other books, as well.