Trusting Western Media Is Not Only Foolish, but Also Dangerous*
Published in Vzglyad
(Russia) on 30 August 2024
by Irina Alksnis (link to original)
*Editor’s Note: On March 4, 2022, Russia enacted a law that criminalizes public opposition to, or independent news reporting about, the war in Ukraine. The law makes it a crime to call the war a “war” rather than a “special military operation” on social media or in a news article or broadcast. The law is understood to penalize any language that “discredits” Russia’s use of its military in Ukraine, calls for sanctions or protests Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It punishes anyone found to spread “false information” about the invasion with up to 15 years in prison.
Even if it seems that information is working in Russia's favor, this is nothing more than an illusion. Information always serves the interests of media owners, often pursuing malicious goals, like misleading Russian society and provoking it into actions harmful to the country.
The case of Pavel Durov — or rather, the coverage surrounding him — exposes an interesting pattern: surprisingly little interest from Western media. Amid a social media tsunami, traditional media appear deeply indifferent. Yes, they report on the case, but mostly in dry snippets buried deep within their publications. Neither Durov’s arrest nor his conditional release with the prospect of a 10-year sentence has made it to the front pages of major global news sources. Notably, the conflict between Durov and the Russian state was covered with far more enthusiasm and activity in those same outlets a few years ago.
Many have noticed this media behavior, and proposed various theories as to why mainstream Western media is not ignoring Durov’s case so much as covering it haphazardly. The specifics of these theories may vary, but it’s clear that this cautious distancing is orchestrated. Someone, for their own reasons, has decided that the media should not focus heavily on this subject — and the media complied.
The fact that Western media are biased and controllable is hardly a revelation. The days when they were seen as the independent voice of truth and objective opinion are long gone. Over the past decade, even the most respected and authoritative media have become so overtly propagandistic that they’ve lost much of their former influence — not in Russia, but among their own Western audiences.
Russia's attitude toward Western media remains mixed. On the one hand, it’s even more apparent to us — based on their usual coverage of Russia — than to Westerners themselves that their reporting is often false and biased. We read such vicious slander, absurd analysis and downright ridiculous opinions about ourselves that we have long since lost any reverence for their press. On the other hand, we still often look to what they write, and it’s fortunate if we don’t take it at face value. That's especially so in those rare instances when the West praises Russia, or at least acknowledges its success. In such cases, many people immediately suspend their critical thinking and start accepting what’s said and written as the ultimate truth. If The New York Times says it, it must be true.
At the same time, a complete disregard for Western media, both in general and regarding us in particular, is also unhelpful. Our own history warns against the danger of media censorship. Soviet attempts to completely block Western information only fueled Soviet citizens' efforts to tune in to Western "voices," increasing their trust in them. In fact, the West is currently closely following in the Soviet Union's footsteps: Losing the geopolitical and economic race, it now tries to block all alternative sources of information (including Durov and his messenger) in hopes that aggressive propaganda will stifle questions and discontent among people facing a systemic decline in their living standard.
Moreover, the catastrophically low level of contemporary Western Russian studies, including journalism, often has the opposite effect on Russian society, strengthening support for the government and its policies. However, there are also cases where Western publications are used within Russia for clearly harmful and anti-government purposes.
So, what should we do in this situation?
The answer is actually simple: When engaging with Western media, always remember that their entire agenda — from the front page to the last word — solely serves the interests and goals of their sponsors. Whoever they may be, they are not on this side of the border.
This is especially relevant concerning the conflict in Ukraine; all these countless leaks about the progress of the fighting, planned negotiations and alleged agreements. Even if it seems that the information works in Russia's favor, it is nothing more than an illusion. Information always serves the interests of those who own the media, including their most malicious purposes such as misleading Russian society and provoking it into actions harmful to the country. Not to mention publications we take personally, while they are merely internal political maneuvers for that country, playing the "Russian card."
The West has become convinced of the omnipotence of its fourth estate, believing that its media can impose any narrative on its audience, implant any ideas in people's minds, and achieve any behavior they desire from them.
However, it is possible and not particularly difficult to resist this approach. It requires common sense and healthy skepticism. Our people do not lack those qualities.
Even if it seems that information is working in Russia's favor, this is nothing more than an illusion. Information always serves the interests of media owners, often pursuing malicious goals, like misleading Russian society and provoking it into actions harmful to the country.
The case of Pavel Durov — or rather, the coverage surrounding him — exposes an interesting pattern: surprisingly little interest from Western media. Amid a social media tsunami, traditional media appear deeply indifferent. Yes, they report on the case, but mostly in dry snippets buried deep within their publications. Neither Durov’s arrest nor his conditional release with the prospect of a 10-year sentence has made it to the front pages of major global news sources. Notably, the conflict between Durov and the Russian state was covered with far more enthusiasm and activity in those same outlets a few years ago.
Many have noticed this media behavior, and proposed various theories as to why mainstream Western media is not ignoring Durov’s case so much as covering it haphazardly. The specifics of these theories may vary, but it’s clear that this cautious distancing is orchestrated. Someone, for their own reasons, has decided that the media should not focus heavily on this subject — and the media complied.
The fact that Western media are biased and controllable is hardly a revelation. The days when they were seen as the independent voice of truth and objective opinion are long gone. Over the past decade, even the most respected and authoritative media have become so overtly propagandistic that they’ve lost much of their former influence — not in Russia, but among their own Western audiences.
Russia's attitude toward Western media remains mixed. On the one hand, it’s even more apparent to us — based on their usual coverage of Russia — than to Westerners themselves that their reporting is often false and biased. We read such vicious slander, absurd analysis and downright ridiculous opinions about ourselves that we have long since lost any reverence for their press. On the other hand, we still often look to what they write, and it’s fortunate if we don’t take it at face value. That's especially so in those rare instances when the West praises Russia, or at least acknowledges its success. In such cases, many people immediately suspend their critical thinking and start accepting what’s said and written as the ultimate truth. If The New York Times says it, it must be true.
At the same time, a complete disregard for Western media, both in general and regarding us in particular, is also unhelpful. Our own history warns against the danger of media censorship. Soviet attempts to completely block Western information only fueled Soviet citizens' efforts to tune in to Western "voices," increasing their trust in them. In fact, the West is currently closely following in the Soviet Union's footsteps: Losing the geopolitical and economic race, it now tries to block all alternative sources of information (including Durov and his messenger) in hopes that aggressive propaganda will stifle questions and discontent among people facing a systemic decline in their living standard.
Moreover, the catastrophically low level of contemporary Western Russian studies, including journalism, often has the opposite effect on Russian society, strengthening support for the government and its policies. However, there are also cases where Western publications are used within Russia for clearly harmful and anti-government purposes.
So, what should we do in this situation?
The answer is actually simple: When engaging with Western media, always remember that their entire agenda — from the front page to the last word — solely serves the interests and goals of their sponsors. Whoever they may be, they are not on this side of the border.
This is especially relevant concerning the conflict in Ukraine; all these countless leaks about the progress of the fighting, planned negotiations and alleged agreements. Even if it seems that the information works in Russia's favor, it is nothing more than an illusion. Information always serves the interests of those who own the media, including their most malicious purposes such as misleading Russian society and provoking it into actions harmful to the country. Not to mention publications we take personally, while they are merely internal political maneuvers for that country, playing the "Russian card."
The West has become convinced of the omnipotence of its fourth estate, believing that its media can impose any narrative on its audience, implant any ideas in people's minds, and achieve any behavior they desire from them.
However, it is possible and not particularly difficult to resist this approach. It requires common sense and healthy skepticism. Our people do not lack those qualities.
Previous article![]( "Kamala Harris Could Win the Popular Vote by Millions — but Still Be Caught Short in the States That Count")
Next article![]( "The Last Opportunity To Make a Choice")