The Kremlin media machine takes advantage from the open side of western media to make propaganda. Its strength is in not having any interest in the truth and not pose the slightest problem to distort reality. Nevertheless, fight it with the same weapons is a trap.
When I finished reading Putin’s war on truth, the editorial by Julian Reichelt on the German magazine Bild, I felt a strange sense of satisfaction and frustration at the same time. I agreed with much of what he wrote, but the figures didn’t add up. Reichelt is a journalist with long experience as a war correspondent, so he knows what he’s talking about when he says that “Our humble but powerful weapon is words. We shouldn’t use them lightly, especially when it comes to covering a situation that threatens our values.” His advice against the fierce propaganda of Russian media is, in a nutshell, not to castrate with diplomatic words and politically correct, and then went on to give examples. And it was here that the circle didn’t square.
Terrorists vs Junta
Putin’s info war has its own tools and methods. Words are one of these. Russian media refer to annexation of Crimea as its “return” to the Motherland, to Euromaidan as a coup and to Ukrainian government as a junta. When they don’t want to go to far, as in the case of English language outlets directed to foreign audiences, they just use neutral expressions that do not collide with the official version. Separatists are defense militias and Russian troops in Donbass are all formed by volunteers.
According to Reichelt, whenever we use neutral words, we do a favor to the Russian propaganda. “Diplomatic words of good faith are the most dangerous form of propaganda,” he writes.
However, it is here that, even saying something acceptable, he is wrong. Because every time we read in our newspapers (and it happens) “nazi coup in Kiev” or “Russian terrorists“, the propaganda – from both sides – has stolen a piece of land to information.
Reichelt gives one example in particular: the civil war. There’s no civil war in Ukraine, he says. We should talk of Russian aggression or invasion of Ukraine. Are we sure?
A trap
I looked up civil war in the dictionary: “A conflict fought between citizens of the same State divided into factions.” Is this what’s happening now in Ukraine? Yes, also. There are Ukrainian citizens who have taken up arms against their fellow citizens, and there are military and weapons coming across the border with Russia. If I talk of aggression, I tell only part of the story.
It is not for approximation and naive good faith that the most authoritative Western media do not speak of Russian invasion or terrorists. But for the same reason they do not call the Kiev government “junta” and when they mention Crimea they use the word “annexation”. Because words and vociferous slogans are best left to the megaphones. Because, with all their faults and limitations, the media of democratic countries do their job respecting rules of information and, above all, their audience. All in all, for the same threatened values that Reichelt mentions.
For the propaganda that is their weakness, to be exploited to invade the field and play dirty. But it is not so. If we begin to shriek, we take a position. We conquer a fan base, but we play dirty too.
If words is our weapon, we’d better use them with all their strength, which is in the trustworthiness and balance, and not in vehemence.
@daniloeliatweet
