3 Issues with Western news reports on the war in Ukraine
What do you do when a series of 15 articles originally published by Reuters were edited by a Radio New Zealand (print) journalist to have a more pro-Russia stance?
These edits are big news in New Zealand; the story even landed on the Reuters front pages. Radio NZ have launched an investigation into the edits, but what no one is talking about is the differences in how Western media outlets have reported this story.
Views on pro-Russia vs. pro-Ukraine reporting are so polarized as to make most analysis impossible. But not in this case.
The reporting on the Radio NZ edits help evaluate Western media bias about the war in Ukraine. Both Reuters and the New Zealand Herald, NZ’s largest newspaper, ran stories on the controversial edits in Radio New Zealand reporting.
The short of it is: Reuters offers a much more balanced perspective on the issue than the Herald. The Herald does more to perpetuate misinformed Western stereotypes, whereas Reuters attempts to provide clarification. The Herald conflates separate issues, while Reuters narrows its focus. Here are 3 point-by-point comparisons that illustrate issues with Anglo-Western reporting of the war in Ukraine.
Reuters’ headline is better
Reuters’ headline reads, “New Zealand’s national broadcaster probes ‘inappropriate’ editing of Ukraine war stories”.
This avoids bias much better than the New Zealand Herald headline, “RNZ staffer stood down, investigation over Kremlin-friendly story edits”
Reuters describes the action that is occurring — factually, and identifies the edits as “inappropriate” — using quotation marks. That’s because “inappropriate” is an evaluative statement (meaning, an opinion). This differentiates the opinion in the headline (it was inappropriate) from the facts (that stories were edited). This approach prevents bias because it immediately shows that there is a difference between fact and opinion.
The Herald headline focuses on the result, “staffer stood down” and uses the evaluative statement “Kremlin-friendly”. But the Herald doesn’t use quotation marks or any other indication to differentiate between fact and opinion. When we see the word “Kremlin”, we don’t just think of Russia or Russians — the Kremlin is the centre of Russia’s power, and of course, where Putin rules from. This immediately creates a more opinion-coloured narrative, distinct from Reuters’ reporting.
Reuters does a better job distinguishing fact from fiction
Reuters writes,
“The story was edited on RNZ’s website to read that in 2014 ‘a pro-Russian elected government was toppled during Ukraine’s violent Maidan colour revolution’. The piece then inaccurately claimed that ‘Russia annexed Crimea after a referendum, as the new pro-Western government suppressed ethnic Russians in eastern and southern Ukraine’.”
Reuters accurately notes that the first sentence is correct, even if it does not stick with the wording of the original Reuters story. The second sentence contains false information. Reuters identifies this using the word “inaccurately”.
What are the facts?
— The Maidan movement was known for violence; this was widely reported (fact). It can also be described as a colour revolution (though this is an opinion). Whether fact or opinion, these statements are not false.
— Reuters then says that the next sentence is “inaccurate”. Reuters clarifies why that statement is inaccurate (issues with the referendum and the supposed ethnic suppression).
This represents false information that was published in a news story, as opposed to the first sentence, which contains fact and opinion, but no direct falsehood.
[NOTE: Ukraine’s moves towards requiring more Ukrainian language has repeatedly been flagged as “suppressing” ethnic minorities, including Russians. Human Rights Watch has expressed concern about this in a recent article here. If the US were to do the same, ie: disallow certain ethnic minorities from publishing in their language, many people would see it as “suppression” of a particular ethnicity. However, there is little evidence that Russians were increasingly “suppressed” prior to Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Moves towards Ukrainianization have been going on since the 1990s.]
On the other hand…
The New Zealand Herald, while citing the paragraph and the changes made to it, does not provide an evaluation immediately afterwards to help recognize the distortion or lack thereof.
The Herald presents the new paragraph without immediately explanation, leaving the reader to assume (incorrectly) that all the edits represent a “pro-Russia” stance, and that perhaps none of them are factually-based. An explanation on the falsehood around the suppression of Russians is explored later, but much less clearly than in the Reuters’ article.
The Herald presents Radio NZ as a generally unbiased source of news
“Staff…must not yield to bias or prejudice” — notes the Herald about Radio NZ’s policies.
I’ve got old news for y’all — EVERYONE has bias and prejudice. It is a feature of humankind, and therefore of ALL media.
In reporting that Radio NZ doesn’t allow bias or prejudice, there is an unspoken deceit,
“Pssst…those pro-Kremlin articles were biased, but most of our reporting has no bias.”
This is simply untrue. We read and are used to a pro-Western bias. It’s so common we don’t even think about it. Just as those used to reading pro-Russia bias might not recognize their prejudice.
We talk about bias when discussing liberal vs. conservative reporting, but bias is a feature of ALL reporting.
Here’s an example.
The Herald story mentioned the words “coup” versus “revolution”. However, without discussion as to the meaning and bias of the words.
In general, whether something was a “coup” or a “revolution” depends on your point of view, your opinion.
The official dictionary definition of “coup” is:
coup: a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government.
This is exactly what happened during the Maidan protests and revolution. The change in power did not follow constitutional processes (making it unlawful), there was violence, ergo this definition fits.
The official dictionary definition of a “revolution” is:
revolution: a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system.
Hmmmm, this could also be exactly what happened during the Maidan protests.
So, which is it, coup or revolution?
(This image was generated from searching for the word “coup”.)
For most people, the word you choose depends on whose side you take.
But we can zoom out and consider the words from a political science perspective: a differentiating feature between “coup” and “revolution” is that a coup may just be a change of government (ie: which people control the existing government), whereas a revolution represents a completely new form of government (ie: from democracy to communism.)
We can see observe this slight difference in semantics in the official definitions above. “Revolution” discusses a change of “social order”; “coup” does not.
Approaching the words from this perspective, there is good reason to state that the Maidan protests ended in a coup, not a revolution: the primary change was who governs the country, not the type of government.
But… this is hotly debated. And one of the reasons is because in the West, we use the word “coup” almost exclusively to describe changes in power when a military dictatorship, non-military dictatorship, or other authoritarian regime replaces a more democratic regime.
To imply that democracy “won” by staging a “coup” sounds contradictory. Some people would describe it as heretical.
Even though it doesn’t have to be.
Going back to the dictionary, the secondary definition for “coup” is:
coup: an instance of successfully achieving something difficult.
Yet, the word “coup” as a description of the result of the Maidan protests — a claim that the Ukrainian people “achieved something difficult” by overthrowing the previous government — what a coup! congratulations! way to go! — feels very different when viewed through a Western political ideological lens.
The Herald didn’t examine biases. They just reported that Radio New Zealand has a policy of avoiding prejudice.
Yet the words journalists use in news stories convey bias, regardless of what point of view they take.
What to do about bias in Western media
The words used in media and the way opinions are presented are a large portion of how discourse about divisive events forms and bifurcates along increasingly divergent lines.
But we can always take a moment to examine our biases, if we choose to do so.
I find that Reuters and BBC provide the best coverage of international events in general because their approaches lean further from biased language and more towards analysis.
Because I am a Russia expert, I feel capable of evaluating the biases related to Russia in media reports. However, I would find it much more difficult to evaluate news reports about China — I don’t speak Chinese, I’ve spent very little time there, and I don’t have much cultural knowledge.
But by reading and analyzing the biases on Russia-related reporting in the NYTimes, Fox News, Washington Post, New Zealand Herald, etc., I can be more aware of what bias I’m likely to find when reading about China.
A few words may seem like minute differences — but if you’re saying “coup” and I call it a “revolution”, chances are, we will see each other as being on opposite sides.
Even if we’re not.
Join Medium through this link https://medium.com/@k-bebell/membership support my stories for the suicidal — written without blame, without shame…where the experience of suicidality is beautifully named.
