"Russian Transparency Remains Submerged" - FT
I found this interesting commentary piece via the Inopressa website, which translates western media coverage of Russia into Russian, which I found (in this instance) via Echo of Moscow's website.
Russian transparency remains submerged
By Neil Buckley Published: August 11 2005 03:00
When baby-faced captain Vyacheslav Milashevsky saluted and blinked in the daylight last Sunday after being rescued from his mini-submarine trapped on the ocean floor, Russia appeared to have learned from the Kursk submarine disaster in 2000. A few days later, however, those conclusions are starting to look premature.
The Kursk's sinking, five years ago tomorrow, led to the death of all 118 men on board, despite some having survived the initial explosion in one of the nuclear submarine's torpedo tubes. [...]
This time, the navy went public on the incident and its apparent cause, quickly sought international aid and, crucially, allowed British, American and Japanese rescuers to rapidly reach the site off Kamchatka. Captain Milashevsky and his six crew members aboard the AS-28 mini-submarine that had got tangled in a fishing net were saved.
In a front-page headline echoed in many Russian newspapers, Novaya Gazeta commented: "One lesson of the Kursk has been learned: people's lives are more important than military secrets."
If that moral message had been absorbed, Russian commentators noted, it was an important moment for a country where human life has long been cheap.
But since the rescue it has become clear that the Kursk's lessons have been at best partially assimilated. The incident has also highlighted that, while TV news may have been neutered during Mr Putin's presidency, Moscow newspapers retain the capacity for strident criticism, even if most do not reach far beyond the capital.
This observation about the media is right on the money - this is a point that's not made often enough, and one that's sometimes distorted. Unfortunately, the existence of a few outspoken newspapers with relatively small circulations in Moscow does not make for a free press.
The Russian navy, it has emerged, confirmed the incident only 24 hours after the submarine became trapped, after an anonymous caller tipped off a Kamchatka radio station.
"Again there was an attempt at hiding information, at censorship," said Nikita Belykh, leader of the opposition Union of Right Forces party, yesterday.
The navy's initial explanation, moreover, was only partial. The submarine's propeller had got wrapped in a fishing net. But it occurred while the vessel was inspecting or trying to repair a $1bn (€809m) subsea antenna designed to track foreign submarines, in whose anchor cables the submarine then became enmeshed.
And after the foreign rescue crews departed - with the apparently heartfelt thanks of Sergei Ivanov, Russia's defence minister - debate raged in some political and naval circles over whether they should have been invited, or were even needed.
Captain Valery Lepetyukhin of the navy's emergency rescue service suggested to a press conference that conditions on the stranded mini-submarine had not really been all that inhospitable. The British Scorpio submarine that cut it free had merely speeded up an operation the Russians could have completed themselves, he insisted.
I can only observe that this was an easy comment to make once the sailors were safely on terra firma. Prideful defensiveness, probably a manifestation of an inferiority complex, on the part of Russian officials is nothing new, though, and it's probably not going away any time soon.
Dmitry Rogozin, leader of the nationalist Motherland party, told Ekho Moskvy radio that bringing in foreign rescuers had revealed the subsea antenna's location and caused "damage to national security and the Russian state".
Rogozin can always be counted on for a paranoid and offensive comment at a time like this.
Many newspapers spotlighted the cash-strapped state of the Russian fleet. Komsomolskaya Pravda, noting the navy's lack of rescue equipment and that a Scorpio submarine cost only $1.5m, added: "Any 'new Russian' could lose that in a bad night at the casino." [...]
The problem, unfortunately, is not solely a financial one. Russia has plenty of money in the stabilization fund at the moment, and I understand they're now going to buy a Scorpio or two of their very own. The Scorpios can't deploy or manage themselves, though, and unfortunately the Russian military's problems are organizational and systemic, and serious enough to create a situation in the future where the Navy has the equipment but can't get it to the right place in time, or some critical maintenance on the equipment has been neglected, etc. For a leadership that is motivated primarily by avoiding responsibility and blame, there always seems to be enough of the latter to go around.
5 comments:
Quite a misguided comment on the alleged lack of freedom of press in Russia. For some reason you only consider the rabidly oppositional news outlets to be "free", as long as they toe the pro-western line. But strangely enough it does not occur to you that their circulation is so tiny and limited to Moscow precisely because the Russian public couldn't care less about such obvious peddlers of western or exiled/jailed oligarch influence. If these media were truly free, wouldn't you think they'd be able to easily win the competition against allegedly "Kremlin run" or "Kremlin influenced" Russian media? But it doesn't happen, either because mainstream Russian media is free enough (even if western pundits don't like what they read there), or because the pro-western media is not free at all.
My point is made even more apparent if you visit forums of a site such as inosmi.ru, where ordinary Russians can read western media and then comment on them in the forum. It becomes quite obvious that Russians, who allegedly have no access to free press, find the picture of Russia portrayed in western media so grossly distorted, that it infects them with an acute case of xenophobia. It is as if western media establishment set itself a goal of making Russians passionately hate anything connected with the west.
Thus, I'm afraid that in the competition of who has the free press between mainstream Russian news outlets and pro-western/western ones, Russian media wins.
Oleg, I appreciate that you took the time to share your opinion, but I have to say that I think it's much more misguided than the original FT article or my comments on it. Leaving aside for a moment the ridiculous statements in your second paragraph and the absence of a logical structure to your argument (in your final sentence, "Thus..." makes no sense), you seem to equate a free press with a press where all media outlets report the same objective facts, or a press where all media outlets are popular with and accessible to the "average" consumer. These things are not the same.
How many people read opposition newspapers in Russia is irrelevant - in the United States, newspapers such as the New York Times and magazines such as Harper's, on the liberal side, and the Weekly Standard, on the conservative side, are not read by the masses in middle America, either. That is simply a phenomenon of elite media consumers vs. mass media consumers. The same situation exists with the print media in Moscow - a relatively wide range of viewpoints are available, but the "ordinary Russian" does not choose to read all of the available newspapers. That doesn't mean that you still have a free press if you shut down the less popular newspapers. Your discussion of inosmi.ru doesn't make any sense, because I don't think it's possible to classify the visitors to this site as "ordinary Russians," unless you want to apply the same label to readers of Kommersant and Novaya Gazeta - all of these media, including inosmi.ru, are not aimed at "ordinary Russians," but at the educated elite.
The problem exists not in the print media space in Moscow, but in the broadcast media space in Moscow and in the rest of Russia, especially more remote areas, where broadcast television (which is now almost entirely under state control, at least as far as informational or analytical programming) is just about the only - and certainly the most widely consumed - source of news available. For the average consumer of mass media located outside of Moscow, the fact is that there are very few, if any, sources of information which are not heavily influenced by the federal government (as in the case of the national TV networks) or local government (as is true of local newspapers, radio stations, and TV broadcasters). The average media consumer in the Russian regions (excluding those with an internet connection) does not have access to a wide range of opinions about current events, even if he is interested in viewing them (which I think we can agree he's probably not). The average provincial American also is not interested in viewing a wide range of opinions on current events, but the fact is that he does have easy access to them - through both the broadcast and print media - if he all of a sudden becomes interested. In Russia, on the other hand, the regime is petrified of the prospect that ordinary Russians might wake up one day and, deciding they don't believe what they're seeing on Channel One, seek out other sources of information. Therefore, the regime has made sure that other sources of information are not as easily available as they used to be - no longer can one, for example, turn on NTV (or TV6, for that matter, although I am not sure what their broadcast reach was) and see critical reporting on the country's leadership.
As a separate issue, I must address your ridiculous portrayal of Russians looking into the mirror of western news coverage of Russia and being whipped up into "acute...xenophobia." Maybe they're angry because the fact-based reporting of western journalists - on issues such as the appalling state of the Russian armed forces and demographic and environmental crises in the country - is not consistent with the fantastical reports which they see on "Vremya" and "Vesti" every night, where a decisive and delovoi President is always dealing efficiently with this or that problem of national significance? I agree, if one allows one's worldview to be formed by the state-run Russian media, it might be rather upsetting to have the fairy-tale intruded on by foreign journalists brandishing pesky facts. Much easier to conclude that they are, like domestic critics of the Putin regime, simply "peddlers of western...influence." Perhaps the readers of inosmi.ru wouldn't find western journalism about Russia so shocking and xenophobia-inducing if they actually had a free press to read or watch in Russia.
First of all, you significantly exaggerate when you claim that Russians outside of Moscow can only get their information from federal TV and radio channels, which are all alleged to be peddlers of government propaganda. In reality, there are plenty of examples of government criticism in local media, albeit it's mostly of local interest. Such broad claims as you have made can only be made in good faith if you were a habitual reader of various regional print publications. Are you?
Secondly, I have to point out once again -- people in the regions who want to get alternative information can do so. Or are you claiming that the government is preventing something like Novaya Gazeta from being distributed in the regions? In reality, Novaya Gazeta has problems gaining audience even in Moscow. There is certainly very little demand for anti-government propaganda in modern Russia. How you manage to attribute that to government interference remains a mystery.
Finally, if we run with your artificial division of media consumers into "elite" and "masses" (which is not necessarily correct), don't you find that your argument contains a significant internal contradiction? You disagreed with my description of inosmi.ru audience as "ordinary Russians", claiming they are "elite". At the same time you freely acknowledge that dissenting Russian media outlets are read primarily by "elite". Then you proceeded to accuse inosmi.ru audience of being enthralled by state-run propaganda, just like the "masses". So which are they, the "elite" or the "masses"? These are people who regularly use the internet, have access to all kinds of opposition publications (both online and offline, since most are Muscovites), exhibit the usual Russian distrust of the government, and yet they get whipped up into xenophobic frenzy when they read western allegedly "fact-based" reporting on Russia. How can this phenomenon be explained? Either Russians (at least the part of the population that uses the internet) are totally bizarre and illogical creatures who choose government propaganda over "fact-based reporting" in western media or, alternatively, western coverage of Russia is full of bovine fecal matter. As you can guess, I tend toward the latter explanation.
P.S. "Thus" in my last sentence is perfectly logical. The first part of the post noted the fact that mainstream Russian sources of information are preferrable to Russians and postulated that free media will always win the competition against non-free media. THUS, Russian mainstream media appears to be more free than western or western-influenced media. Logical, isn't it?
"Either Russians (at least the part of the population that uses the internet) are totally bizarre and illogical creatures who choose government propaganda over "fact-based reporting" in western media or, alternatively, western coverage of Russia is full of bovine fecal matter."
I hate to be the one to say it, but I believe the first option is closer to the truth of the matter. I am often shocked by what passes for "journalism" in your country. News articles often read as opinon pieces, with very little attempt to gain access to both sides of any particular story. I believe that Russians and other former Soviet Union people have been fed this sort of "news" for so long, they are often unable to judge its quality, or to even form the questions to ask to counter balance any particular government position.
I admire Russians in many ways, but their relationship with their government (and by extension, the news media which it largely controls) is really quite extraordinary. One of the great delights I find in this blog is a resource for finding better "fact-based" Russian journalism, to see that there are journalists in Russia who investigate the full story, that are willing to challenge the version of events put forth by the Putin government.
Government should serve the people it represents, and the news media should be the skeptical voice of the people in regards to their powerful servant. A good journalist never takes things at face value, and asks questions from all sides and parties to create a complete picture. All too often it appears that Russians still believe the people are there to serve their government, government is a father figure, government should tell them what to do or think, and the news media is the voice of government telling them what they should believe. I am glad to see this attitude changing in your country, albeit slowly .. and sometimes one step backwards for every two steps forwards.
I am rather glad, for instance, to see this group of Beslan mothers who are angry at the Russian government for the outcome of events there. They should be angry ... if such an event had happened in the US, it might even be grounds for impeachment of a President. Consider a comparison of Beslan to Waco, Texas .. including the response of citizens in each country. If you are not familiar with Waco, how it happened, Americans responses, and terrible consequences, I would be glad to describe it sometime as best I can.
Anyway, these are my observations, from my occasional travels in your country and my long standing correspondences with Russian friends of mine. This is really a terrific forum and I hope Lyndon keeps it up!
Oleg, thanks for continuing the conversation. I will concede that my generalization about provincial Russian media is not backed up by a daily review of Russian provincial newspapers. I daresay, however, that the generalization I make is closer to the truth than your broad statement implying that all western coverage of Russia is full of bullshit.
You also make other arguments which don't hold any water. Let's examine this one:
"P.S. "Thus" in my last sentence is perfectly logical. The first part of the post noted the fact that mainstream Russian sources of information are preferrable to Russians and postulated that free media will always win the competition against non-free media. THUS, Russian mainstream media appears to be more free than western or western-influenced media. Logical, isn't it?"
Actually, no. Media which are more popular are not necessarily "more free." You don't seem to understand the point, which is that individual news outlets cannot be "free" all by themselves in the absence of a media climate which allows multiple viewpoints. Unless you mean that ORT is "free" to report all it wants about Putin's busy schedule and Russia's resurgence as a world power. That kind of "freedom" does exist in the Russian media.
A more important counterargument is that even where there is pluralism in the media, the most popular media are not always the most objective ones or the ones generally acknowledged to have the best reporting and commentary. Often, they are the ones which are accessible most cheaply to the most people, or the ones which are more widely advertised, regardless of their quality - does this make them more "free"?
And MOST importantly, your argument assumes that there is competition in the Russian media space. But in many areas (such as TV) the competition which existed - although I'll grant you that it was often between shady, wealthy individuals - has been stamped out by the government.
Perhaps your use of the word "thus" would have been defensible IF your underlying statements made any sense, but the rules of logic are like a computer program in that they don't work if the inputs are senseless - garbage in, garbage out.
So, now that we've deflated your artificial construction of "free" versus "non-free" media, let's return to my distinction between "elite"- and "mass"-oriented media outlets. Actually - while I agree that the distinction is arbitrary and will be untrue in many specific cases, like any generalization - I don't think my argument has a "significant internal contradiction" as you suggest. First of all, nowhere do I suggest that "elite" media consumers in Russia want to read only media critical of the government, or that they necessarily always agree with it. Maybe what sets them apart is that they want to read a wide variety of viewpoints and form their own conclusions, rather than having their opinions on the day's events formed for them by the Kremlin. My statements about inosmi.ru readers' opinions are actually based on your claims (maybe that was my mistake), so we don't really have any data on how many of that website's readers are up in arms about Western coverage of Russia other than your observations. I would guess that the frenzied xenophobes (which Russia - like many other countries - has never lacked throughout its history, regardless of foreign media coverage) are a vocal minority. It's not as though every reader of inosmi.ru posts a comment, after all - just the ones with too much time on their hands...
Post a Comment