By Catherine A. Fitzpatrick
A Russian online news site, Gazeta, which used to be more independent and now is more and more pro-Kremlin, claimed falsely today that "American journalists defended their colleagues after an attack from the State Department."
Welllll, come now. That's not really what happened, as anyone can tell by reading the transcript AND watching the video. There was some murmurring in the pack of journalists, and just two spoke up challenging the State Department's actually accurate characterizations.
And one American reporter who made this statement in defense of her Russian colleague had herself made a false claim just like theirs that the video Putin showed supposedly "two missiles sent to different directions" only (that was only ONE frame) and the other reporter (Matt Lee) said falsely "doesn’t actually show the missiles hitting anything" -- when in fact it DID on a later frame.
I find it hard to believe that these journalists didn't watch Putin's video all the way through and I do wonder how they got this "version" of the story. So often one finds set Kremlin propaganda pieces turning up in these questions not just from Russian state media -- understandably -- but Westerners who should know better who I guess just read The Nation, Zero Hedge, Democratic Underground oh and RT.com or something.
This is typical, by the way, of these noon briefings that just don't get enough scrutiny. I've been calling for years on State to PUBLISH the names of the correspondents asking questions at these briefings AND their companies so we can see who is doing the constant asking of the heckling questions -- and the state media from Russia.
It really is disingenuous to claim that other media in the room that might have state financing -- oh, Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) or British Broadcasting Company (BBC) -- are "like" RT.com or Channel One -- they're not. Those Western state-funded entities are far more critical of the Kremlin's disinformation than Gazeta, a private paper, is nowadays, let alone Channel One, a propaganda arm of the state that may not be as raucous as RT in its lies, but has still turned in some malicious whoopers -- like the claim that a toddler was crucified in Slavyansk (!) in the war in Ukraine -- when in fact that was a total concoction by Russian ultrarights Dugin and pro-Russian separatists that got replayed via a Channel One broadcast of a woman who was a refugee in Russia, whose husband in fact was a DNR fighter.
Let's go over what actually happed at State -- which is actual typical of what happens there on stories like this and never gets called out.
Here's the relevant section of the transcript:
First Nauer struggles with saying a very truthful observation that the media is obsessed about the Mueller investigation on possible collusion by Trump and company with Russia -- and missing the awful things happening inside Russia and what Putin is doing around the world, namely Syria and Ukraine.
How do we know that?
Because every day, they have stories on the Russia investigation, which they hope might bring the removal of Trump, but they often don't cover the other, larger stories about Russia -- such as their nuclear arms programs. You will hunt in vain for any U.S. paper that covered the story from the Russian media a few weeks ago about Russia's threat to move nuclear-capable missiles to Kaliningrad, on the border with the Baltic states of Poland and Lithuania.
MS NAUERT: Elise – Elise, let me finish, because you’re asking me a question about some of the things that are being done. There are other mechanisms in place. Paris I mentioned. The accord, the agreement that Secretary Tillerson and 25 or 26 other countries signed onto. We have a new member just as of yesterday. I’m trying to remember if it was Norway or the Netherlands. Let me get back to you on that. There is that.
A lot of these meetings are happening. We will hold Russia accountable and hold Russia responsible. And let me again urge you – I know a lot of you are so obsessed with Russia and what Russia did in the United States in the 2016 elections. I would urge you to --
QUESTION: I --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MS NAUERT: -- to show your outrage --
QUESTION: I’m sorry, I really --
QUESTION: Actually, I don’t think that’s true in this room.
MS NAUERT: Hold on. Hold on. I would assure you --
QUESTION: Maybe in some other briefing rooms around town.
MS NAUERT: Okay, maybe in other briefing rooms --
QUESTION: Not this one.
MS NAUERT: -- but let me ask reporters to turn that around. Fine to ask about Russia’s role in influencing or trying to influence the 2016 elections, but look at Russia and what it’s doing in killing people in Syria. I would urge you to do that.
QUESTION: I think – I mean, I’m sorry, I think that everybody in this room is asking about that and talking about that. And I don’t – I reject your assertion that everybody in this room is obsessed with the --
MS NAUERT: I don’t – I don’t think I said everybody in this room is obsessed, but in general – in general.
QUESTION: But the point is --
QUESTION: Okay, well, it’s just not – it’s just germane to the questions --
QUESTION: But the point is you haven’t gotten a single question about that topic. You haven’t gotten one question about --
QUESTION: It’s not germane to the question at hand, and the question at hand is: What is the U.S. going to do to hold Russia accountable when in the past the U.S. has imposed sanctions on Russia for its actions in Ukraine? Are there sanctions not just for chemical weapons, but are there sanctions being considered for supporting the Syrian regime for its barrel bombing of civilians in Eastern Ghouta and elsewhere?
So Heather is right that really, compared to the Russia Investigation, the mass murder of civilians in Syria, which Russia aids and abets, is far worse. Of course, Trump and his cadre would like to do anything to deflect attention to any possible collusion with Russia, and in fact their Syria policy is better on some days than Obama's, which now occasions the writers sometimes called "neo-cons" to urge praise for Trump's actual "stand tough" position on Russia.
This gets journalists in a lather -- and remember, what they're actually trying to do here -- get the State Department to tell us what America will actually DO about these chemical weapons being used on civilians -- rather than jaw-jaw in diplomacy. Of course, they're at the State Department, where, Heather reminds us, they do diplomacy, and not the Arms Control department -- and here Matt gets in a little dig:
QUESTION: Would you – you intend to remain within the compliance?
MS NAUERT: I’m not aware that we – we certainly would intend to remain in that. I’m not the arms control and verification expert, so if you want a deeper dive on that, I can certainly put --
QUESTION: It’s a matter of policy whether you --
MS NAUERT: Pardon me?
QUESTION: It’s a matter of policy, diplomatic policy, whether you remain in a treaty or not.
MS NAUERT: We believe that we remain in the treaty. Okay?
QUESTION: Thanks.
QUESTION: Are you still considering (inaudible) negotiate with Russia in the bigger sphere?
QUESTION: Who is the arms control expert?
MS NAUERT: Our – we have our AVC Bureau. They’re our experts there.
QUESTION: Right. Who is the under secretary?
MS NAUERT: The -- cute, Matt. (Laughter.
For those watching at home -- that's Matt Lee (you can see on the video and she calls him by name) and what he means is: if you go look at that page on the State Department web site, you'll find that position has only an ACTING official because like so MANY important positions, Trump just hasn't appointed that official. OK, score one for Matt on that one, we all find it appalling that Trump has eviscerated, crippled and decapitated the State Department but here's Nauert actually making a valid point: the Russians are in violation, not the US. So let's now go to the problem with the Russian journalists -- and their defenders in the American press corps -- both are disinforming on the nature of Putin's video:
QUESTION: Alexander Khristenko, Russian TV. Are you still considering negotiations with Russia on global security issues and nuclear arms issues after today’s announcement?
MS NAUERT: Would – are – so your question is would we cut off conversations and negotiations?
QUESTION: I mean do you change something in your attitude toward this?
MS NAUERT: Well, look, it’s certainly concerning to see your government, to see your country, put together that kind of video that shows the Russian Government attacking the United States. That’s certainly a concern of ours. I don’t think that that’s very constructive, nor is it responsible. I’ll leave it at that. Okay?
QUESTION: It was not attacking the United States. It was not attacking the United States. It was two missiles sent to different directions. So why do you say that they are --
MS NAUERT: Are you – oh, you’re --
QUESTION: Sorry. I’m from Russia. Channel One in Russia.
MS NAUERT: You’re from Russian TV, too.
QUESTION: Yes, yes.
MS NAUERT: Okay. So hey, enough said then. I’ll move on.
QUESTION: Wait, I’m sorry. What does that mean?
MS NAUERT: What does what mean?
QUESTION: I mean, it’s – they’re not – they’re not officials of the Russian Government. They’re just asking a question about Russia.
MS NAUERT: Oh. Oh, really? Okay. Well, we know that RT and other Russian news – so-called news organizations --
QUESTION: They’re a --
MS NAUERT: -- are funded and directed by the Russian Government. So if I don’t have a whole lot of tolerance --
QUESTION: As are other media in this room, Heather.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Heather, can I just ask you one thing about the video?
MS NAUERT: Oh, my gosh. Yes.
QUESTION: This video that you’re talking about, the cartoon.
MS NAUERT: Yes.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Excuse me. The – as I understand it, and I could be wrong, the video that was played doesn’t actually show the missiles hitting anything. Are you – but I’m just asking. Is it the assessment of the U.S. Government that had the missiles in the video ended up at their presumed target, that presumed – that that target was the United States?
MS NAUERT: Matt, I think it’s certainly looks like that. I’d ask you to go back and take a look at that.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS NAUERT: It’s pretty clear what their target is, okay?
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
Note that you can't tell who is asking these questions -- that adds confusion if it gets in the media like this -- but if you watch the video you can see that it is Matt Lee asking, "the video that was played doesn’t actually show the missiles hitting anything."
Baloney.
Watch the video, please -- here's the relevant excerpt.
First, the scene starting at 0:24. AND THEN the scene at 0:43.
Also note that Matt Lee doesn't make this FALSE claim on Twitter -- he only makes it during the State Department briefing whose transcript will not show his name. Only a smaller number of people will ever watch the video and know it's he who ask that misleading question with a falsehood in it.
"#Russia's Putin boasts of new nuclear weapons" https://t.co/c3n6sMvHmr
— Matt Lee (@APDiploWriter) March 1, 2018
Yes, the FIRST scene where the missiles take off, they seem to circle the sides of the globe and don't come anywhere near the United States that you can see in that distorted form that it takes when you look at the world from Russia. Yes, that's one of the first things you learn when you study in other countries -- and that's useful! The US is not at the center of the map, or the center of the world. Russia puts itself at the center. That means the US is a distorted continent off to the side.
One could speculate whether the missiles are creating such a massive shield that they could deflect anything from space, or anything targeted at them. But let's go to the OTHER scene in the video which clearly shows Florida: NOW there are Russian missiles targeting Florida, in a clear reference to the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Soviet Union:
So there will be Fiskers and distractors and literalists who will say that isn't Florida. Or it's not labelled Florida. Well, Florida looks like this.
CNN had no problem running, this headline with the graphic, "Putin boasts military might with animation of Florida nuke strike."
Because of course it's Florida, Putin is just being a cunning dissembler as always. During this briefing he can show a video of STRIKES, even as he warbles:
“We are not threatening anyone and we are not going to attack.”
“We would consider any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies to be an attack on our country. The response would be immediate.”
Um, ok.
So what does AP, Matt's own wire service say? Did they use his tendentious and wrong take on this video? Of course not. Here's their story:
AP writes "Putin unveiled the stunning catalog of doomsday machines in his annual state-of-the-nation speech, saying that Russia had to build them to counter the potential threat posed by the U.S. missile defense system."
There was no question here about WHY Putin was unveiling these systems -- it's to counter what he views as a threat.
The AP story quoted Heather Nauert exactly: "State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said it was “unfortunate” to watch animation depicting “a nuclear attack on the United States” that accompanied Putin’s speech, calling the video “cheesy” and adding that “we don’t think it’s responsible.”
AP did NOT say -- like their diplomatic correspondent Matt Lee at the noon briefing -- "but the video doesn't show missiles hitting anything." Of course they didn't because that would be a misrepresentation of reality.
To be sure, AP dithered, quoting several experts who told them that really, the Russians "can't" build something like this.
The West is in big denial, and the climate of Kremlinology is so warped and so corrupted by pro-Kremlin influencers that it is very hard to have this discussion in academic, let alone in the media.
AP said: "It wasn’t immediately possible to assess whether the weapons could do what Putin said or how ready they are for deployment, but they would represent a major technological breakthrough that could dramatically bolster Russia’s military capability, boost its global position and trigger a new arms race."
So at least AP came away not misleading us that these missiles weren't intended to hit America.
To be sure, Putin wanted to literalize and make it sound these weapons are all "defensive" -- but as Heather pointed out -- and she's not wrong -- the Russians are breaking a treaty with this AND when you make defensive weapons this aggressive, then the issue isn't defense any more, but your aggressive system that subdues the other side. This is an old, old story that was parsed far better in the 1980s when these issues were more alarming during the Cold War. And it's as if all of it has dropped through a memory whole, as reporters don't know how to cover this any more except to be childish and contrarian and misrepresent what are clearly malign intents from Russia.
CNN did better with handling this story -- and pointing out essentially what Nauert said about the "distractive" value of the Trump Investigation versus the bad things in Russia itself:
.@MarkGaleotti brings it. "Those who have an interest in magnifying the threat, whether to sell research, raise profiles or justify budgets, are glad to take fullest advantage of the opportunity. https://t.co/FOXO1UHbPY
— Michael Colborne (@ColborneMichael) March 1, 2018
Like many of my colleagues, I have my own inside sources at various Russian government agencies. Their scoops, leaks, or rumors I can't use in stories for various reasons.
— Alexey Kovalev (@Alexey__Kovalev) March 1, 2018
Please keep this in mind when pitching, reading or sharing that OMG PUTIN IS GOING TO KILL US ALL story. That concludes today's sermon, folks.
— Alexey Kovalev (@Alexey__Kovalev) March 1, 2018
So, you're finding a felt need to say this on the day Putin announces these new nukes? Ok https://t.co/NYcA5WV0FB
— CAFitzpatrick (@catfitz) March 1, 2018
And it was good to see that Carl Schreck of RFE/RL did as well:
To be fair, not the most comforting thread when talking about nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
— Carl Schreck (@CarlSchreck) March 1, 2018
Of course, it goes without saying that one way Russian propagandists got Western journalists and their massive numbers of followers on Twitter to become downright jolly and fun about this deadly missile actually aimed at us is to report on the "name that missile" contest and to make great sport of it. It's like the PR gambit the Russian Embassy in London launched the other day, probably as the pilot test for this new form of "interactive" propaganda -- that gambit was about providing a "caption" for Lavrov sitting and glowering, holding a pen. I volunteered that he was holding the pen, literally, on a subject at the UN Security Council, where Russia was exercising its veto.