Australian media are doing a remarkable effort to cover the war in the Ukraine.
The ABC, for example, has at least two correspondents reporting directly from within the Ukraine (Isabella Higgins and Nick Dole). Steve Cannane – ABC Europe bureau chief – and Linton Besser seem to be covering the war from London, while Jade Macmillan – Washington bureau chief – and Barbara Miller follow the reaction in the US.
At home, Stan Grant – International Affairs Analyst – contributes both written pieces and TV segments. At least two veteran former foreign correspondents with experience in Russia, Philip Williams and Norman Hermant, joined him, providing comment to ABC News24. As I started writing this on Saturday, James Maasdorp was hosting a live blog (a new development in Aussie online journalism) on the war. On top, other journalists are chipping in as required in areas they cover regularly: Andrew Greene (defence correspondent) and David Chau (financial markets) and Matthew Doran (national politics), for example.
I follow regularly ABC News24 and I assure readers: in recent times that effort is extraordinary, in terms both of man-hour involved and hours of on-air broadcast. (For overseas readers: the COALition’s relentless efforts to financially strangle the ABC, a public-funded service, is taking its toll). The coverage of the Hong Kong 2020 protests, I am absolutely sure, was much more limited. In fact, I doubt even the COVID coverage compared to it. To the best of my memory, only the 2019-20 Black Summer involved a comparable or more extensive mobilisation of human resources and coverage.
The result is visible. That’s how the ABC News Online looked like on Saturday morning: out of eleven, 10 stories covered the war.
Three things, however, strike me about the ABC coverage of the conflict. I find those things disturbing.
The One-Sided Coin.
The first thing is that there are at least two sides to every conflict. The NATO-American and Ukrainian side, as you can see, receives a comprehensive coverage from the ABC. That is good, to be sure.
But, how about the other side?
This is not to say that the ABC does not cover the Russian side at all. The solution they provide, however, is less than satisfactory. To cover the Russian side the ABC appears to be relying on material originating from other sources, not on material produced by their own journalists. I trust the journalism the ABC itself produces, but that trust does not extend necessarily to externally sourced material.
This is important, because those sources seem far from impartial and emotionally charged hyperbole is rampant. All this may be understandable and even inevitable in times as dramatic, but it’s unhelpful.
Take the words of Polish PM Mateusz Morawiecki for France 24 English edition earlier this morning:
Today, we stand in front of the tribunal of history. Because an independent state, a sovereign state, the democratic state of Ukraine has been invaded by Russia and nothing is going to stop Putin if we are not decisive enough. Germany cannot immerse in conceited selfishness, avarice. You have to stop this. We have to stop this. We have to stop Putin. Because the next genocide is looming on the horizon. What kind of hell will be delivered to Ukraine? What kind of help have you [the German Government] delivered to Ukraine? 5,000 helmets? This must be a joke.I will come back to this in a moment.
Anyway, alarming as it is to hear that from a head of government, journalists are not immune. The difference is that one has learned that politicians are not to be trusted, while one still trusts journalists.
But journalists are also failing. An example: this short video segment (about 4 minutes) from the BBC (note well: a respectable, authoritative, legitimate source, yes?) shows the training of Ukrainian civilians (including elderly women and children) in Mariupol a few days before the invasion. The trainers are members of the Ukrainian military, not civilian militiamen posing as soldiers. If you pay close attention, however, something disturbing about those soldiers will become evident (yes, that’s where that screenshot opening and the one below come from). However, the BBC reporter – who was there in person – either did not notice or chose not to remark upon that fact: either way, it is misleading.
----------
Similar Wars, Different Responses.
Another thing I find disturbing is that the Western media coverage of events today seem in some ways both strangely similar and radically different at the same time to the coverage given to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The raw images themselves (military hardware, explosions) are obviously similar: it could not be otherwise. But that may be superficial. However, the broad outline of the situation is certainly similar: a militarily mightier country invades a weaker country under false pretences.
And yet, the way the media covers the events differently.
Let me explain. Although I have always had a good memory, I’m getting old. Perhaps memory is failing me, but I can’t remember any ABC journalist – in fact, any Western journalist, period – reporting Operation Iraqui Freedom from the ground in Iraq. Were there interviews with Iraqui civilians fleeing as Coalition of the Willing bombs rained on them? Perhaps this is just me, but I can’t remember any (if you can, please let me know).
I clearly remember, though, that there were anti-war protests back then, as there are now. I remember because, well, I – predictably you might add – took part in them. But on this, too, the similarity involves extreme differences. In 2003, protesters did not meet with universal approval, quite to the contrary: the reaction often ranged from media derision to police repression. Today, much to my surprise, anti-war protests are popular. This is puzzling because at least in its broad outline, the two events are undeniably similar.
Another very distinct memory from that earlier conflict is that in 2003, like today, some invading troops were captured by the defending forces. Inevitably even the mightiest of armies suffer losses (chiefly among the rank and file); that’s why acronyms such as KIA, MIA and such became so well-known. At the time, if I am not mistaken, this wasn’t interpreted as indicative of an imminent failure of the invasion: the Coalition of the Willing’s victory was accepted, perhaps realistically, as a fait accompli. Moreover, back then the parading of evidently frightened POWs by the defending forces was said to constitute a breach of the Geneva Convention and it caused much outrage. I haven’t seen anyone commenting on the Russian troopers captured.
I also remember – you might as well – the much commented phenomenon of the “embedded journalist”: a reporter assigned to a military unit of the invading armies, to show the world the human face of the invader. For some reason, the Russians did not adopt a similar figure. Maybe they should have.
Needless to say, nobody back then applied sanctions against the instigators of a war of aggression on false pretences in which some 460 thousand people died and turned millions of others into refugees. Although many believe they are war criminals, they went on with their lives untroubled, their leading roles in starting that war forgotten. Today some of them are considered good men.
----------
The third and final thing I find disturbing does require a little background for foreign readers.
SBS (Special Broadcasting Service) is one of two publicly-owned TV and radio Australian broadcasters (the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ABC, is the other). Both are under the authority of Paul Fletcher, federal Minister for Communications.
SBS caters for foreign language communities and the bulk of their news comes straight from foreign sources, some in English language (France 24, Al Jazeera, DW, NHK among them); most in foreign language. I learned of the Polish extreme Right PM’s quote through SBS.
Last Friday Fletcher announced SBS, obeying his request, had suspended the broadcast of news bulletins NTV Moscow and Russia Today, on the grounds that they disseminated Russian propaganda.
Maybe they disseminate propaganda, but I haven’t seen evidence that they do. What is propaganda, anyway? Are we sure they and only they disseminate propaganda and misinformation? Censorship of media outlets is a slippery slope, especially in a country where human rights are not constitutionally recognised: Australia has no bill of rights.
Worse still: Fletcher has no moral authority to make that request. The principles he defends as sacrosanct are either sacrosanct or they are not; what is unacceptable is that freedom of press is only sacrosanct until he decides it is not. The Morrison regime ordered police raids against the ABC and against journalist Annika Smethurst (both cases were eventually dismissed by the courts, after a lengthy and expensive legal process). Or is it only the Murdoch media freedom of the press that is sacred?
----------
Let me finish this with a personal appeal to ABC journalists. I respect you. I trust you. My personal opinion about the ABC is high. You guys try your best to do your job with honesty, professionalism and courage: you are probably the best in Australia.
But I am disappointed with your coverage of the Ukraine conflict (and I am also disappointed with SBS, for accepting Fletcher’s orders)
We all regret this war and would like it had not started. We all want it to stop as soon as possible, before more innocents are harmed. It’s undeniable Vladimir Putin has blood in his hands.
He may be a criminal, but he is not crazy. The black and white picture you are painting is attractive, but misleading.
The same NATO irresponsible hypocrites who are shedding crocodile tears over the tragic fate of Ukrainians will turn their backs on them as soon as millions of refugees come knocking at their doors.
NATO is dangerously encroaching on Russia’s proximity. There is no point in calling Russia to negotiate if every single Russian demand is a priori ruled out. His demands are clear: to keep NATO away from Russia’s borders. And, to be honest, I can’t blame him for demanding that. What is not reasonable is for him to resort to violence and for NATO to corner him there.
War is a propitious environment for hysteria. From hysteria to calls for military action against Russia – the world's second nuclear power – there is only a step. Let’s pray we don’t give that step.
Your job, therefore, becomes even harder. But it’s your job and your responsibility. For the good of all of us, I call you to lift up your game. Your hard-earned professional reputation is at stake here, and it would be awful for you to squander it.
But there may be something much more important than your reputation at stake.
No comments:
Post a Comment