ⅤOrodimir Zelensky has called for attacks in many Western media outlets. His daily videos set the agenda. His talking points and targets are picked up and repeated in the hours that follow. The New York Times, Le Monde, Arte, Battle of Paris, Rolling news channel and public radio. When Western arms shipments were delayed, release Communicated Kyiv’s dissatisfaction to the Elise: “Military aid, especially from France, is well below its needs” (20 July).
At a time when Western interest in the conflict seemed to be waning, Ukrainian parliamentarian Lesia Vasilenko Ropinion. A press review for France Intel amplified her appeal: “She is pleading with the Western media not to forget the war. They have as much power as the leaders of major nations, and if Once information is exhausted, Moscow will take advantage of it.. yes, there is a risk of fatigue.. yes, the routine has already begun. With equal determination, anything that contradicts it is the echo chamber routine of the discredited media.
An Amnesty International report of 4 August provides one of the most striking examples of this propaganda filter in action. school or hospital. Of course, he added, “Such transgressions in no way justify Russia’s indiscriminate attacks that have killed and injured countless civilians.” (1)Presenting the report, Amnesty International’s Agnès Kalamar noted that “the fact that it is in a defensive position does not exempt the Ukrainian military from its obligation to respect international humanitarian law.” This is a classic argument presented in many previous Amnesty International press releases condemning Hamas’ human rights abuses. In the Gaza Strip regardless of Israeli attacks.
Zelensky didn’t see it that way. That night, he denounced an Amnesty International investigation that suggested that “victims and perpetrators are said to be one and the same”. The report, he said, “seems to amnesty for a terrorist state.” Again, the media spoke in unison. Aline Le Bail Kremer lashed out at Amnesty on her LCI News channel (5 August), quoting Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel. Journalist Jean-Sébastien Soldayni told France Culture that the problem with the report was that it “unintentionally put two adversaries on equal footing by challenging Ukraine.” August 8). Le Monde It widely quoted a “reserve colonel and Ukrainian military expert” who described Amnesty’s investigators as “helpful idiots” who gave Putin a “gift of propaganda.” The newspaper backed up the accusation by emphasizing that “the report was well received in Russia” (from 7 August to he 8 August). Amnesty International’s Russian office did not say it was closed on 8 April for criticizing the Russian authorities so harshly.
Amnesty International’s constant criticism of Russia
Since the beginning of 2021, Amnesty International’s website has published more than 90 updates, press releases and campaign announcements specifically about Russia, the Kremlin, the imprisonment of protesters, the freedom of the press and freedom of demonstration. Restrictions, criticizing the fate of the opposition Alexander Navalny. Repression of feminist activists and persecution of war opponents. Since the beginning of the year, Amnesty International has issued around 30 statements specifically concerning Ukraine. All of them denounce Russian aggression and the aggressors’ war crimes and human rights violations, except those that call on both sides to respect the rights of prisoners of war. (2).
However, Amnesty International, which does not observe “neutrality” between perpetrators and perpetrators, was seen as wrong. Any information that could discourage mobilization in favor of a country “fighting for shared values” must be discredited because it “falls into Putin’s hands.”
The Western media has as much power as the leaders of major nations.When information is depleted, Moscow will take advantage
The media, which have made fighting fake news a democratic imperative, are attacking a new target: true but unwelcome news. Donald Trump, who usually analyzes all lies, didn’t object when he announced on August 9 that Russia was “killing hundreds of thousands of people” in Ukraine. Meanwhile, news media have expressed concern over past NATO expansions, noted Ukraine’s non-compliance with the Minsk II agreements, and have seen similar reactions from Kyiv to Moscow’s disinformation. As a symbol of liberal democracy, they confuse Ukraine with a telegenic and brave president, make his claims a secular religion, and criticize him. is turning the interrogation into blasphemy.
Zelensky could not be blamed for helping an aggressor nation with a talent that far outstripped Russia’s enemies. For the most part, Russian propaganda is truly reprehensible and almost laughable. For example, on May 9, in his info France, a spokesman for Moscow in Paris said that all civilian victims of the Russian bombing were either killed or engineered by the Nazis in Ukraine. claimed.
Eradicating Russian disinformation is already easy, and is proving to be getting easier as the term continues to be defined. new york times Russia believes it has “used both false narratives and narratives that are true but bordering on current events to distort narratives or conceal real intentions.” (3).
But who can say with certainty what Russia’s “true intentions” are, other than those officially established by the West? Attraction to the Thunder Emperor, Stalin, Hitler, etc.?economist claimed on July 30 that the “Z” shown by a Russian military supporter stood for “half of the swastika”…Are you saying anything bad about Ukraine at this point?”
Prejudice as a Moral Advantage
When they use the Kyiv language, the media advertise their prejudice as a sign of moral superiority. They routinely refer to Putin as “Kremlin master”. In late June, journalist Thomas Cluzel told French Culture newspaper that the town of Sieviero Donetsk had been taken “by the enemy”. They believe Ukrainian artillery could not have targeted the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant, which was occupied by Russia in August. They rejected a report by the US channel CBS that Western weapons were being smuggled into Ukraine, while also claiming this was an “unproven” exaggeration and “obvious” but questionable. . The Russian mass media that amplified it” (release, August 10).
Moral fingerings often lack subtlety. On 4 July at France Inter, after Ukraine lost in Donbass, media luminaries Nicolas Demolan and Lea Salame soft-soaped a panel of right-wing commentators to boost listeners’ morale. America’s Lies About Iraq’s “Weapons of Mass Destruction”.Journalist Laure Mandeville, along with his colleague Isabel Russell, sets the tone for the Atlanticist Le Figaroand the ubiquitous Pierre Servent is a “consultant”. Le Parisien, A person who “specializes in national defense” at TFI and LCI. For Heisbourg, the choice was clear. “Give us more guns, more shells, more information, or we will see Russia win.” Mandeville agreed: “If we don’t stop them, the enemy will advance. “Either we give Ukraine more support or Putin wins,” Salameh added. Servent summarizes: On August 24, the moderator of the LCI morning program said, “The rear guard is us, the Western leaders and public opinion,” in response to a guest’s comment.
It’s true that the French media rarely escape from their glorious coverage of conflicts. In May 2003, a France 2 journalist described the machine-gunning of an Iraqi bus by US soldiers (14 dead) as “an even more severe blow for coalition forces trying to get along with the Iraqi population”. Stated. Think of the indignation such comments would cause if applied to Russian airstrikes…
Nearly two decades later, Western journalists are still focused on telling audiences what to think rather than providing real food for thought. The facts are wrapped in layers of preaching. I firmly believe that explaining the conflict is the same as justifying the aggressor. News that ‘touches’ the desired end is not reported: The West is responding to the puppet media of authoritarian regimes with illiberal reporting in defense of liberalism. It’s the ideal climate for Bernard-Henri Lévy, who made self-important documentaries. why ukraine at Arte.
Why do Arte and France Culture’s educated audience allow themselves to be treated like children? Most of them are middle-class graduates, resistant to brainwashing and censorship A demographic that is said to be unwilling to be accepted (unlike the gullible working class, perhaps). However, this intellectual elite is particularly susceptible to media preaching, as it confirms that they are on the right side on all subjects, political, cultural, environmental, and social. Both value-based diplomacy thrive on willful blindness.
https://mondediplo.com/2022/09/08ukraine-media The News You Don’t Want to Hear, Serge Halimi & Pierre Lambert (Le Monde Diplomatique)