Thread: Russian Presidential Elections 2012: Commentary in Russian and English

I personally DO believe that Putin would have won without cheating.
If cheating took place it's really rather sad and pathetic.

The situation with overexposure of Putin in TV is an issue, isn't it?
But there are plenty of privately owned channels in Russia, aren't there? How come they also support Putin?

In Sweden, the almost uninterrupted rule of the Social democrats ended when privately owned TV channels were allowed - those channels immediately started (subtly) supporting parties more to the right of the political scale. By the time SD realised their "mistake", it was already too late to change. But it shows how enormously influential terrestrial TV is.

Interesting that the BBC talks a lot about Alexei Navalny - who nobody on Masterrussian likes. Yet, Navalny is presented as a hero of democracy.

There are no really oppositional channels broadcasting all over Russia.
Erm, I like Navalny BTW At least I'd vote for him. But he chose not to run this time, so I voted for Zuganov instead - not because I support communists, but because I don't support Putin's second coming.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Interesting that the BBC talks a lot about Alexei Navalny - who nobody on Masterrussian likes. Yet, Navalny is presented as a hero of democracy.

The BBC never let reality stand in the way of a good narrative.

Originally Posted by zedeeyen

The BBC never let reality stand in the way of a good narrative.

Well, they have a bit of a political agenda. It seems they first decide their general opinion about a certain country or person.
Then they report news that fit that agenda. Nothing new under the sun!

For example - "Russia is a dictatorship which possibly has hostile intentions towards its' neighbours". Then they go to Russia and find some news that match this agenda.
And ignore news and stories that do not fit this agenda.

But they are not totally biased against Russia - for example there was a really awesome BBC nature program called "Wild Russia" that was totally free of prejudice, just showing awesome views, animals and cool locations in Russia. But as for politics, their view is pretty clear.
This goes for some other European countries as well. Sadly, several countries have a really biased view of Russia. It is one thing to be truthful, another thing to have a hostile agenda!

As an alternative news source, you could watch "Russia Today" that is ignoring all rumours about cheating in elections, and goes to great length to show a picture of Russia as a peaceful country that respects other countries and stays clear of meddling. Incidentally their reports from the EU and USA are really good.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Well, they have a bit of a political agenda. It seems they first decide their general opinion about a certain country or person.
Then they report news that fit that agenda. Nothing new under the sun!

For example - "Russia is a dictatorship which possibly has hostile intentions towards its' neighbours". Then they go to Russia and find some news that match this agenda.
And ignore news and stories that do not fit this agenda.

I don't think it's as conscious as that. I think the bias is systemic; it reflects the prejudices of the people who work at the BBC - i.e. a middle-class, metropolitan, broadly-liberal set - and the more remote a subject the less likely it is to be treated with impartiality or objectivity ("remoteness" usually being a measure of distance outside the M25).

But they are not totally biased against Russia - for example there was a really awesome BBC nature program called "Wild Russia" that was totally free of prejudice, just showing awesome views, animals and cool locations in Russia. But as for politics, their view is pretty clear.

BBC News is a self-contained department at the BBC. Documentaries tend to be commissioned and produced by specific channels, so there's a bit more scope for plurality there. Not much, but a bit.

My wife called the embassy in London a couple of weeks ago to ask them how to cast an expat vote.

"Don't worry about it," they told her, "you already have."

Originally Posted by zedeeyen

My wife called the embassy in London a couple of weeks ago to ask them how to cast an expat vote.

"Don't worry about it," they told her, "you already have."

For real?! That's apalling! If that was some kind of cynical joke it was rather unprofessional. Embassy staff are public officials after all. Did she ask them to clarify exactly what they were referring to?

Originally Posted by zedeeyen

I don't think it's as conscious as that. I think the bias is systemic; it reflects the prejudices of the people who work at the BBC - i.e. a middle-class, metropolitan, broadly-liberal set - and the more remote a subject the less likely it is to be treated with impartiality or objectivity ("remoteness" usually being a measure of distance outside the M25).

BBC News is a self-contained department at the BBC. Documentaries tend to be commissioned and produced by specific channels, so there's a bit more scope for plurality there. Not much, but a bit.

Haha, I will have to stop my horrible generalisations now that you have joined the forum! You are absolutely right.
They have prejudice or whatever, and probably just unconsciously gravitating towards stories that confirm their bias.

Reporting about Russia in various countries, during various different eras and in different types of media is a really interesting topic, worthy of its own thread, I think.