Fairness & Balance in Russian Coverage of the Crisis in Ukraine

March 6, 2014

When three months of civic unrest in spiraled out of control and left dozens dead, an international crisis erupted.

As Russia flexed its military might in Crimea, an autonomous part of Ukraine with an ethnic Russian majority, Britain’s foreign minister warned of “the biggest crisis in Europe in the 21st century” and US president Obama declared a “breach of international law.”

But Russian president Vladimir Putin said the conflict was the “result of an unconstitutional coup which does not have a national mandate.”

In general, Russian citizens viewed the crisis very differently than their counterparts in the West – and the different narratives of what was happening in Crimea, and why, were clearly reflected in both Russian and Western news outlets. The Western view held that Russia violated international law and Ukrainian sovereignty by invading Crimea and that Ukrainians should have the right to determine their own fate in elections. In contrast, Russian media largely presented Putin’s analysis that the United States and its allies had poured resources into creating a dangerous far-right force that was closing in on worried citizens in the east of Ukraine.

The state-sponsored international news network Russia Today, for example, repeated government denials that there were any Russian troops blockading government buildings and Ukrainian military installations in Crimea, claiming instead that a “Crimean popular army made up of locals and former Ukrainian armed forces” was responsible.

This perspective was reflected in polls showing sizable percentages of the Russian population describing events in Ukraine as “rampant anarchy and banditry,” the outbreak of a civil war, or “a coup and overthrow of the state.”

Western journalists have charged the Russian media with unfair and unbalanced coverage, saying that outlets like RT are at best “a mixture of legitimate perspectives, half-truths and outright propaganda,”

--and at worst just a propaganda vehicle for Putin.

But American and European news outlets were also selective in their depiction of the crisis, and Russia Today in turn denounced what it saw as a “MSM feeding frenzy” on the part of what it called the Western “war press.”

Even though they are state-sponsored, outlets such as Russia Today present an entirely different and potentially valuable understanding of the facts and history behind the current crisis -- one that reflects the views of millions of people in Russia and Ukraine. Is it possible to evaluate their obviously unbalanced reports and uncover useful, reliable information concerning the crisis?

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

• Despite its state sponsorship, Russia Today allows dissident voices on its airwaves. One program host, Abby Martin, actually spoke out against Russia's military action in Ukraine during her RT broadcast and directly concluded that “what Russia did is wrong.”

• And RT news anchor Liz Wahl resigned on air to protest the tenor of the RT coverage:

GUIDING QUESTIONS:

• What is the difference between the two competing narratives – the Russian media’s version of events and that of the Western media?
• How can you tell which if either of the two battling narratives is correct?
• As a state-sponsored news network, Russia Today is clearly not an independent or balanced source. Does that mean none of the information found there is reliable? How can you decide?
• What would you do to evaluate obviously dependent sources of news and information such as Russia Today in order to find useful information?
• What do you think about RT's hosts using the state-sponsored news programs to oppose Russia's actions in Crimea? Can you think of any similar expressions of dissent that have been expressed on Western media outlets in opposition to the narrative version of events put forth by the US and its allies?
• RT has a large following on social media platforms, becoming the first TV News channel to reach 1 billion views on YouTube in 2012. The network decided to post the resignation of Liz Wahl on it’s YouTube channel, but not the comments of Abby Martin with the following description --

Published on Mar 5, 2014
Ms. Wahl's resignation comes on the heels of her colleague Abby Martin's recent comments in which she voiced her disagreement with certain policies of the Russian government and asserted her editorial independence. The difference is, Ms. Martin spoke in the context of her own talk show, to the viewers who have been tuning in for years to hear her opinions on current events, the opinions that most media did not care about until two days ago. For years Ms. Martin has been speaking out against US military intervention only to be ignored by the mainstream news outlets -- but with that one comment, branded as an act of defiance, she became an overnight sensation. It is a tempting example to follow.When a journalist disagrees with the editorial position of his or her organization, the usual course of action is to address those grievances with the editor, and, if they cannot be resolved, to quit like a professional. But when someone makes a big public show of a personal decision, it is nothing more than a self-promotional stunt.
We wish Liz the best of luck on her chosen path.

How might this change your view of RT and the actions of it’s network?