From 2015
Recently I noticed that on the Facebook group Boycott RT, this article appeared -- seemingly in conformity with the group's goals of outing the propaganda of the Kremlin's lead propaganda outlet RT.com:
Kremlin-Run Propaganda Has an Image Problem
(The original article was published in Moscow Times, but for some reason, I can't get it to pull up, so the link here is to its sister publication St. Petersburg Times -- same article.)
What could be more re-tweetable? Yes, indeed, the Kremlin has an image problem! And RT.com, understood at least by some inquiring minds to be Kremlin propaganda, has become more and more disgusting!
But when I saw this article was from Natalia Antonova -- I knew to take a second look.
I'll have more in a minute -- but read this article first, and watch what happens in this article -- liked and reposted and celebrated by people hoping to expose Russian propaganda.
You may come away from one reading thinking, oh, great, RT.com has been denounced as a Kremlin propaganda tool. It is!
But...First, you have to realize that Natalia Antonova, former deputy editor of Moscow News (which was closed) is herself now the social media director for Russia Behind the Headlines, itself a Russia state propaganda outlet owned by the official state newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta. It, too, is a Kremlin-run propaganda outlet -- it's merely a "thinking man's" RT.com, if you will, designed to be less obnoxious and more subtle than RT.com, and hence lure in intellectuals who scorn RT.com - but then get on the RBTH hook.
Shaun Walker of the Guardian put in a plug for RBTH:
Fair play to whoever is running the Twitter feed of Kremlin-paid supplement @russiabeyond. Its content nuanced & a far cry from Russia Today
— Shaun Walker (@shaunwalker7) September 18, 2014
So...get ready for "more nuanced"!
It's not clear whether Natalia runs her own personal account on Twitter only, or in addition to running the @russiabeyond account -- likely, it *is* her if she is the social media director -- which she says on her own Twitter profile -- and if somehow she doesn't run this account, she would likely supervise that person.
So now you've seen the sterling endorsement of a prominent Guardian journalist covering the war in Ukraine, himself not without controversies (for example, in opposing the dismantling of Lenin statues in Ukraine). So, take a closer look at Natalia's "expose" again:
Antonova rings the chimes of the "thinking man's" more "subtle approach" -- but it's the same bad-
faithed propaganda we see in more virulent forms elsewhere:
o Moral Equivalency
"I don't believe that any news organization — whether privately owned or funded by the government — can escape having a particular slant, especially as far as pet issues are concerned."
Really, Natalia? But there is a difference between, you know, CNN or BCC or RT.com or even, hey, RBTH in terms of their quotient of truth-telling.
o Introduction of the Notion of "Global Russophobia"
Is there such a thing? Um, no, I don't think so. There's simply quite proper criticism of Russia, you know, like there's criticism of the US that many say is legitimate even when they only obsess about America -- oh, and legitimate criticism of Israel, too, which "isn't anti-semitism" as we all know, right?
So Antonova notes "the argument that, for example, Russian state television is simply acting as a counterbalance to global Russophobia when it airs a report in which a clearly unstable source insists that the Ukrainian army crucified a child in liberated Slavyansk."
You're supposed to be so impressed here that Natalia has called out the horridly fake "crucifixion"
story by a "clearly unstable source" (a refugee woman) that evidently even RT.com didn't stoop to run -- (that was up to Rossiya 24 or some other more tabloidy channels) -- that you won't notice that Antonova has thus introduced another pair of deadly theses that a) there's such a thing as "global Russophobia" and b) one might need to thus "counter-balance" it.
Oh, and sure, we realize this isn't the argument she makes -- it's just a putative argument she's listing. So, oh, no, there isn't any insinuation that such "counter-balancing" might be understood as crude but necessary, right? You're sure?
And yet...there is still affirmed here the thesis that there's "global Russophobia". But there isn't such a thing. This is a Kremlin propaganda trope. One of the many in the repertoire of "injured and innocent" posturing the Kremlin does. One of many that makes this powerful nuclear state waging war on a neighboring country and routinely buzzing neighbors to the West some kind of "victim," some kind of down-trodden underdog that the world must "protect."
So with this twirl, Natalia lets you know that she's not like those other bad Russian propagandists who can't check stories because she can call out horridly offensive fakes like the child crucifixation story -- even though she's just got done a) claiming there is moral equivalency among state TVs of the world or that "any" media is biased so therefore, gosh, it's understandable if RT.com is; b) claiming there's a conspiracy to hate the Russian people (global Russophobia).
See how that worked?
We're never to question the global hatred of America because that's deserved, right? That's different! And we're to remain sympathetic to poor put-upon RT.com that has to cope with this sea of hatred, you see.
So here's Natalya's typical poison pill, hidden in among the "we're all smart hipsters and critical
journalists here, people" rhetoric:
"Smug Russian officials will say that their winning formula, combining sensationalism with a decidedly pro-government slant, is not unique — and they will be correct in this. "
Meaning -- and this is the biggest Kremlin propaganda staple there is these days -- all media is
slanted, all media plays to their governments, so the Kremlin agitpropsters are really no worse, and they're just one more in this weary world.
This is the essence of all the nihilist, cynical trash coming from the Kremlin -- "we're bad, we know we're bad, but we'll drag you down with us by making it seem you're just as bad, too."
Except, they truly are uniquely bad, and not like Western media, and not even like Al Jazeera, because not only do they purvey the outrages of "child crucifixation" stories, they have a tidal wave of other lies about Ukraine -- which Natalia herself has also partaken in -- with her claim, for example, that Ukraine "must show compassion for the East" -- as if it had none -- and that it did no charitable work unil it was induced by the Russian "humanitarian convoy" -- which was patently untrue. I guess Natasha never heard of Akhmetov's Pomozhem, to cite one of a number of charities operating in Ukraine and helping Donbass refugees and victims.
o The Evil Market
But there's more. Natalia then concedes: "In Western countries, the government is not in the habit of hounding or, for that matter, liquidating media outlets that instead aim to adhere to decent standards"
But then she slips in the neo-communism of the Kremlin propaganda school "At worst, the capriciousness of the market, combined with general public ignorance and complacency, is Western journalism's biggest enemy."
Oh, that capricious market, that invisible hand!
So -- the market is evil, people are ignorant and complacent because capitalism breeds insensitive, stupid people. See how this works?
o Russia, the Tragically Misunderstood Artist
Natalia does not always have to be subtle to do her job. There's this gem:
"Is the outside world unfair to Russia? Over the years I've argued that yes, it frequently is — and I
stand by those words."
Really, Natalia? The world is unfair when it calls out Russia's appalling support of the mass murderer Assad? When it exposes Russia's lies about MH17, which you've never countered yourself? It's unfair when it says Putin was elected under fraudulent elections; that the
Kremlin is cracking down on business, NGOs, minorities, gays - anybody who is outside the narrow
establishment, some of which even you concede? That it poisoned Litvinenko? That the Sochi Olympics were horribly corrupt? Just to mention a small handful of obvious issues. Unfair, Natalia? You're sure?
Her whole 90%-true article about the nature of RT is articulated for the purpose of slipping in these 10% untruths -- the world is unfair, "global Russophobia" makes Russia suffer unjustly; Russian media may be bad and slanted and sensationalist - but hey, so is American media, right? And Russian state media has to do what it's gotta do to tilt the scales back in its favor, given this "hostile encirclement".
Remember "hostile encirclement"? This was a staple of Soviet propaganda -- remember those 16 Western armies that nearly strangled Bolshevism in its cradle?!
Natalia ends by slamming the Russian media landscape as a "wasteland" and that its trademark should be " a homophobic bear in a tank, swigging vodka and strumming a balalaika. "
That's supposed to make you think she's NOT part of that wasteland and is more sophisticated --- and she isn't in fact, because she's calling out crude propaganda and mocking dancing bears ... except ... I'm sorry, look, again at what she just made you swallow:
o that there is a global conspiracy of Russophobia
o that the West and Russia are morally equivalent
o that all media outlets are slanted and loyal to their government;
o that Russian propaganda outlets arereally no different than CNN or BBC
o that the Russian propaganda formula of combining sensationalism with pro-government news is "not unique" -- the West does this too, you see.
o that the market is "capricious" and that people in capitalist countries suffer from "ignorance and
complacency" -- oh, unlike those hordes of Russians who aggressively endorse their government's land grab of Crimea, you know.
o that the outside world is frequently unfair to Russia
See how that works? Same set of propaganda pills, just put in a more sophisticated coating to make
them easier to swallow.
Are all you people wishing to expose RT.com and even boycott it still happy that you found a great article that achieves your goals?
I began to notice this phenomenon with a number of Russian propagandists and the American bloggers and journalists echoing them some years ago, and it's annoying to see them get even a further traction these days.
But there is nothing people like to bond on over more than the feeling that they've got a higher shared understanding than the average person, and that in their superior knowledge of a country or issue, they can outflank others.
Antonova never really stood out as one of these types until I noticed her vehemence about Timothy Snyder.
I was puzzled by it because I took Antonova at first for more or less a "normal" Moscow intellectual -- tending toward that combination of insecurity and superiority that fuels the hatred of the West -- but still someone critical of the Soviet/Russian reality.
Snyder is widely recognized as a thoughtful scholar and is admired by many because he defeats the facile view held by some Westerners that Ukrainians are inherently fascist and all collaborated with the Nazis in World War II. This is the Kremlin propaganda staple today that tries to deny the legitimate Ukrainian movements of anti-communism and Soviet mass crimes against humanity, including the Holodomor terror-hunger in Ukraine. Today, the Kremlin still harps on the controversial revolutionary or World War II heroes like Stepan Bandera who in facto don't have some sort of massive appeal and are acknowledged as themselves having committed atrocities against Jews, Poles and others.
But today, Kiev's movement to break free of Russia's orbit and move toward Europe -- natural and normal and necessary -- is drowned out in a hateful barrage of propaganda of "fascism" that is "propped up by the US".
Natalia's having none of this -- although she never addresses the "fascism" issue head-on. Instead, there's these angry, hipster tweets:
Snyder's Ukraine article - the one everyone's passing around - is a bunch of heartfelt crap. Crap that provides fodder for Kiselyov's show.
— Natalia Antonova (@NataliaAntonova) February 21, 2014
Timothy Snyder is, like, the Hanson of Ukraine analysis. He's a poser, man. He's never been inside a protest tent & his tattoos ain't real.
— Natalia Antonova (@NataliaAntonova) March 17, 2014
FFS!!! MT @MarkAdomanis "language [in Ukraine] simply not an issue" http://t.co/MAw1FZul39 for smart person Snyder says lots of weird things
— Natalia Antonova (@NataliaAntonova) May 23, 2014
All of these follow the pattern of seeming have a greater liberal good in mind -- the need to counter Dmitry Kiselyev, and therefore, the need for ostensibly higher-quality scholarship than Snyder can supposedly deliver.
But this is ridiculous. Snyder doesn't provide fodder for Kiselyev that he doesn't already have, and Snyder's explanation of how the Ukrainians aren't the fascists caricatured is something Natalia can't admit or engage with directly. Instead she jeers.
Then there's her odd claim that Snyder is like a fake, commercialized made-for-TV rock band. Huh? That his tattoos aren't real. What?! I don't know if Snyder has been on Maidan -- it seems he has - but he wouldn't have to be to still write thoughtfully about this issue.
But then the claim that there's really some kind of language issue in Ukraine?! REALLY, Natalia? You're going to peddle this completely fake and stale Kremlin line? There is zero discrimination of the Russian language. The language law so much ballyhooed doesn't discriminate against the Russian language, whatever its abstract scarifying power. Regional governments simply made Russian a regional language.
And it would have zero effect had it gone into force -- and actually it didn't because it was vetoed. Natalia knows that. And yet she engages in this tawdry nonsense. The Russian language is not the problem in the Donbass because it is not supressed. Soviet culture and Putinism are the problems because the Russian-language TV has kept people from questioning the Moscow line.
The anger and viciousness that Antonova brought to the phenomenon of Snyder let me know how important that he and others like him are breaking the propaganda barriers -- she has no answer but fury.
Then I began to see with other tweets, what the game was, like with this:
"Hey, descendants! How are you? Made it to Mars yet?... WHO ARE YOU FIGHTING?" Gagarin meme criticizes undeclared war pic.twitter.com/FbbvkarTFY
— RBTH (@russiabeyond) August 31, 2014
This meme is from the cosmonaut Yury Gagarin, the first man in space. And the idea is that he is somewhat reproaching his descendants that they haven't flown to Mars, when he himself accomplished so much in his lifetime.
So based on that meme, there's the current meme of "Who are you fighting?" as if to say "What are you fighting your brothers in Uraine for?"
Subtle, yeah. So subtle, you might not even understand this is an anti-war meme -- but that's just what I call out. The insincere fakery of pretending that you can put up "subtle" anti-war memes -- and get credit for them -- when they aren't even clear.
Sure enough, as per usual, the "thinking man's propaganda" snagged a victim -- somebody who thought, hmm, even though they are state media, they are putting out some mild anti-war sentiments!
@russiabeyond RBTH is tweeting this? what is happening in this world? There is hope for Russia yet.— Robert Chadwick (@OpusVII) August 31, 2014
That is the purpose of all of this -- to make thinking people critical of the Kremlin to come away saying, "there is hope for Russia yet" - instead of realizing this is just yet another cunning and cynical ploy.
Oh, I think there's hope for Russia -- it just doesn't come from state propagandists in any form.
So, I decided to cut through this bullshit, since it's fairly clear Natalia is not only the one behind the @russiabehind account, but even if she isn't, RTing it and herself being coy -- and to point out that it's merely a more subtle version of the same thing:
@OpusVII No, the rule for disinformation is that sometimes it has to be true @russiabeyond— CatherineFitzpatrick (@catfitz) August 31, 2014
So this tweet continues to take the @russiabeyond account in good faith as possible really expressing some dissent:
@catfitz @russiabeyond still, Putin claims no involvement and kremlin site says otherwise. Probably dragging away one who tweeted it.— Robert Chadwick (@OpusVII) August 31, 2014
The RBTH account then decides to make a joke of the query, as if it would be dragged away instantly in this oppressive Moscow climate:
.@OpusVII @catfitz http://t.co/MMkXrY7ekn
— RBTH (@russiabeyond) August 31, 2014
Chadwick then realizes they are just playing with us:
So I had this simple question then:
@russiabeyond @OpusVII @NataliaAntonova So do you oppose Russia's war against Ukraine, Natalia?
— CatherineFitzpatrick (@catfitz) August 31, 2014
@catfitz @russiabeyond @OpusVII What do you think, dumbass? Sorry, I am in no mood to be polite tonight.
— Natalia Antonova (@NataliaAntonova) August 31, 2014
@NataliaAntonova Could you say yes or no, Natalia, instead of being a coy angry hipster about it? Yes or no. @russiabeyond @OpusVII
— CatherineFitzpatrick (@catfitz) August 31, 2014
.@catfitz @russiabeyond @OpusVII I oppose Russia's war against Ukraine. I also oppose slimy trolls like you. Go crawl under a bridge. xx
— Natalia Antonova (@NataliaAntonova) August 31, 2014
@NataliaAntonova It's hardly "trolling" to try to get a straight answer out of manipulative propagandists like you @russiabeyond @OpusVII
— CatherineFitzpatrick (@catfitz) August 31, 2014
@russiabeyond @catfitz Yep. You were right @catfitz
— Robert Chadwick (@OpusVII) August 31, 2014
What happens after this? A deluge of hate.
Comments