As I do almost every day, I read the day’s headlines and noticed the following.
This headline, by Western-friendly but wholly professional Reuters organization, notes a potential bias by “Pro-Kremlin politicians” – mostly in Russia but the same argument has already been used by others. This is a warning from Reuters, this is what they are going to say. Apparently these “Pro-Kremlin politicians” use this tact so often that they are now predictable. This article and the response by politicians in Russia is, of course, in response to President Trump’s statement that the US must improve its nuclear arsenal. The fact that Russia has deployed two illegal and banned nuclear-capable missile systems is completely ignored by the Russian press.
This headline validates what I have observed about much of the US mainstream media, having a strongly biased anti-Trump attitude. Trying to attach an affinity for Russia to Trump is almost impossible to disprove, but the press looks foolish, petty, childish, and vindictive by pressing too much and too often. More objective readers have learned to judge by Trump’s actions and statements by his administration since he has taken office. This article does point out the various possibly petty (?) arguments arraigned against Trump.
The Kremlin, in turn, realizes their press coverage, up until most recently, has been very supportive of President Trump and his administration. The majority of Western media, in turn, did not support that opinion, so they did not echo Russian media. Now that much of the Trump administration has taken a hard stance against Russia, Russia is slow to react but is slowly changing its perspective. Russia cannot afford to change quickly, however, or it’s centrally driven ‘guidance’ will become far too obvious.
Unfortunately for my friend Igor Panarin, this attempt at undermining the credibility of truthful anti-Russian reports in the Western media is being seen for what it really is: a hilarious attempt to discredit Russian criticism by the Russian Foreign Ministry. With no refutations, a simple reading of these articles reveals they are simply critical of Russia, Russian leadership, and Russian actions.
Four different articles with four vastly different points – all dealing with an almost ubiquitously accepted premise of a bias in the media – in vastly different contexts.
I have no point to make besides there is awareness of this bias, it is being pointed out, and “we” might have a problem.