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

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.

Originally Posted by Hanna

probably just unconsciously gravitating towards stories that confirm their bias.

Originally Posted by Marcus

Well you can't imagine how anti-Russia everything was in the English speaking countries during the Cold War. You know - films, books, news, everything. It'll probably take a full generation for them to get that out of their system. It's a topic for another thread, really. They really thought that Russians were totally devilish.

Elections in the UK were for a parliamentary period of seven years before 2002. If elections took place before this it was because the calling of an election was at the discretion of the government, and the government saw to it that it called an election at a time advantageous to itself. And these elections were lightning affairs - very short campaigns. This led to "snap elections" called at very short notice.
The government still had discretion to call elections when it liked after 2002. But in November last year this discretion was ended with the introduction of Fixed-Term Parliaments.
Thanks to the "first-past-the-post" constituency system in Britain there have often been governments with parliamentary majorities that received less votes than the biggest opposition party. Imagine the stink if Putin tried to create an electoral system as rotten and rigged as this in Russia!
I've noticed a lot of commentators sneering at a president elected by less than 50% of the voters. But this is the norm in most European countries as far as I know. It's very unusual for a presidential election to be decided in the first round. Eg very recently in Finland.
Another aspect of slanted reporting - sudden and disproportionate emphasis on things normally ignored when they occur at home or in allied countries - is the orchestrated wailing of the media in Sweden (where I live) about corruption and violence suddenly increasing in Russia in the run-up to the election. As if it materialized out of nowhere. Democratic, squeaky-clean Russia suddenly going bad because of Putin. You'd almost think the Muslims are reaching their best-by date as bogey-men and it's time to resuscitate the traditional Russian-Soviet-Russian bogeyman again.
One thing all this shows is that Russia is once more claiming its rightful place in the International Community as a thief among thieves.

Originally Posted by Hanna

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?

Hah, no, I was kidding, in the spirit of the jokey poster in the post preceding mine.

I knew I should have added "badum-tsh" at the end.