Media Coverage of Russia-Ukraine Conflict Criticized

How the world has changed. It used to be, during the Vietnam War, that there were essentially three networks and we'd be fed updates once a day in the evening news. You could also pick up newspapers for a little more and magazines for in-depth stories. But these media bytes were relatively brief. 

Most of the news was produced by professionals who, even if slanted, sought to give the appearance of neutrality, of being fair and balanced. With the advent of cable television people could become news junkies, engaged in covering happenings 24/7 as they happened. With so many hours to fill and stories to tell, it should not be a surprise to find the caliber of reporting to be uneven as regards accuracy.

On Friday evening I was listening to NPR's coverage of the Russian incursion into Ukraine. A journalist on the air made a statement that went something like this. "This is the first time since World War II that a major superpower invaded a lesser state." Those may not be the exact words, but it was incredibly absurd of an assertion. 

While driving, the countries rolled through my mind. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan twice (Russians in 1980, the U.S. circa 2003), Iraq, Yugoslavia.

Newspapers regularly contain a page or two for editorial opinion pieces. These are generally vetted by the editorial staff which sometimes, as in the Duluth News Tribune, includes a citizen or two. With social media, the Twitterverse and blogs have produced a deluge of opinions that are sometimes quite shrill and silly, but often they are exceedingly perceptive. 

When the talking heads speak, their biases and ignorance can emerge despite their best efforts to be intelligent. The example above is one case in point. And in the Twitterverse, the audience response can be immediate and brutal.

This article from Al Jazeera has a lot of good examples of this point.

‘Double standards’: Western coverage of Ukraine war criticised

Social media users accuse the media of hypocrisy in its coverage of Russia’s war on Ukraine compared with other conflicts.

The first example is a CBS news correspondent who said that this invasion (Ukraine) is all the more shocking because it is taking place in a civilized nation not a backward one like Afghanistan and Iraq.  Here's one response:

Utterly stupid and ill informed statement. Afghanistan was also a peaceful and “civilised” place in 1979 before the Soviets invaded (and became the battle zone between the West and Soviet block). Ditto for Iraq (before the American attack in 2003)

You can follow a full thread of comments on Twitter in response to that transgression.

The next illustration in the Al Jazeera piece is of a high official from Ukraine being interviewed by BBC in which he says how emotional this is because he sees "European people with blonde hair and blue eyes being killed every day with Putin’s missiles and his helicopters and his rockets."

The immediate response from Twitter again:

But people with 'blue eyes and blonde hair' dropping bombs over the Middle East and Africa is OK.

Social media is a minefield indeed.

When Sky News broadcast a video of brave Ukrainians getting lessons on how to make Molotov cocktails, the response was illuminating:

If this was done by Palestinians, Afghanistan or other nations resisting occupation, it would be terrorism. And during Mandela's anti-apartheid era, it was also dubbed terrorism. For Europeans facing similar situations, it is resistance!. Western duplicity knows no bounds.

The article contains more thought-provoking examples. You can read the full Al Jazeera piece here: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/27/western-media-coverage-ukraine-russia-invasion-criticism

And I'll close with this interesting Tweet that I saw this a.m. 

Going to be awkward when the war in Ukraine is over and the left have to go back to being against nationalism, borders, and an armed citizenry

Whatever happens, this is a a good time to exercise caution and to embrace a measure of humility.