Pravda On The Potomac-11 (What The Washington Post Wrote About Russia In November 2009)

The Post's coverage of Russia in November was more like a miss than a hit.  Only Philip Pan put up some real effort, whereas the Post's editors and op-ed contributors went MIA (as far as Russia was concerned), focusing instead on President Obama's health-care reform and Afghanistan policy.  Besides, not too much negative has occurred in Russia in November, and absent any bad news, the Post sees little reason to write about Russia at all.

Pan began on November 6 with reporting on the arrests of two suspects in the murder of Stanislav Markelov and Anastasia Baburova.  When reading the article, one can almost sense Pan's disappointment with the fact that the alleged suspects reportedly belong to a neo-Nazi group.  That's understandable: Pan's bosses would much prefer suspects with direct links to the Russian security services. 

Mary Beth Sheridan and Walter Pincus reported, on November 7, on a trip to Moscow of President Obama's national security adviser Jim Jones.  The trip was said to have provided a breakthrough in the START treaty negotiations, allowing both sides to hope that the new agreement will be signed until before the year's end.  (On November 10, though, the ever vigilant Robert Kagan and Dan Blumenthal reminded us that "Moscow needs [arms-control agreements] more than Washington does.")

Pan continued on November 12 with a profile of the president of Ingushetia, Yunus-Bek Yevkurov, and the next day, he covered President Medvedev's annual address to the Federal Assembly

The Post's editorial board was visibly shaken by Medvedev's address, calling it, in a November 14 editorial, "a spectacle of Russia's president speaking the truth about his country."  The editorial went on to add: "We couldn't have said it better."  That's a telling admission.  The Post's editors seems to believe that they have a monopoly on "speaking the truth" about Russia and now, they're troubled with the presence of a competitor.

The editorial didn't neglect to mention that "[Prime Minister] Putin…looked unhappy in his front-row seat as Mr. Medvedev spoke", with the same point having been made by Pan ("Prime Minister Vladimir Putin…sat without smiling in the audience").  A more perfect sign of the "growing rift" within the Putin-Medvedev tandem, anyone?

(I saw a great number of addresses of U.S. presidents to Congress, but don't remember many smiling, happy looking, faces in the audience.  U.S. legislators express their emotions differently.  For example, by verbally insulting the president.)

Andrew Higgins and Anne Kornblut described, on November 15, a meeting between president Obama and Medvedev on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum.

Pan returned to familiar turf by reporting on the death of Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer representing the Hermitage Capital Management, on November 18, and apparent terrorist attack on the Nevsky Express train, on November 29.  Pan concluded his coverage with describing Russia's position, on the eve of the climate-change summit in Copenhagen, on credits for greenhouse-gas emissions.

The Post's editorial board reacted to Magnitsky's death with another editorial, on November 24.  It's not clear why it took the Post six days to publish what looked like an abbreviated version of Pan's article.  Perhaps, they planned to wait a bit and then lambaste the Kremlin for inattention to the Magnitsky case (Pan, on November 18: "Neither Prime Minister Vladimir Putin nor President Dmitry Medvedev have commented on the case.")?  Unfortunately for the Post, President Medvedev has ordered a full investigation into the circumstances of Magnitsky's death.  Do I need to say that the editorial failed to mention this fact?

The only November op-ed piece worth speaking of was an article, "Russia's search for an identity", by Moscow Carnegie's Masha Lipman.  Her topic was President Medvedev's videoblog entry made on the day of commemoration of political prisoners, in which Medvedev called Stalin's repressions "one of the greatest tragedies in Russian history."  (I wonder if this line by Medvedev will be quoted nearly as often as Putin's allegedly calling the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century").   

Having made the obligatory cheap shots at Medvedev ("Medvedev's often well-intended rhetoric has not been matched with policy"), Lipman nevertheless called his videoblog address a "speech…in the right direction."  

Lipman ought to be very careful when praising, however timidly, the Russian president.  She must be aware of what happened to opposition figure Marina Litvinovich.  Litvinovich committed a deadly sin of voicing support for Medvedev's modernization initiatives.  After which the Russian Uber-Democrat, Garry Kasparov, immediately fired her from the position of Executive Director of his United Civil Front.  

Besides, as a Post contributor, Lipman should always remember this in-house rule: "About Russia, either bad or nothing."

About Eugene Ivanov

Eugene Ivanov is a PMI-certified Innovation Management Consultant who helps organizations increase the efficiency of their internal and external innovation programs.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Pravda On The Potomac-11 (What The Washington Post Wrote About Russia In November 2009)

  1. Lipman ought to be very careful when praising, however timidly, the Russian president. She must be aware of what happened to opposition figure Marina Litvinovich. Litvinovich committed a deadly sin of voicing support for Medvedev’s modernization initiatives. After which the Russian Uber-Democrat, Garry Kasparov, immediately fired her from the position of Executive Director of his United Civil Front.
    Thanks for this info, Eugene. I think it would be an excellent idea to translate her article to further expose Kasparov’s hypocrisy. I’ll try to do that next week.
    PS. The OGF is a thoroughly corrupt organization. See Tatyana Korchevnaya’s disillusionment with it.
    PSS. A question, if you don’t mind. Why do you mostly focus on the Washington Post? Not disputing that what you do is very useful, but doesn’t it get boring destroying the same publication over and over again?

  2. I’m all for specialization, where it’s qualitatively needed.
    Regarding The WaPo:
    Over the course of time, the author of the above linked piece has said some things that would get others in hot water, or more hot water than what he has experienced.
    At play, are his talents, that include an ability to get back at his detractors.
    Note his opinion on how A. Applebaum has dumbed down since joining The WaPo.
    IMO, the overall “culture” (or lack thereof) at the top encourages this scenario, whether in the “Russophobe” or “Russophile” camps.
    Having an earnestly frank discussion about this matter is shunned by some, who appear to see an interest in maintaining the existing status quo.

  3. Eugene Ivanov says:

    Thanks Mike for your “moral” support of this blog.
    A short comment on AA. I think there is every reason to call what she’s writing a propaganda, not journalism. From this point of view, although the way Ames discusses her piece is a bit over board, it’s still a fair game. And this isn’t Ames who started this game…

Leave a Reply to Michael Averko Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s