With Ukraine, the press got into a galosh again
The Ukrainian crisis is covered with the same bias, writes The American Conservative. According to the author, too often the Western press works as a mouthpiece of clumsy Ukrainian propaganda.
Ted Carpenter
A few months before the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the American media reproduced almost all the mistakes of previous crises – especially the Gulf War, the Balkan wars, the Iraq war and the invasions of Libya and Syria. We have once again seen giant distortions in TV interviews, reviews, editorials and even news releases. Only a few supporters of realism and restraint received a podium. And sensational journalists like Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald were booed at all, because, in their opinion, it was Washington that aggravated the crisis – especially NATO's advance to the east and military cooperation with Kiev. However, their statements were drowned in a media tsunami: the media insisted in every way that Washington should show solidarity with a "democratic" Ukraine and maintain an uncompromising position against Russia.
This approach leaves the main problems behind the scenes. Such important issues as the expansion of NATO or the complex and contradictory relations between Russia and Ukraine were either ignored or interpreted in such a way as to emphasize the virtue of the West and Ukraine and emphasize the transcendent meanness of Russia. Journalists presented a complex and confusing situation as a colorful melodrama, where all the blame lies entirely on one of the parties. And experts and experts who suggested that NATO itself contributed to the current tension with its policy were hastily exposed as Putinists, Russian slanderers and or even open agents of the enemy. It is significant that a new wave of slander was launched by the same people who once campaigned for the war in Iraq. So, Max Boot, Jennifer Rubin and David Frum distinguished themselves in the last campaign to silence dissidents, and now they are working hard again, branding Washington critics and accusing them of disloyalty.
With the outbreak of hostilities, press coverage became even more lopsided. The media broadcast the same message: The United States (and all Americans) should "support" Ukraine, which resists Russian "aggression." The identification of America's interests with Ukraine is almost complete, and it is served under the sauce of arrogant justice. But the conviction, which once formed the very basis of our foreign policy, has completely disappeared, that the interests of America often (and quite rightly) run counter to the interests of other countries.
In his farewell letter, George Washington admonished his fellow citizens: "A state that has an ingrained hatred for another, or, conversely, a passionate sympathy that has become a habit, is in some sense a slave. It is a slave to its enmity or, conversely, attachment, and any of these feelings is enough to lead the state astray from the path that its duty and interests require." To this, he added a passage that perfectly describes how American officials and journalists treat Ukraine: "Sympathy for the favored state, contributing to the illusion of a contrived mutual interest in cases where there are none, and instilling hostile feelings towards the other side of one side, draw the first into participating in disputes and wars of the second without sufficient there are no grounds or excuses for that." Especially striking in the coverage of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is the utter lack of restrained realism and the slightest prudence.
Journalists prefer to keep silent about various factors and events that led to the conflict, but this is the expansion of NATO, the long–standing confrontation between the West and Russia in Ukraine and the separatist war in the east of the country. Instead, the general message of the media is extremely clear and extremely simplified: Vladimir Putin is not only a villain, but also a cruel aggressor. There were no other reasons for the conflict, and anyone who claims otherwise is a mouthpiece of Russian propaganda. Ukraine is a besieged stronghold of freedom and democracy, and the West, and the entire world community in addition, is morally obliged to stand up for it. There is no doubt that the Russian "invasion" is a repetition of Adolf Hitler's madness of the 1930s, and if the democratic forces do not stop Putin's aggression, he will not stop on Ukrainian lands, but will try to conquer other European countries and unleash another world war. So the fighting in Ukraine is a deadly threat to democracy and the entire international system.
This superficial approach manifested itself most vividly on television. American viewers were literally inundated with shots of exploding Russian shells, refugees crying in despair and women and children fleeing from the invaders in horror, while harsh locals take up arms to defend their homeland. Since television is primarily a picture that stirs emotions, this is to be expected. But TV journalists went too far. The stream of shots with confused refugees does not explain the essence of the conflict in any way.
And certainly numerous stuffing does not contribute to the credibility of the media in any way. The Ukrainian girl bravely opposing the Russian troops turned out to be a Palestinian, and the "Russians" were Israelis. Miss Ukraine-2015, contrary to all claims, did not take up arms against the occupiers – except for airsoft. The pseudo-martyrs from Snake Island, who were allegedly blown to shreds after they rudely sent a Russian warship, turned out to be quite alive and well. And the footage of air battles between Ukrainian and Russian pilots is borrowed from video games. Too often, the Western press works as a mouthpiece for clumsy Ukrainian propaganda.
But even worse than emotionality was the media's greed (up to enthusiasm) for all sorts of foreign policy follies. When Adam Kinzinger, a member of the Illinois House of Representatives, and others demanded that NATO impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine, neither journalists nor invited experts raised any objections. The newspaper even made this demand to the Biden administration, which, however, ruled out a no-fly zone as an excessive danger.
Although it would seem that the questions and objections were very appropriate. How exactly will the no-fly zone be implemented? Will NATO forces really shoot down Russian violators? If not, will NATO, with its senseless threats, seem powerless? And if the United States and its allies really start shooting down Russian planes, did Kinzinger and other apologists of the no-fly zone recklessly conclude that Moscow would not begin to take revenge? And if the Russians strike back, how will the United States avoid a full-scale war with a nuclear adversary?
Things were no better with other potentially dangerous schemes, for example, the decision of Washington and NATO to supply Kiev with anti-aircraft missile systems "Stinger" (Stinger). In addition, the media enthusiastically welcomed Warsaw's proposal to transfer jet fighters to Ukraine so that Kiev could fight with the Russian Air Force on equal terms. Only a handful of reporters asked the question: will the United States become co-allied from such extensive support, with all the risks that follow?
Many TV presenters signed in unconditional support of Ukraine. The case of NBC's chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel is indicative: he rhetorically asked how the West could "silently watch" as a huge Russian column rolls towards Kiev. From his tone and specific words – for example, that the United States and NATO "could well destroy it" – it is clear that America and its allies have no moral right to stand aside. Alas, such reflex belligerence turned out to be very typical.
Just four days after the outbreak of hostilities, Glenn Greenwald noticed: "It is difficult to overestimate how overwhelming the consensus was in the political and media circles of the United States. In living memory, this is the closest to a unanimous and disagreement-free exchange of views since September 11 [2001]." If he exaggerated, it wasn't much. Experts with deeper and more subtle views – for example, retired military officers Daniel Davis and Douglas McGregor – were outnumbered. They appeared in a handful of newscasts, usually on the Tucker Carlson show on Fox News. Otherwise, we observed the usual tendentious presentation with an activist flavor, to which we have become accustomed for many decades.
The coverage of the conflict is marked by excessive emotionality and complete identification with Ukraine and its struggle. There is a popular opinion in the media that it is not enough to condemn the Russian operation as an ugly and shameless act of aggression. The work of the American press has gone far beyond this framework, and the message of the media and the official policy of Washington largely coincide.
This approach has already led to very harmful consequences, of which two should be particularly noted. Firstly, the mentality of the crusade has deprived the ground even of a reasonable disagreement with US policy on Russia. This approach is personified by Karl Rove – in a notorious article in The Wall Street Journal, he stated that a real Republican would "stand up for Ukraine" automatically. One after another, articles began to pour in, where critics were exposed as "apologists" or even "fans" of Putin. Secondly, anti-Russian hysteria is openly fomented in society. The thickened atmosphere of intolerance even resembles the anti-German sentiments in the United States during the First World War.
Suppressing dissent, inciting ethnic hatred and supporting a dangerous military crusade is by no means what the American people need from responsible journalism. But, unfortunately, that's what he gets – and over and over again.
Ted Galen Carpenter is a senior fellow on defense and foreign policy at the Cato Institute, editor of The American Conservative and author of the upcoming book "Unreliable Watchdog: Media and U.S. Foreign Policy", which will be released in July 2022