Many column inches have been devoted to analysing biased Russian media reports of the Ukraine crisis, but is coverage in the west as objective as it should be?

Tony Brenton: western media should do better

In war, it is said, truth is the first casualty. That has certainly been the case with the conflict in Ukraine.

The star for mendacity goes to Russian TV. This is not the entire Russian press – there are opposition newspapers and the relatively free internet which regularly challenge Russian official narratives. But more than 90% of Russians get their news from their unrelentingly propagandist state TV channels.



These channels have painted a monolithic and fictitious picture of Ukraine threatened by fascist hordes. The downing of flight MH17 brought a wall of assertions – implausible but believed by more than 80% of Russians, according to a recent survey – of Kiev’s guilt. Sadly, despite a lifetime of being lied to by their authorities, Russians still accept what their government tells them.



The western media however are not guilt free. Almost routinely they have downplayed the Russian side of the story, however persuasive.

The western media however are not guilt free. Almost routinely they have downplayed the Russian side of the story, however persuasive. Yanukovych was a rotten President of Ukraine but, unlike the demonstrators, he was democratically elected. The people of Crimea welcomed their reincorporation into Russia, however illegal the process.



The insurrection in eastern Ukraine has real local roots, whatever assistance the Russians may have given. And the difficulties of inspecting the MH17 crash site stem as much from the ongoing Ukrainian military offensive as from obstacles put up by the rebels.

The British press has been particularly ready to shoot from the hip (the Sun proclaimed “Putin’s Missile” brought down MH17 well ahead of evidence that it was a missile, or linked to Russia). The sad spectacle of huge press outrage when pro-Russian secessionists seized a US journalist, followed by silence when the Ukrainians seized a pro-Russian British journalist, underlines the inconsistency.

Editors can claim, correctly, that Russian official lying justifies aiming off. But, as the “false photos” affair showed, the Ukrainians are no better. Far too often Russia has become a pantomime villain getting nothing but catcalls.

All of this has real world consequences. The confrontational course the UK government in particular has taken on the Ukraine issue has undoubtedly been eased by ministers knowing they are playing to a largely anti-Russian press. In countries (notably France and Germany) where the press line has been less strident, so has the political reaction been.



Things may be getting better. Indiscriminate Ukrainian bombardment of civilian areas in Donetsk and Luhansk has attracted sharp questioning, notably by the BBC. The western lurch down the blind alley of economic sanctions has given rise to some surprisingly sceptical comment (even in the Financial Times, a consistent advocate of sanctions). But a core part of the west’s claim that our system is superior to Putin’s is that our free press is better than Russia’s state suffocated media environment. That has been true through this crisis, but not as true as it should have been.



Sir Tony Brenton is a former British diplomat who served as ambassador to Russia from 2004-2008

James Nixey: true objectivity is impossible

True objectivity is impossible. We all have our prejudices, great or small. In thinking about and describing Russia, who knows what makes us feel what we feel about it, write what we write and portray what we portray?



There is certainly a wide spectrum of views on Russia, ranging from demonisers to apologists. Many (if not most) are somewhere between these poles, but the “truth”, whatever that means, is by no means necessarily directly in the middle, and in the essential quest for balance and maturity it is important not to slip into some form of equivalence.



Those broadly critical of Russia are accused by “the other side” of being Cold War Warriors, living in the past. The accused reply - especially these days - that they have been proven right, and that it is Russia which is thinking in Cold War superpower and zero-sum terms.



In the essential quest for balance and maturity it is important not to slip into some form of equivalence

The counter-response is often that the west made Russia turn out this way, and that the west is barely any better anyway (Russia rigs elections? think Florida 2000. Recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia? What about Kosovo? Poor human rights record? Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay). Thereafter, discussions tend to degenerate back to first principles.



At this point, a confession: my own views on Russia are not middle ground. To me, Russia is a corrupt and authoritarian state, with an illegitimate ambition to bully and dominate other countries which, in a different era, it had full control over. However, I do not believe we’re in a new Cold War and Russia is not the Soviet Union ‘mark II’ or the devil incarnate.



Facebook Twitter Pinterest Refugees in Donetsk, on August 4, 2014. Fighting between government forces and pro-Russian rebels left at least 10 civilians dead in eastern Ukraine on Sunday. Photograph: Bulent Kilic/AFP/Getty Images

Those who think more charitably toward Russia are, to my mind, a more interesting bunch. Their rationale for thinking the way they do appears to be among the following:

– they have spent insufficient time in the other former Soviet states (such as Ukraine) and thus are overly impressed by Russia

– good old fashioned left-wing thinking or anti-Americanism (America is bad so Russia must be good… or at least no worse)

– they make money in Russia or their income is dependent on it;

– they are ‘great power realists’ who believe that big states dominate have always dominated the small and so it must always be. It’s not very nice but at least it will help keep the peace if we keep Russia happy and give it what it wants;

– finally, for some, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Having visited Russia in the 1990s and possessing a vague interest in international affairs should not be mistaken for expertise.

I would like to think that if the evidence changed, then so would my views (what’s the alternative? To hold steadfastly to one’s views even when fresh and contradictory evidence becomes available?) Sadly however, the evidence thus far is damning in its sheer volume as well as in its content and variety.

Consider:

– the prosecution of an horrific war in Chechnya killing tens of thousands;

– the dismemberment of an independent oil company - Yukos - and theft of its assets;

– the expulsion of British Council offices from Russian cities;

– overt support for Yanukovych in the obviously rigged 2004 Ukrainian election;

– reneging on international treaties (Energy Charter, INF, Helsinki Accords, Budapest agreement);

– selling weapons to the Syrian regime;

– the invasion of Georgia, ripping two territories away from it;

– the invasion of Crimea, ripping it from Ukraine;

– an absence of free and fair elections;

– total control over the television media;

– a poor human rights record (assassinations of journalists, Pussy Riot’s incarceration, political prisoners etc);

– the lack of an independent judiciary;

– predatory state-owned corporate enterprises run by security service officials with little regard for sanctity of contract or corporate social responsibility.

However bad the west can be, whatever its misdemeanours - and there are plenty, there’s no doubt - its recent record is not this bad. Reporting on Russia, for real balance, should concede what must be conceded but reflect the fact that there is no moral equivalence.



James Nixey heads the Russia and Eurasia Programme at Chatham House

Gregory Feifer: Putin alone is responsible for his Cold War caricature

The latest assertions by Russian officials that the United States provoked Ukraine’s civil conflict because Washington ultimately seeks to topple Russia’s government and seize its vast energy resources have astounded my father.



An American journalist who wrote about the Soviet Union during the Cold War, he remembers Communist propaganda grievously distorting the truth to fit the Kremlin’s ideology and agenda, but says that even the USSR – at least during the later Soviet period – rarely resorted to the kind of outlandish lies that inform mainstream opinion among Russians today.



State-controlled media are busy churning out fabrications about US-backed fascists killing Russian-speakers in Ukraine while President Vladimir Putin supports pro-Moscow separatists there conducting a military campaign that’s ruining the lives of people in a region where no one could have imagined anything of the sort just a few months ago.



If anything, the western press has traditionally softened the Russian leader’s image

In that context, the western reporters on the ground in eastern Ukraine are providing most of the credible information about the fighting and the terrible toll it’s taking on the country, often at risk to their own lives. As for the image of Putin as a Cold War-era caricature, he alone is responsible for it because that’s precisely the persona he’s sought to portray.

In fact, Putin is no crackpot dictator, but a brilliant student of Russian politics whose 80% plus approval ratings reward his ability to appeal to a population nostalgic for Moscow’s lost superpower status.

Confronting the west and restoring Russian influence over former Soviet countries shows Putin to be tough. Like his Soviet models, he follows the logic that to be feared and loathed in the world means to be respected.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Putin delivers a speech during a ceremony unveiling a First world war monument at the Poklonnaya Gora War Memorial Park in Moscow on 1 August, 2014. Photograph: Reuters

If anything, the western press has traditionally softened the Russian leader’s image. After his first invasion of a sovereign country, neighbouring Georgia in 2008, western leaders eager to look past the conflict were able to quickly resume business as usual with Moscow partly because international media didn’t pay enough attention to Putin’s messianic nationalism and anti-westernism.

This time, his actions have been so appalling that they’re thwarting the western inclination to see him as ‘one of us’. For that, we must thank western media for doing a highly commendable job of informing public opinion and political discourse by presenting facts and arguments that can no longer be brushed aside.

Gregory Feifer is a former Moscow correspondent for NPR. His new book is Russians: The People Behind the Power.

Nabi Abdullaev: biased journalism robs the west of its moral authority

When I took over the helm at The Moscow Times in April, I told desk chiefs that we would not publish any op-ed likening President Vladimir Putin to Hitler – a comparison that was very popular on our pages after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and one that still populates the pages of the western press.

No, I am not fan of Putin. But I believe that the media’s key mission is to further intelligent discussion, and that comparing Putin with Nazi leaders – who were such an absolute evil – is neither intelligent, because he is obviously not evil, nor useful, because the only way of dealing with Nazism is waging total war on it.

Meanwhile, most western media cover the crisis in Ukraine mainly by concentrating on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s cynicism and imperial ambitions.

There is excellent field reporting from Ukraine in the western media, but they make only a modest part of the general message. Public opinion is shaped largely by analytical articles and op-eds.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Ukraine’s recently elected president Petro Poroshenko. Photograph: Mikhail Palinchak/Demotix/Corbis

And it is there that most media organisations covering the conflict expose a serious gap in their journalism. Many key questions are simply ignored: Will the new Ukraine – ruled by former members of the cabinet of the toppled corrupt president Viktor Yanukovych – be a democracy, or at least a viable state and a responsible partner for Europe? What interests does the United States pursue by sponsoring Kiev other than containing Russia? Does Putin’s reported paranoia about NATO encirclement of Russia have, at least hypothetically, legitimate grounds? These issues are rarely discussed, if at all.

By making Putin’s villainy a major narrative in the bigger Ukraine story, the media limits policy options for the western decision-makers, raising the political cost of mediation for them in the conflict. Compare the hostile phone conversations today between Putin and the western leaders with the active onsite diplomacy of then French President Nicholas Sarkozy who forged the peace agreement between Russian and Georgia after their brief war in 2008.

This one-sided journalism also cultivates a poor opinion of the west among Putin and his henchmen. To them, the west’s moral values are a sham – they are no better than us, they’ve just got a better PR they call journalism, so the thinking goes. Biased journalism, when demonstrated by western media, only reinforces this world view and robs the west of its moral authority in its dealing with the cynical Russian leadership.

Nabi Abdullaev is editor-in-chief of The Moscow Times, an English-language daily newspaper based in Moscow





