This article has to be one of the most despicable attempts by a BBC journalist to whitewash evil and extinguish the truth. I wish I could say “just kidding”.
According to Reynolds “One problem for the Russians is that they have not yet learned how to play the media game. Their authoritarian government might never do so.”
Now this is just unbelievable. This is a regime whose secret service (formerly KGB, now FSB)response to the murder of Ana Politskaya was “I don’t know who killed her, but her articles were beneficial to the Western press. She deserved what she got.”
This is the regime whose secret service according to the Economist “was good at harassing journalists trying to find out the truth” about Beslan.
This is the regime whose “Kremlin-choreographed message”, according to Garry Kasparov , “presents Russia as surrounded by enemies on all sides, near and far, and the military intervention in Georgia as essential to protect the lives and interests of Russians”.
Mmm- so unsuccessful. No-one bought that line, did they?
This is the regime headed by a former KGB agent who has doubled and tripled his secret service operatives’ salaries, re-making it among the most sought-after professions in Russia.
Now of course I would accept Reynolds as having some point to make, if he offered credible evidence instead of assertion. But a man who omits mention of a word of the Russian secret service in this entire article! Can you recall “psy-ops” in Iraq? Pretty much every kind of public relations tool was scrutinised as such. Now- crickets chirruping once more as the caravan moves on.
Reynolds adduces two pieces of evidence in favour of his notion that Russia is the victim of US misrepresentation- both of them are the comments given to observers (the BBC’s Sarah Rainsford and Human Rights Watch) by supposed bystanders. Very weak Paul. So weak it’s almost a crime. According to Garry Kasparov again, “The administrations of the Georgian breakaway areas of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are stocked, top to bottom, with bureaucrats from the Russian security services.”
So who do you think the observers encountered in Ossetia? They’d surely never be singled out for special operative attention, would they?
As I said at the beginning, Paul Reynolds…
Oh, and should Paul Reynolds need any more educating, and should he care at all, about Putin’s knowledge and expertise in media matters, he might try reading this.
Russia CHOSE this confrontation – as part of a larger power play in Europe.
And anyone who thibks the Russians have not been provoking friction in S Ossetia has rose-timted glasses.
But the BBC is either naive or blind to this – at least in paul Reynolds’ article.
What makes it more serious is that Reynolds is not meant to be an on-the-spot breathless reporter. He is supposed (on his normal role that he has explained on this site) to provide reflective, considered overviews.
He really is seriously at fault on this one. A decent guy – but in this case, a classic “useful idiot”.
Richard Lancaster | 16.08.08 – 3:31 pm | The worldwide consensus is that Russia has been acting as a bully and overreacted.
That is a naive and complete misreading of the situation. And rather pathetic.
Russia is not “acting” as a bully. It has not “overreacted.” Czar Putin is orchestrating a long-thought out plan to restore Russian hegemony. And it ain’t over by a longshot.
Unlike the children who now control the foreign ministries within the EU, and most of the US State Department, Putin understands the application and use of force.
Silly nostrums trying to equate Gerogia’s so-called “behaviour” with Russia’s actions, are just so much blather that it’s really a waste of time even responding to them.
My actual response was due to a particularly stupid post from that rather dim poster.
JohnA:
Russia CHOSE this confrontation – as part of a larger power play in Europe.
And anyone who thibks the Russians have not been provoking friction in S Ossetia has rose-timted glasses.
Ahhh… there are some people who get it. Unfortunately it appears none of them are in power in the EU.
Jack Bauer | Homepage | 16.08.08 – 3:49 pm | #
So basically it comes down to an assumption that your analysis of their actions is correct?
So basically it comes down to an assumption that your analysis of their actions is correct?
Richard Lancaster | 16.08.08 – 4:16 pm |
Yes, And the analysis of a far more informed chap than me, by the name of Robert Kagan.
But please, if you want to bury your head in the steppes, be my guest.
I’ll check him our Jack, cheers.
I went over Reynolds’ piece in detail here:
http://briandell.blogspot.com/2008/08/bbc-bias-on-display.html
It’s truly outrageous.
Richard Lancaster:
I’ll check him our Jack, cheers.
Richard Lancaster | 16.08.08 – 8:25 pm | #
Sorry, I didn’t mean to come off as an over-aggressive jerk.