As I was sitting down to write today’s post about grammar (the subject was actually rather interesting, and something that could be useful for most, but I guess it’s nothing ‘pressing’, as it could probably wait a day or two) I surfed through my usual Russian language news sites, and came across many horrendous titles about the current war. And I come to wonder, even though I should know; «Что происходит в Грузии?» [what's going on in Georgia?] What strikes me the most is the difference between what the Russian media writes about it, and what you can read in, for example, English-language papers such as The Moscow Times. Are there really two wars? In one the Russians are bombing Georgia, and in the other defending themselves from being bombed by Georgia? In this confusion I thought I would turn to you, dear readers, and ask a very important question – where do you go to read Russian news? Do you visit Moscow Times? Or do you prefer Russia Today? Maybe you read Russian papers online, like Комсомольская правда, Известия or Русский репортёр? What English-language sources are best for information about Russia? In a situation as this one it would be good to know where you, Russophiles like me, turn for information. It is of course not imperative to have any kind of point of view, or even opinion, on this conflict, as it is very complicated, but I would like to know what kind of sites, maybe bloggs you read in times like these. This article that I found today, called “Conflict Opens Front In Media”, I can highly recommend to anyone who’d like to read something about how the war is portrayed on Russian TV.
- Subscribe to our RSS feed Subscribe
- Follow @russianlanguage Follow
-
Most Popular Posts
-
Most Recent Posts
10 Comments
Honestly, it’s hard to get any information on the war that is trustworthy from any source. I look to the BBC first, and the NY Times second for just general info.
At Corbina.tv you can watch many Russian networks for free, including Vesti and RTR Planeta. I watch those to see what Russians are talking about, what images they’re showing.
On the war, I check a whole host of Russia-related blogs. They usually post links to other English news sites and that does most of the searching for me. These have a wide range of viewpoints, which you need if you want to try and stay objective.
I’ve also been looking at a lot of Russian-language blogs. These primarily post links to other Russian-language news sources. So, whatever they link to and find interesting is what I’ll read. Most blogs are run by youth, and it’s interesting (frightening) to hear their perspective. I try to find blogs in Georgia or S. Ossetia proper.
I don’t think anyone should be relying on just the Moscow Times or just Russia Today. You would have a really skewed mindset if you did that. It seems to me, that it is thankless to look for or even expect objective reporting from one news source. On a good day they have to please advertisers or owners, on a bad day, there is a war and propaganda is everywhere. So it is best to look at several, and try to glean the truth that seems to remain despite varying agendas and outlooks. Also, blogs seem to be really helpful in the dissemination of information, a lot of them aggregate news, which makes life easier. I live in America, and am bombarded by the “American/Western position” as it is, with things like WSJ, BBC, NYT. (I think it’s every bit as unreliable as the official Russian line.) So I’ll look at RIA Novosti, Kommersant and Russia Today, to see what they’re saying. (And yes, the effect is a feeling that 2 different wars are going on.) Robert Amsterdam’s Russia News, Energy & Business “blasts” & European Tribune’s “Salon de News” are great for a quick rundown of a lot of different stories. Sean’s Russia Blog and, uhm, The Exile, usually have some smart analysis. I rely less on Russian language media because of my own limited vocab & time constraints.
With a war, I think you have to wait until some dust settles if you are looking for the best answer to, Что проиcходит в Грузии?
Anyway, I wanted to stop by and say, I saw the movie “Александра” last night, and not only did I not have to read any of the subtitles, I found them annoying. (To be fair, the dialogue is a little sparse in this movie.) I’ve been reading you blog for a while. Is it a coincidence? I don’t think so!
Good film, too, if you like Sokurov. Very eerie timing for it’s release here…
So far I have been relying mostly on Google News, Al Jazeera, and more recently Russia Today (all in English). I added World Wide News Today. Even though I don’t know the ownership, it does seem to offer a large variety of sources. I have also been in email contact with friends of mine in Georgia, Latvia, and Russia.
War is a terrible event and the “fog of war” (Clauswitz) is part of the terribleness of it all. I am convinced that knowing what is really going on in war is never truly possible–even for the combatants themselves. I spent 23 years as an officer in the US Navy–some in combat zones so I can speak of this from my own personal experience. This is why I choose to get my information from as many sources as possible. Fortunately, the Internet is still a good place for this opportunity to exist.
I find myself getting my news about Russia from ITAR-TASS and Pravda, the former being short little newsletts in sometimes awkward translations, while Pravda seems to me to be a mix of “Russian Oprah” and People Magazine.
I found the article in the Moscow Times interesting in that anymore, WAR is waged in the Media and whatever is really happening on the Front doesn’t matter. It was refreshingly frank in admitting that there might be a variance of what a reporter sees and what he is allowed to print. I found this to be true of the unfortunate “war” in/on Serbia as well. UN investigators found many times that claims from the government run Media about bombings, mortar attacks and personal assaults, turned out to be “False Flag” operations by the Croation government, or just out and out fabrications, which were then blamed on the Serbs.
Here in Georgia the whole affair revolves around more than just Putin’s hegemony, it is centered on what he sees as a threat to Russian dominance of oil flowing from East to West, and three pipelines run right through Georgia! And make not mistake, Vladimir Vladimirovich is still quite in charge.
And again and again I must tell you how much I appreciate your blog!!
Josefina;
I find the BBC to be one of the best places to go for information on Russia and Eastern Europe. The information is not only timely, as they generally have correspondents on site, but also goes into a depth unavailable on most websites.
I especially enjoy “Moscow Diary”; a recurring set of articles on the BBC website the likes of which you are very unlikely to find at any other Western news organization.
Of course, the BBC is providing this information through a “Western Lens,” therefore the information does not generally cast Russia in the most favorable light, but it is presented in a way that shows the author has at least a basic understanding of Russian history (unlike most other Western news sources on Russia and Eastern Europe).
John T.
I use Skynews, Russia Today, Voice of Russia and Interfax. RT is clearly Russian Federation government line, but USA news coverage is so poor. I use RT to get the real view of the RF government on issues. (I can not tell from most USA new stories what is the true offical position of Russia.)
CNN and the other USA news has been focused only on Georgia offical stuff.
I do read Moscow Times, but it is more expat focused. Not good but not bad. Plus slow to be updated.
My question is this, how is it that the US can attempt to garner international support to punish Russia,(regardless of whether the war was justified or not), when the US attacked the sovereign nation of Iraq without UN support, kidnapped it’s President and turned him over to his enemies who killed him!!! What gaul!!
What justification other than there own purposes did they have?? What UN violation existed, none!!
What was Saddams crime once he was turned over to his enemies….he sent the military to put down a group who attempted to assassinate him while touring a village. Just like any President would have. And just like the US empowered Sadamm when it served there interest against the Ayatollah Khomeini’s(?), and he served as a stabilizing force. What they have done which is contrary to US interest is unite Iran & Iraq!
Now they have they utter gaul to even have an opinion about anything Russia does.
My Georgian friend is one source of direct info, also Russcoe Radio for audible news and BBC/MBC are other sources over here but as with all things I find that I have to read and listen to lots of info to discriminate so much so that when Georgian troops disembarked in Tblisi off an ‘unmarked C130′ it was in fact as USAF C17A … little things that count the same as carefully looking at vehicle MBT, APC, BTR40s insignia to see who they belong to and where they came from to invade Georgia !!!
If defending South Ossetia and Abkhazia then why did they not stay there within those boundaries ?
It is a resurgence of the Bear and as flawed as Saakashvilli’s attempt to recover land and a people who do not want to be part of Georgia !
Glad to see them pulling back to-day ! about time too …
There is a sensible man in charge in Moscow after all !
As usual, the BBC is twisting and distorting the news coming out of the Georgia region. We keep being told that around 1500 have been killed in Georgia, the inference being that this has resulted from Russian bombing.
Not so, the casualties are in Ossetia.
While the Ossetians claimed over 1000 dead the BBC neither reported this or any newsreel coming out of Ossetia showing the destruction caused by the Georgian shelling of the breakaway republic.
All we are getting is one-sided reports of the destruction being caused by the Russians.
Unlike News 24 which is its international news carrier, the BBC website does make some mention of Ossetian casualties:
“We left our town because the situation there is worse than anything I’ve seen in 18 years of conflict. Houses are being hit by rockets and heavy artillery, aircraft are bombing the roads.”
Since yesterday, Russia Today was reporting the complete destruction of Ossetia’s capital by Georgian shelling. Again, the destruction of the Ossetian capital was never reported by the BBC.
Last Friday, RIA Novosti reported that Ossetia was claiming over 1000 dead:
“Over 1,000 civilians have been killed as the result of an attack by Georgia on the capital of its breakaway republic of South Ossetia, the North Ossetian nationalities minister said Friday.
According to the South Ossetian information and press committee, the number of fatalities is estimated, according to preliminary information, at over 1,000,” Teimuraz Kasayev said.”
Sometime after mid-day today I tried unsuccessfully to access the Russia Today website for further information. Whether this is because of heavy traffic or because the website is being blocked by someone it is difficult to tell. I experienced the very same problem trying to access the RIA Novosti website.
Meanwhile, a BBC News 24 reporter, Lyse Doucet, tried to suggest that Russia had attacked Abkhazia by sending troops into that breakaway republic! That was soon put into doubt by another BBC reporter from Moscow who speculated that the sending of Russian troops into Abkhazia was not an attack but intended to protect its citizens and holiday-makers there.
On Saturday, China’s Xinhua news service reported, “Abkhazia launches operation to force Georgian troops out” and “Georgia defeats Abkhazia’s attacks”. And previous news from Russia Today had announced Abkhazia’s attack on Georgia. So was the BBC’s Doucet confused or deliberately confusing the facts?
What is clear, however, is that the BBC is giving carte blanche to the Georgian point-of-view to be aired on its services while nothing whatsoever is being heard from the Ossetian side. The BBC’s repetitive playing of a statement by George Bush, given several days ago, without balancing these against statements from the Russian side indicates where the BBC is coming from.
The contrast between the brazenly pro-US, pro-Georgian views being put out on BBC News 24 and the BBC website is to be noted whilst a more balanced assessment has been published by Richard Seymour of Lenin’s Tomb. He, like me, believes that the BBC is deliberately confusing the issue. I’m sure we’ll get much more of that from the BBC:
“Incidentally, just so that this point isn’t lost in the deliberately confusing reportage. Yes, Russian jets are attacking Georgian targets and killing civilians. Yes, the reported civilian casualties “on both sides” is reported to be over 2,000. What is quite often not stated or just gently skated over in the reporting, so laden with images of Georgian dead and wounded, is that the estimate of 2,000 civilian deaths comes from the Russian government and it applies overwhelmingly to the Georgian attacks on South Ossetia on Friday.
In fact, this is the basis for Vladimir Putin’s claims of a “genocide” against South Osettians by the Georgians (is he deliberately referencing the ICTY judgment about Srebrenica here?). The Georgian side, by contrast, claims 129 deaths of both soldiers and civilians. So, if Russian figures are good enough to reference, why is the source of the figures and their context obscured? Why is being made to look as if Russian forces are behind most of those alleged deaths? Doesn’t this just amount to a whitewash of the actions of the Georgian army in South Ossetia? And why not mention 30,000 refugees too?”
I don’t really read news… I mean I am not searching news. I don’t have time, unfortunately, to spend couple of hours a day sieving through websites and papers in the search of the truth. I do go, though, to a particular forum, and when something happens people discuss, and links start flowing back and forth. So, this way I get my share of new. And I read ‘Foreign Policy’ magazine which I find very analytical with a variety of views. They are bi-monthly and don’t have much on a website, though. Also I read ’2600′ – it’s hacker’s quarterly – very interesting reading. Makes you a bit paranoid.