RFE/RL and Jamestown both have recent stories about Russia's image-polishing efforts. The "enfant terrible" of Russia-watching bloggers predictably cries "outrage," but this is actually old - if admittedly still interesting - news. There are lots of countries that use the media to try to tweak their image. Recall the long-running ad campaign for Dubai, for example. And plenty of them have state-run media which As long as "Russia Today" TV is viewed for what its funders basically admit they intend it to be - a 24-hour infomercial for Russia - it will never have any traction. Deeds, not "image-making," are needed to change Russia's image for the better.
"Russia Today" might build up journalistic credibility over the course of years, but probably not with the current approach, and I doubt it will ever reach the level of the BBC or Deutsche Welle. And it's worth keeping in mind that, per the point of view in the Kremlin, RFE/RL itself, and certainly Jamestown's various newsletters, are also "state-run" media with a distinctively, um, not pro-Russian viewpoint. I don't agree with the opinion held by Putin and his entourage that NGOs always parrot the views of their funders, but I don't think it's completely unfounded, either.
The people who should really be outraged about the "Russia Today" money pit and other elements of this strategy are the Russian taxpayers, whose money is being spent on ineffective programs - but I guess the sources of much or most of the government's revenue today are probably several oil & gas companies, and they're not likely to complain. Anyway, to get to the self-congratulatory point of this post, we had something on this a long time ago, although admittedly there are new elements to the story to be seen in the above-linked RFE/RL and Jamestown stories.
6 comments:
Hi Lyndon,
A few questions for you dear:
(1) How exactly do you rationalize calling me names like "terrible child" after pontificating that one shouldn't polarize and personalize discussion where Russia is concerned. Is it basically just that it's OK for you to do it but not anyone you haven't authorized in advance?
(2) How can Russian people possibly ever get outraged and take action against things like Russia Today of people like RL/RFE and LR don't tell them? As you may know, Russia's domestic TV news, the main source of info for most Russians, is little different than an infomercial itself.
(3) Is it also "worth keeping in mind" the fact that Russia has spent the last century mired in totatalitarian horror, and has a population that is losing 1 million per year and an average wage of $2.50 per hour and a male lifespan under 60, whereas the West hasn't, so that Russia can hardly afford the same type of lapses (assuming they have them) in the availability of information as the West, and can't afford to provoke the West into a second cold war?
(4) Are you suggesting that you think a reasonable person could conclude that RFE/RL is an infomercial for the West rather than a professional media outlet with brave and brilliant journalists?
By the way, your YouTube about Putin and the semichki is really old news, I ran that months ago.
By the by the way, about my mentioning your blog on Publius Pundit . . . you're entirely welcome, don't mention it!
LR, thanks for noticing!
In response:
1) Your style is hard-hitting and intentionally abrasive. Per your earlier comments, you have embraced that style because you have rightly perceived that it will increase your site's visibility. Whether that's true or not (and leaving aside the question of whether that's a worthwhile goal), I think the appellation I used fits your style, and it's not even one I came up with. So I don't see the problem with using it. There is a distinction between commenting on someone's views ('philic vs. 'phobic, which is the polarization I was talking about), which is not what I was doing, and talking about the style in which those views are delivered.
2) I agree with you - shout it from the rooftops! - but I agree only partially as to the results you imply. The Russians who have internet access and are able to read blogs are also able to read Russian blogs, which have nothing in common with the one-track focus of Russian TV. So, even leaving aside the language barrier (which further weakens the potential impact of any English-language blog in Russia), Russians with internet access don't necessarily need foreign blogs to tell them what to think about what's going on in their own country. Those who get their news only from TV will sadly not be reached by your blog, mine, or anyone else's.
3) Yes, all of those things are also worth keeping in mind. And I think that most of the (perhaps five to ten) people who read this blog regularly already keep those things in mind, which is why I don't see the need to repeat them or append them to every post. But thanks for the reminder.
4) I didn't say anything about a "reasonable person," just that it's the conclusion that influential people in Russia draw, right or wrong, based on the consistent negative coverage of Russia. The coverage happens to be true, but the people who take this point of view don't let facts get in the way. Looking at it from their (admittedly paranoid) point of view, it's possible to understand their perception.
Fair enough on the semechki thing, although I was talking about Medvedev, not Putin.
Thanks for mentioning my blog, I guess, although it's been mentioned on PP before. We all mention each other's blogs all the time - it's in the nature of things - so I don't understand why it would be worthy of special thanks.
And I'm sorry if you construed this post as a "hostile" one, since it wasn't intended as such.
(1) So you're allowed to polarize with personal abuse, because your abuse is "right," especially if you're just copying others, but not me, because my abuse is "wrong." Gosh, that's so convenient! Very, very hard to respect, but awfully convenient.
(2) If you think that internet-accessing Russians already have all the information they need about Putin and yet the country still favors him with 70%+ approval ratings, then you must believe Russia is utterly doomed. I don't share that view, and think that Russian ignorance can never be underestimated. Moreover, my primary goal is not to get information to Russians directly through the blogosphere (they are only 15% of my audience), but to influence the Western mass media and Western governments so that appropriate pressure is placed on the Russian people from the outside.
(3) How do you know? Have you asked them?
(4) I know you didn't. That's why I asked you, silly. Are you refusing to answer? Or do you feel that mindreading is among your many supernatural powers?
You hyped the semichki thing like it had just come out and you were among the first to reveal it. English Russia published it before I did. It's old news. Seems to me that you're not nearly as good at admitting your faults as at pointing out those of others. Welcome to the club.
Too late, darling. That ship has sailed. But as I understand it, you don't wish it to be mentioned again since you are bored with it now. Not that it was likely to happen but OK, I can arrange that.
If your intention wasn't hostile you're a woefully bad writer. You called me a nasty, patronizing name and then you said I was hyping old news, implying I thought I discovered something when in fact everysmartbody else already knew it. There isn't one single word in your post that could be considered friendly, condescending at most. Don't get me wrong: I LIKE nasty, patronizing names. But I don't like hypocrites.
You've grossly mischaracterized my views on abusive speech, which is a great pity since I took the time to lay them out in such detail. Adding what you call "visibility" was only one of many reasons I listed, and there are many other reasons I haven't. By the way, would you care to name someone who speaks critically about Russia in a way you "approve" of and who is making progress in limiting the rise of dictatorship in Russia? I haven't discovered them yet and I'd love to read and publicize them!
LR, why so touchy? I'm not sure what the thrust of your last comment is about who I "approve" of, or what the relevance of my "approval" is or should be. I'm just a guy with a blog, not a missionary like yourself.
But as far as "people who speak critically about Russia" - just to name a couple examples out of many I could name, I've recently cited Steve Myers' article, which is pretty critical, and have written a lot about Marina Litvinovich in the past.
As far as any critics "making progress in limiting the rise of dictatorship," I'm not sure how you propose to measure that, so I guess that must be the rhetorical part of your question. Both of the people I just mentioned reach lots of readers, so one would hope they have an impact.
Back to the numbered points:
1) The "enfant terrible" tag seems to be your main beef. Andy also quoted this sobriquet in his interview of you, and you didn't deny that this is your approach to blogging or decry the term as "abuse" at that time.
The style of the radio personalities you model yourself after could easily be described as a "bad-boy" style, and I'm not sure how different that label is from "enfant terrible." Maybe you just don't like the latter because it's in French.
2) Since about 16% of Russians have access to the internet (based on CIA factbook figures from 2005 - although the number seems low, it's probably still less than 30%), it's statistically possible (though admittedly unlikely) that no internet-using Russians support Putin. My point being that Putin could have 70%+ approval ratings regardless of information available on the internet.
And no, I don't believe any of this means Russia is "doomed."
Also, isn't it a bit condescending of you to say that "Russian ignorance can never be underestimated"?
3) The basic facts about Russia's demographic problems are well known to anyone with even a passing interest in the country. I don't see the need to repeat them ad nauseam or to ask people whether they're familiar with them.
4) I agree, a reasonable person should recognize that RFE/RL is generally objective. Not sure about the mind-reading part - haven't tried lately.
LR, at the risk of attempting to dust off my mind-reading skills, it seems your point of view is that people are either with you (100%, showering you with explicitly "friendly" posts and declarations of gratitutde for links from you) or against you (in which case - even if they only deviate minimally from your party line - they are to be showered with hostility and, dare I say it, abuse).
I am glad for some of the work you're doing - the translations, especially - and even if your style is not one I would use, I can't argue with your own statements that it isn't boring and that it gets attention. So there's no need to get into a pissing match over nothing, which is what you seem to be doing with your comments.
You clearly have a different gauge for "hostile" than most people, if you think that my initial post was "hostile" (or constituted "personal abuse") and your comments above were not. Yes, my post said that the general story about Russian "rebranding" efforts was old news (which is true); it also said that it was still interesting, and then went on to make some somewhat substantive points, none of which you responded to. And I admitted (with some irony, a concept which seems alien to you) that the point of my post was to congratulate myself on blogging about these issues some time ago.
As for the "enfant terrible" label, I guess I could replace it with "self-appointed defender of the Russian people" if you ask nicely.
And as for your suggestion that I've been hypocritical, you join Mike Averko in throwing that term around indiscriminately in general and in tossing it in my direction specifically. So you're in excellent company. And I guess I must be doing something right.
Respond if you must, but I'm not interested in this turning into an endless back-and-forth - and surely you have better things to do with your time.
LR, you do know that the term "enfant terrible" does not literally mean "terrible child" when used in English, right? More often than not, I've seen it used neutrally to describe style.
But, perhaps a negative usage would be useful here. You are rather tendentious and condescending. And since you usually talk past people and issues, you might as well set up a script to run posts after headlines grabbed off of google news. It might actually be a bit more effective; it would probably avoid the alienation of people inclined to agree with you that you are so skilled at producing.
Just saw your reply Lyndon. Does she have better things to do with her time? It seems all she does is post comments. That's why I'm commenting anonymously. The last thing I need is a cyber-stalker.
Anyhow, you're spot on.
Post a Comment