On Deaf Ears: The Wasted Potential of Russia Today

Finally I have had the time to write my response to Peter Pomerantsev’s article in The Atlantic, entitled “Russia and the Menace of Unreality.” The author examines the nature of Russia’s new media, and how there is no longer any concern whatsoever as to the credibility of their coverage. Russian media, particularly that aimed at foreign audiences, isn’t concerned so much with presenting an alternative point of view, but rather a myriad of different points of view until the waters are sufficiently muddied. Instead of presenting a lie as truth, the strategy seems to be to make truth unknowable by bombarding audiences with multiple, sometimes mutually exclusive theories or claims.

The downing of the Malaysian airliner over Ukraine was a perfect example of this. RT and other Russian media sources posited numerous different explanations of the event, including:

-The first claim, that Ukrainians shot down the plane believing it to be that of Vladimir Putin. Of course no evidence was presented to support this theory and it was quickly taken down.

-Another claim, from the Russian defense ministry, alleging that a Ukrainian military plane shot the airliner down. Oddly enough, they claimed that the plane in question was a SU-25, a ground attack aircraft and not an interceptor. Why any military aircraft would have been sent to intercept a plane which had spent some time in Ukrainian airspace and flew in from the West was never really dealt with.

-A claim that the airliner was indeed shot down by a Buk SAM system, but that it was the Ukrainian army’s SAM and not that of the rebels.

-A claim which admits that the rebels shot down the plane, but only because it was being escorted by Ukrainian fighter planes, implying that they thought it was a military flight.

All of this serves to distract from key questions such as how the rebels managed to get their hands on this system and operate it in the first place. If they did have the know-how to properly operate it, it suggests Russian military involvement. If not, then they were negligent.  Even if we accepted the unlikely idea that the Ukrainian military downed the plane, this would not change the fact that the rebels were responsible due to a conflict they started and continued even after the first cease fire and the offer of peace talks which went unanswered.

So it is with Russian media. Rather than actually present some coherent, alternative message, the new direction seems to be aimed at merely confusing every new story until nobody has a clue what is going on.  If Russia is called out for wrongdoing and they can’t concoct any conspiracy theories to explain the accusations away, the response is typically whataboutism- not because the Russian government is terribly concerned about the rights of people living in Detroit or Ferguson, but simply because they trying to say, “Yes, we are bad, but everyone else is bad too, so we should all just mind our own business and continue being bad.”

Of course the obvious parallel to RT, in the US at least, would be Fox News, but this is somewhat inaccurate. First of all, while Fox is known for neck-breaking political line shifts from time to time, the overall message is pretty much always consistent. Fox is a conservative network. It champions supply-side economics, deregulation, and neo-liberalism by gift-wrapping these concepts in patriotism, nostalgia, “family values,” and other trappings of American conservatism. How radical Fox News can be seems to be based on the party of the administration in the White House, but there has always been limits for Fox. The network will only follow libertarian populism so far. Its pundits have publicly repudiated birtherism.  Fox News promotes a sort of worldview which is, while invincibly stupid, quite simple and coherent. It generally consists of the following concepts:

-Liberals are destroying America and undermining its values.

-Religion, particularly Christianity, is under attack by secular humanists.

-The world is full of evil people who are trying to kill you, rape you, or possibly invite your daughter to a rainbow party.

-Look at this outrageous act that some liberal did!

-Certain people(wink, wink) are trying to cheat you by leeching off welfare. Also they like to play the knockout game.

-Guns are awesome and owning them makes you manly.

-MUSLIMS! OH NO!

I could go on, but by this point you could probably fill in the blanks yourself at this point.  Sure, Fox can be contradictory. When Bush was president we were told it was wrong, if not treasonous, to criticize the president during wartime. It was wrong to question the expansion of government surveillance; if you had nothing to hide there was no reason to worry. And anti-war protesters were limp-wristed cowards who wanted to see our troops lose. Then Obama was elected and the line reversed. It was patriotic to criticize the president. We were only a few precarious steps away from a full-on dystopian tyranny. And the pencil-neck hippies of the Bush years suddenly transformed into goose-stepping union “thugs” who were poised to form Obama’s new paramilitary force, designed specifically to root out Christians and strip them of their firearms.  Contradictory, indeed, but look closely. Positions shifted, but the general line is intact. Conservatives are under siege by godless liberals and their Muslim allies. They went from defense of Bush’s administration to an offense against that of Obama, but the narrative remains consistent.

Not so with Russia Today. RT’s line often varies from story to story. There is only one consistent feature. Everything is anti-Western. Whereas Fox News at least claims to stand for something, RT and much of Russia’s media, if not the Russian state itself, can only present itself as standing against things. None of these institutions actually stands for anything. Even when its ideologues babble on about “Russian civilization” or the “Russian world,” the words have no meaning. A few years ago it was “Eurasia” or “Russia’s special unique path.” Whatever the words, it’s always the same. They all boil down to being “anti-something;” it’s never about what Russia actually should be, but rather what it shouldn’t be. When you take that message to foreign audiences, you are setting yourself up for problems. This is particularly so in Russia’s case, where the type of propaganda which is needed to woo Russian citizens tends to clash ideologically with RT’s main foreign audience.

It’s no secret that RT mainly appeals to conspiracy theorists, right wing populists, neo-Nazis, fascists, and terribly confused leftists. Each of these groups sees in Russia some kind of champion for their cause against their own government, which they hate. From RT’s point of view, as well as those in the state who hold the purse strings, this seems like success. Nobody can deny the success of the network in terms of exposure, ratings, views, and followers. But as is the case with so many Russian government ventures, short term, low-value gains are favored over real substance. In other words, RT sets the bar low to attract masses of people who are largely useless to Russia’s interests, while simultaneously turning off anyone in the West who could exert influence on their governments in a manner more conducive to the interests of Russia.

RT’s main audience is numerous indeed, but largely ineffective, marginal in their own society, self-defeating, self-isolating, and ultimately impotent. On the internet, these people tend to be extremely vocal and active, creating the idea that there are masses of fed up Americans, Canadians, and Europeans who will at some point exert pressure on their governments. It has been theorized that some ideologues in Kremlin circles believe that they can create enough dissent in Western countries so as to bring down governments or at least highly cripple them and prevent them from blocking any sort of Eurasian ambitions of Russia. If they indeed believe this, they are at best naive, and at worst totally delusional.  For as loud as those “dissidents” are on the internet, I can say from experience that the vast majority of them are totally worthless from a political point of view. Think about it- If someone has thousands of posts and comments on multiple forums, often carrying on endless debates and arguments with random people from around the world, how much time do you think that leaves for real world activism. HINT: None.

Most of these people don’t get out in the streets, and they often have a myriad of excuses as to why. If they do anything in the real world, it usually involves joining some organization which inevitably consists of a handful of men who meet at a local restaurant once a month to bitch about how the world is screwing them. They feel marginalized, and they act marginalized. Some of them have achieved modest financial success, but a great many of them are either unemployed or work in dead-end jobs. Now I want to say at this point that I am not pointing that out in a pejorative sense. Whatever their beliefs and however abhorrent we may find them, the fact is that these people are highly alienated by life and that alienation is often what attracts them to bad ideas in the first place. But I point out their economic status because let’s be frank- We live in a capitalist society which puts more faith in the words and ideas of financially successful people than it does in those of people who work at Subway.

The other failure of RT is ideological. One thing about RT that I always found to be hilarious is that it is so beloved by libertarians in spite of being a state-run TV network. Libertarians have often served as guests on RT, and some even had their own segments. Libertarians as a whole reject the free-market, corporate-dominated Western media, preferring instead the state run network of a country which has a massive state sector, lots of government regulation, and even state-owned enterprises. Now I realize that any libertarian could simply say that it isn’t their concern as to what system Russia actually has, but this does not change the fact that they prefer what must be, according to their definition, a product of a “socialist” society. Furthermore, the libertarians and similar ideologues who so deeply adore RT do not acknowledge the contradiction between Russia’s system and their beliefs.

These people will typically dismiss any talk of Russia’s lack of freedom as propaganda, and then go on to insist that living in the US is real tyranny. Look, I’m the last guy who likes throwing the word freedom around without qualifying or defining it, but Russia is objectively less free than the US and many other countries. People have been investigated and sometimes arrested here, simply for writing the most innocuous things on their personal blogs. Some unfortunate individuals have been actually jailed or beaten by unknown assailants. I’m terribly sorry but this generally does not happen in the US or other Western countries. The Westboro Baptist Church enjoyed the protection of the First Amendment. The National Socialist Movement has often enjoyed police protection for its marches on dozens of occasions. Alex Jones runs a highly successful business based on telling people to prepare themselves to resist the government whenever they get around to implementing martial law and rounding people up into FEMA-run concentration camps. The two dipshits who made Loose Change, essentially accusing the government of murdering 3,000 people on 9/11, are still alive and well.

Meanwhile, in Russia, an activist was jailed for running a social media page demanding the same federalization rights that the Donbass rebels demanded in Ukraine. That’s right, you can be jailed for demanding the same kind of autonomy Russia was demanding for the Donbass and the Crimea, according to a law that was actually approved after the whole separatist mess started.  So no, I’m terribly sorry Mr. RT viewer, but it isn’t the same in America. As far as I know, nobody from the anti-government militia known as the Disciples of the New Dawn has been arrested for their Facebook page, one of many anti-government militia pages on the social network. None of them will be arrested until they actually break a law.

Props to Russia for not putting up with bullshit like this.

Props to Russia for not putting up with bullshit like this.

Another ideological conflict comes up when it comes to treatment of the Soviet Union. In Russia, the authorities haven’t managed to fully come out against the USSR. Of course their reasons for this have nothing to do with sympathy towards socialism. On the contrary, Russia has a reactionary regime with staggering wealth inequality and workers have few avenues to air their grievances. The government treats ordinary people with utter contempt. What they glorify in the USSR is the authoritarian side, the Cold War, and basically all the bad sides of the Soviet Union which eventually compounded until its demise. Of course this glorification creates unease with RT’s mostly right-wing audience, many of whom aren’t just anti-Communists but open neo-Nazis. If it weren’t for the tragedy that has taken place in Ukraine, one would almost be amused at the utter confusion of Western fascists as they observe the ongoing conflict with absolutely no background understanding of the two factions or their history. Indeed, watching them discuss it calls to mind a group of people watching a foreign film with no subtitles, in a futile effort to determine what is really happening. Which side do they choose? Sure, the Western media is always bashing Russia, meaning Russia must therefore be good, but then again Russia glorifies the Soviet Union and claims to be fighting fascists, specifically fascists who wear their old anti-Communist symbols and even Waffen SS insignia in some cases.  But Russia is, of course, bigger, and it’s anti-Western, anti-EU, anti-NATO. Which country is run by Jews, Ukraine or Russia? Which one is more under the control of Jews? And one need not be a neo-Nazi to have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the Soviet Union and Communist symbols. Indeed, it must take a great deal of fortitude for many RT viewers to side with the country that laments the destruction of Lenin statues and Red Army monuments, both being symbols that they hate.

All in all, RT’s audience consists largely of an incoherent mob; it is an alliance of convenience and little else. Russia has staked a lot on RT, and does seem to be putting more into its foreign news services, and therefore it is all the more tragic that these resources are so readily pissed away. RT could have been a decent alternative to networks like CNN or the BBC, which quite frankly are often biased on many issues.  Most American networks, for quite some time, have become utterly enthralled to the official press release, and there is a genuine fear, at least in the US, of challenging official information lest a network’s reporters be cut out of the loop for asking too many difficult questions. Up until recent times, Russia was an up and coming player in the world, with legitimate positions to put forth, and RT could have been the vehicle to articulate those positions. In the end, RT could have reached a new generation of movers and shakers, people seen as successful and influential in their respective societies, as well as people who are perceived to be intelligent by their peers. RT could have also broadcast a more realistic view of Russia, its problems, and its potential for success.  What a pity that this isn’t what we got.

No, what the Kremlin got for its money, indeed what they got for the Russian taxpayers’ money, is the network which willfully and enthusiastically chases the most useless, ineffective people. Worse still, it doesn’t offer anything to enlighten those people. It doesn’t present an alternative viewpoint, but rather it just spreads utter confusion among an audience consisting of people who spend most of their time on the internet and who are constantly angry about anything and everything. They are not critical thinkers, nor are they people with any influence, much less influence which could help Russia in some way. They certainly do not “question more,” to use RT’s motto, as they unquestioningly swallow anything that confirms their prejudices and is presented to them as counter-mainstream.  Hence, RT’s potential to benefit Russia was wasted when it could have been useful, and now it looks as if it has passed a point of no return. It will still rake in the ratings, the views, and the likes, but none of those loyal fans will be there to save the regime’s ass when the inevitable collapse happens.

Also…This.

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “On Deaf Ears: The Wasted Potential of Russia Today

  1. Pingback: Oh god it’s another one! | Russia Without BS

  2. John Sabotta

    I’ll observe that the notion that libertarians as a group “love” RT is very slightly but tellingly dishonest. I’ve never loved it and suggest that the irony you rather heavy-handedly lean on is non-existent. I decline to feel responsible for fools and Adam Kokesh. Obviously no one in the US, “alienated” as they might be, is as oppressed as any one in political opposition back in the various Fetterlands is but so what? Even approaching the condition of even the present day Russia or Ukraine in this country is unacceptable. Sorry you hate libertarians; is it really necessary to display your I-am-no-damned-libertarian-not-I credentials quite so vehemently to be taken seriously? (And if you are suggesting that American liberals “engage” libertarian or even conservative ideas more than the other way around, well, that’s really semi-hilarious. But it must be nice to believe things like that. And I’ve never heard of your dog fighting militia, but hey, I guess I have to feel terribly ashamed of them anyway, even though I’m guessing they have a membership of exactly 1. Even so, roll on the IRS audits, right?)

    Your actual position on reporting on Russia seems sensible enough, but I feel that if I don’t also accept your RT-and-the-Cato-Institute-do-the-same thing notions I’ll lay myself open to charges of hypocrisy – as is well known, comrade, all we libertarians are terrible hypocrites and endless objects of ironical commentary, just as the free market is the tool of Adolf Hitler – so I probably shouldn’t make any positive comment about that part of your post, for tactical reasons. What do you think?

    “These people will typically dismiss any talk of Russia’s lack of freedom as propaganda, and then go on to insist that living in the US is real tyranny.” Is that what I and most libertarians think? Thanks for clearing that up! Tell me more about my love for RT!

    (I suspect you’ve been too long at the ouija board with the ghost of Murray Rothbard, but ouija boards are tricky things and they certainly can become an obsession – especially when they tell you what you already want to believe anyway.)

    Reply
    1. Big Bill Haywood Post author

      I’m sorry was there supposed to a coherent argument in there somewhere? I’m sorry if I didn’t touch on your very specific brand of libertarianism(which I’m sure is rooted in purely logical theory and has been successfully demonstrated in the real world), but I’ve encountered countless libertarians of various stripes over the years and I’m going by the vast majority here. If you’re a representative of some underrepresented branch of libertarianism based on arguments and theories that haven’t been laughably disproved by basic historical knowledge, perhaps you should consider outlining it on your own blog.

      “Sorry you hate libertarians; is it really necessary to display your I-am-no-damned-libertarian-not-I credentials quite so vehemently to be taken seriously?”

      Yeah, I call it expressing one’s own political opinions. I’m terribly sorry it happens to be opposed to yours. I secretly know that the free market brings nothing but liberty and prosperity, based on evidence researched by well-funded think tanks, but I still refuse to acknowledge libertarianism or to stop questioning it because I hate logic.

      Look, I realize that your attempt at a snarky, clever reply to something that really isn’t the main thrust of this article sounded wonderful when you were writing it, good enough even to warrant a haughty laugh as you were sending it. Unfortunately to the demographic group of English-speakers without idiotic delusions, this is just a mix of failed attempts to make some kind of coherent point. Anyone reading my article could have guessed on their own that there are libertarians who don’t like RT and who do realize how un-free Russia is.

      I will admit I am shocked and totally amazed to learn that you aren’t a member of that dog-fighting militia group. See I posed that picture in the article because I literally believed that all libertarians must be members of religious militia groups. I was so convinced until you came and rained on my parade! Damn you!

      Reply
  3. John Sabotta

    Question libertarianism all you like, but if you assert that the “vast majority” of the libertarian movement is eager to shill for Putin (as opposed to what, my “very specific” tiny non-Putin-lovin’ faction?) then you are indulging in mere slander, and not, um, “engaging” any political or economic claims made by libertarianism at all. Despite your alias, I suspect you might be a liberal after all – most serious leftists generally avoid that kind of cheap fact free irony, so beloved of Democrat Party talking-point sites (although not unknown across the American electoral politics spectrum, to be sure).

    Reply
    1. Big Bill Haywood Post author

      Yes, anyone who is not a libertarian must be a liberal. I don’t see any point in that article where I suggest that most libertarians would eagerly shill for Putin. I actually think that most libertarians, if they were made aware of what Russia was like, would realize how much freedom their “socialist America” actually has.

      The article merely points out that RT attracts many libertarian fans(and it has various libertarian pundits), which is ironic since it is a state-run media outlet. By comparison, the US media is ridiculously unregulated and corporate-dominated, yet tends to be hated by libertarians.

      Reply
  4. John Sabotta

    As for being snarky, I could make some comment on who your namesake ended up as advisor to, but I am too serious minded and noble for that.

    Reply
  5. John Sabotta

    How could the saintly Big Bill end up as advisor to a regime that from the beginning destroyed any possibility of any union movement, “one big union” or not? Very easily, it seems!

    As for your lies about REASON and the Cato Institute, it’s enough to know that they originate with well-known piece of shit Mark Ames. Ames used to boost the National Bolsheviks in his worthless rag, the eXile, so this particular lie on his part must stem from a guilty conscience. (You knew that, right, Russian reporting expert that you are, “Big Bill”?) To be sure, I doubt that Ames’ endless love of the Natbols and their inspiring leader Limonov stemmed from any real ideological affinity – more likely free-floating malice and – judging from internal evidence in various eXile articles – the odd bag of tweak provided. So Ames is kind of a self-refuting source but for those wanting less contempt and more boring ol’ fact, this link is provided. http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/26/did-reason-really-publish-a-holocaust-de

    Reply
  6. Big Bill Haywood Post author

    I don’t see how Ames support for bad political movements in the past invalidates anything he said about CATO. CATO and Reason are both founded and funded by wealthy industrialists. But I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that their findings always turn out to support the free market and deregulation right?

    Your article really doesn’t offer much of a refutation. It’s just the typical “how could a libertarian organization possibly support X?” Well Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell’s writing is rife with racism. Ludwig von Mises was an adviser to the Austro-fascist regime of Engelbert Dolfuss.

    I’m sorry but your claim that Ames is a “piece” of shit doesn’t refute anything. I have had my problems with some of his statements in the past, but much of what he writes is spot on from my experience. I also don’t know why you automatically assumed I didn’t know he wrote for the Exile. I believe I’ve pointed that out several times when featuring other works by Ames’ on this site.

    If you want to continue this debate, please give me an example of a successful country where libertarian values were put into practice. Rough dates as well.

    Reply
  7. Pingback: Is Nick Cohen reading this blog? | Russia Without BS

  8. jonathan

    This is an outstanding article. I spend too much time on the Guardian comments and RT seems to be flavour of the month among many lefties there, for the reasons that you have eloquently outlined.

    I cannot deny that it is frustrating when a common reply to a post explaining why RT is trash, is that our press is no better and at least it gives an alternative point of view to balance things out. (Arrgghhh!)

    Reply
  9. Pingback: My thoughts on the Menace of Unreality | Russia Without BS

  10. Pingback: We Report, You Question More | Russia Without BS

  11. Pingback: Lowering the bar | Russia Without BS

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s