German Chancellor Angela Merkel: Did she really say Putin has “lost his mind”? (cc photo: WEF/Moritz Hager)
Have you heard the one about how Russian President Vladimir Putin is out of touch with reality? It’s a theme that has been promoted throughout the media coverage of the current Ukraine crisis. But a look at where the story comes from might suggest there’s nothing to it.
The story began at the New York Times (3/2/14), where Peter Baker reported German Angela Merkel’s assessment:
The Russian occupation of Crimea has challenged Mr. Obama as has no other international crisis, and at its heart, the advice seemed to pose the same question: Is Mr. Obama tough enough to take on the former KGB colonel in the Kremlin? It is no easy task. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told Mr. Obama by telephone on Sunday that after speaking with Mr. Putin she was not sure he was in touch with reality, people briefed on the call said. “In another world,” she said.
So “people briefed on the call” delivered the verdict: Putin has lost touch with reality.
The line soon appeared everywhere; a Times‘ editorial (3/4/14) turned it into a fact: “In a conversation with Mr. Obama, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said she was unsure whether Mr. Putin was in touch with reality.” A Washington Post editorial (3/4/14) began: “Has Vladimir Putin lost touch with reality, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel reportedly suggested to President Obama?” And the New Republic (3/4/14) ran a piece by Julia Ioffe with the headline “Putin’s Press Conference Proved Merkel Right: He’s Lost His Mind.”
But what if that’s not what Merkel meant?
It’s noteworthy that few if any of these pieces referencing Merkel’s statement stressed the words actually attributed to Merkel—that Putin is “in another world.” That’s because those words don’t convey what the the White House spin did: that Putin was not “in touch with reality.” One phrase suggests that someone has an entirely different point of view, while the other suggests that that person is delusional.
The attraction of the latter point was raised in a remarkable piece by McClatchy‘s Mark Seibel (3/5/14), who noted that the Merkel remark “was too good to ignore and became the reporting line for every talking head and commentator for the next several news cycles.” A little too good, perhaps. Seibel writes:
Die Welt, the German newspaper, reported that “the chancellery was not pleased with the reporting on the conversation. They claim that what the chancellor said was that Putin has a different perception on Crimea, which is why she is pushing for a fact-finding mission on the matter.”
He added:
So if Merkel didn’t portray Putin as unhinged, why would the unknown Obama aide tell the New York Times she did? Because in the world of propaganda, successfully portraying your adversary as being crazy, without any rational backing to his actions, makes it unnecessary to try to understand the complexities or sensitivities of the issues. If Putin is crazy, then that’s enough. We needn’t think any further about what he has to say. And if the New York Times says he’s crazy, that’s good enough for the dozens of reporters who’ve come along since, repeating the comment to their millions of viewers and readers as if it was a confirmed statement.
Good work.
It’s unusual to see someone at a mainstream US media outlet write so clearly about how “it is so easy to become a megaphone for propaganda” in this kind of crisis. It’d be nice to see the New York Times explain whether it thinks it acted as such a megaphone.
No delusion
Oodles of deluding
Did you hear the one about Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide? Apparently (in the NYT and its ilk) he was mentally unstable in early 2004; by coincidence a tripartite coup (by France, Canada and Uncle Sam) removed him from where he could do any harm (good) soon after.
And how about Hugo Chavez? Despite improving the lives of millions of Venezuelans and winning several elections by big margins, he was a manic evil tyrant. So one very overt coup attempt followed, plus several that didn’t get that far. The NYT and its ilk were displeased only that the coups failed (they’re still trying).
And the one about [insert any leader whose policies Uncle Sam doesn’t like here] ….
BTW,
“Is Mr. Obama tough enough to take on the former KGB colonel in the Kremlin?” Yes, that’s certainly the main question. A Tom Tomorrow cartoon suggests an arm-wrestling match. (Winner takes John McCain home.)
Look at Bosnia and the corruption and frustration with the E.U. Look at the recent reports by the U.N on Libyan weapons turning up all over the middle east. Reflect on the E.U stage managed coup with groups organised to protect buildings. It looked wierd…a clear indication of stage management.
The trouble is that this organisation is just an embarrasing display of stage managed hope for the future after a coup without due political progress but a certain future of a bitter civil war not for Crimea but West vs East Ukraine.
Surely this is not the grand plan……..”
“On that methodological basis this article argues that a global monopoly on the legitimate use of organized violence — a world state — is inevitable. At the micro-levelworld state formation is driven by the struggle of individuals and groups for recognition of their subjectivity. At the macro-level this struggle is channeled toward a world state by the logic of anarchy, which generates a tendency for military technology and war to become increasingly destructive. The process moves through five stages, each responding to the instabilities of the one before — a system of states, a society of states, world society, collective security, and the world state. Why a World State is Inevitable ” (ALEXANDER WENDT University of Chicago.)
This certainly sounds like the E.U with the big problem being “organised.” Protestantism and protestant nations are conducive to being organised and Catholic countries which were active in social welfare now on an austerity drive; but the East is a different ballgame as are tribal countries like Libya and others.
So much naivety.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/13/world/europe/on-ukraine-merkel-finds-limits-of-her-rapport-with-putin.html?hpw&rref=world&_r=0&referrer=
Interesting parts in the article….”He cannot turn back,” Mr. Rahr said of Mr. Putin and “she is not helping him out of the situation.”….”In a strong indication of how worried even conservatives are about losing good contact with Russia, former Chancellor Helmut Kohl on Wednesday gave a statement to Bild, the country’s biggest-circulation newspaper, saying that “great omissions” had been made in policy toward Ukraine. “The mood of revolt in Ukraine was not intelligently followed. Equally there was a lack of sensitivity in the dealings with our Russian neighbor, especially President Putin,” he said.“We cannot forget: War is not policy,”
Here we have the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the New Republic printing an unsubstantiated slur on a major head of state. Why? Because the media has become incompetent.
The fourth Estate, as the news media once were called, is essential to the survival of a democracy. Because of its recent predilection for such sensationalistic lies, we now have a plutocracy.
Merkel probably didn’t mean it, but “in another world” and “not in touch with reality” are the same thing. One is just a different way of saying the other.
Things said by Merkel were taken out of context, because the forces that be, want to increase the volume and the rhetoric against Russia and Putin. Why? Because we want the energy market there, We want to be the dominant player and stick it to the Russians Mean while all the arms companies can maximize their profits making more guns, bombs, ships, weapons and tanks. The good old military industrial complex wins again. This coop was no accident. Yes, the incumbent was corrupt. But just like the US, Russia has military and economic interests in the region, just as legitimate as ours. Now the new government in the Ukraine, has removed protections from Russian speaking Ukrainians. Ultranationalists in the Crimean Peninsula and the rest of the Ukraine are mobilizing to not only attack ethnic Russians, but Jews as well.
Can someone explain how Russia did not violate the Friendship Treaty it signed with Ukraine? According to the agreement, Russia promised to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. I think that’s the crux of the matter in this crisis.
I lost my urge for the NYT when it carried water for the invasion of Iraq. The latest propaganda just can’t stick.
Is Putin a might touched?I saw an FBI face profiler who said his face is wooden.He smiles but his eyes don’t.Even Obama commented on it in an irritated tone.Saying he appears bored when you speak to him.Lets face it…this is no open, gregarious happy go lucky Ombre.He is Ex communist KGB.Under that shirtless,horse riding,tiger shooting man is a killer.A man who oversaw brutality in the old days par to none.Obama must understand this.There will never be any real friendship or trust between them.Adversarial is the best we can expect.On the Ukraine –there IS a complexity to this problem.Reporting on it is horrible.And our governments take on it is one dimensional.My Ukrainian friends tell me their are no good guys.Fascists,mobsters,political strong men,all fighting for this pie.Lost in the struggle are the people.
Seems ironic that FAIR calls out the NYT for being a megaphone for propaganda, and the NYT is “not” perfect by any stretch, but doesn’t touch RT, which also operates as a megaphone for Russian propaganda, 9-11 conspiracies, and other lunatic fringe causes. Why does FAIR let RT off the hook? Why no scrutiny of them? I think that’s a fair question if it cares about media transparency and independent media.
BTW, here is a verified photo from today’s protests in Moscow. If that doesn’t tell you about Putin’s “delusion” then it’s time to wake up.
https://twitter.com/InesitaLaBonita/status/444859632159186944/photo/1
“Why does FAIR let RT off the hook? Why no scrutiny of them? I think that’s a fair question if it cares about media transparency and independent media.”
The answer seems pretty obvious to me, RT is recognized by most people in the U.S. as “their” media which we have been taught to expect to be biased. The NYT etc. are “our” media that most people here have been trained to believe is unbiased and responsible. It is more useful educate us about our biases than to pile on in support of the biases that most people here already have.
The exact reverse would be true of a media watchdog in Russia.
*** RT is recognized by most people in the U.S. as “their” media which we have been taught to expect to be biased. ***
Most people recognize “RT” as “their” media? What evidence do you have to support that? How many RT viewers really follow Russian domestic and foreign policies? How many really care about what goes on in Russia? Are they following RT because of that or because they watch programs that validate their own political beliefs? I think it’s the latter.
It is clear now that RT is a mouthpiece for Russian propaganda. Giving time to nonsensical fringe groups like 9-11 Truthers, conspiracists, anti-Semites and other like-minded groups.individuals doesn’t help RT’s integrity. For RT, and this has been confirmed by former RT workers/journalists/etc., it’s more about making the U.S. look bad, not to conduct independent, hard-htting investigative journalism. No journalist outlet, IMO, would give air time to groups like the ones I mentioned above.Aand if RT was serious about journalism, it would investigate the corruption of Russian politicians, businessmen, businesses and other with money and power, not just the U.S. RT is inconsistent with what it preaches, John.
The NYT is not perfect. How the treated the lead up to the war in Iraq was a disservice. But people are much smarter than to rely on a network with dishonest intentions. The places to go are FRONTLINE, Christian Science Monitor, Al Jazeera America and others without axes to grind. They seek out verifiable information and convey it to viewers so they have a clear idea of what’s happening. That’s the way journalism is supposed to be.
I had almost forgotten that the publisher of the Times would not let reporters or columnists say that Bush lied when he claimed there were no warnings before 9/11, that no one imagined an airplane being used as a bomb and that when informed that the nation was under attack he immediately ordered defense forces into action. During the summer of ’01 Reuter’s and Time magazine reported a race between the US and Osama bin Laden regarding who would attack first, so reporters all over the US must have known that was a lie but no media outlet said so. Although 7 news outlets filmed Bush sitting in a classroom after he was told the nation after attack, but to this date none of them has shown it. If Michael Moore had not gotten a copy of the film no one would know that the cameras left after seven minutes and Bush was still in the classroom. That’s why it’s called “the liberal” media, because they cover up for conservatives. Shameful.
“Is Putin Delusional–or Is NYT a ‘Megaphone for Propaganda’?”
Both.
One could look at this also a little different though the issues certainly involve complicated dynamics: that Merkel is playing the propaganda game and trying to cover up a slip of her tongue. Because we are wary of imperial intervention ought not blind us to Putin’s faults. I’ve forgotten the source but I recently viewed or saw an illustration of Merkel being the only Western voice willing to negotiate with Putin, but that even she had come to the end of her patience. This was from a progressive voice. Nor can I remember the conclusion of this reasoning.
emwatcher: Mossadegh comes to mind. Consider this:
“Time magazine dubbed Mossadegh “Man of the Year” in 1951, but it called him “the New Menace,” “a weeping, fainting leader of a helpless country,” and a “strange old man” who “put Scheherazade in the petroleum business and oiled the wheels of chaos.” He was a “dizzy old wizard” with “acid tears” and “grotesque antics,” issuing a “defiant challenge that sprang out of a hatred and envy almost incomprehensible to the West,” stoking a “fanatical state of mind” in millions of Iranians, and who evinced a “suicidal quality” to his own “fanaticism.” Time even began its feature on Mossadegh with “Once upon a time, in a mountainous land between Baghdad and the Sea of Caviar…” According to another Time article, “Better than most modern statesmen, Iran’s Premier Mohammed Mossadegh knows the value of the childlike tantrum.” ”
http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2012/05/perceptions-of-persia-persistent.html
CTA: Actually the crux is the US/NATO’s failure to honor their promise to Gorbachev to not to expand into the former USSR.
John M. Morgan, I don’t think FAIR particularly lets RT off the hook. Notice that FAIR doesn’t spend a lot of time debunking Faux Noise, either. Rather, FAIR focuses on holding accountable media sources that intelligent and informed people expect to have some minimum standard of credibility, not media that is by definition not to be trusted at all.