Skepticism is the rule when US media covers terrorist attacks against official enemies. (photo: Alexei Nikolsky via AP/US News)
FAIR (11/13/15, 11/16/15, 11/17/15) has noted the contrast between US media coverage of Paris and Beirut after the militant ISIS movement claimed responsibility for terror attacks in both cities. It may be even more illuminating to look at media reactions to another ISIS-claimed disaster, the bombing of Metrojet Flight 9268, a Russian tourist plane that went down over Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula on October 31, killing all 224 people on board. When the victims of terror come from an official enemy state, it’s clear that different media rules apply.
Before it was determined that a bomb caused the crash, Associated Press‘s Jim Heintz (11/7/15) wrote a speculative piece that began, “No matter what caused the fatal crash of a Russian airliner in Egypt, the answer will almost certainly hit Russia hard—but not President Vladimir Putin.” Whether it was terrorism or mechanical failure, Heintz wrote, “Either answer could challenge Russia’s new self-confidence—but could also be used by Putin to advance his aims and reinforce his power.”
Needless to say, we’re not seeing a lot of coverage of how France’s François Hollande could use the Paris attacks “to advance his aims and reinforce his power.”
While US outlets were circumspect to the point of being unintelligible in drawing a connection between France’s war against ISIS in Syria/Iraq and the Paris attacks, AP had no trouble making it clear that Russia had been targeted not because of its values or symbols but because of its military attacks against a violent adversary: “A faction of the militant Islamic State group claimed it had downed the airliner in retaliation for Russia launching airstrikes on IS positions in Syria a month earlier.”
AP raised the question, seldom heard in the French context, of whether the terror attacks should lead Russia to rethink its military strategy in the Middle East:
The crash has provoked a national wave of grief and anxiety, and if terrorism is proven, many Russians could reconsider the wisdom of the country’s airstrikes in Syria against opponents of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government, which include IS…. But although such concerns could be strong, they are unlikely to gain enough momentum to threaten Putin’s policies or his hold on power.
The New York Times‘ Neil MacFarquhar (11/10/15) listed the Metrojet bombing as part of “a series of nasty shocks to Russia, some of them direct results of Mr. Putin’s actions”:
And last week, a Russian charter flight plummeted into the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt, killing all 224 people on board, in what British and American intelligence agencies suspect was a terrorist attack in response to the Kremlin’s military intervention in Syria.
Yet the basic reaction is to shrug and point a finger elsewhere, preferably at the West.
Imagine the response the Times would have gotten if, in the wake of the Paris massacre, one of its writers had chided the French for blaming anyone other than Hollande for the violence.
How the Washington Post depicts the aftermath of terrorism when the victims come from an unfavored nation. (photo: Khaled Elfiqi/European Pressphoto Agency)
Yet the Times‘ take was relatively sympathetic compared to a Washington Post editorial (11/6/15), which found in the mass killing of Russians new reasons to declare its enmity toward the Russian government. The Post had no doubt who was to blame for ISIS blowing up the airliner, and it wasn’t ISIS:
Yet to concede that the Islamic State might have penetrated Egyptian security at the Sharm el-Sheikh airport, and that Mr. Putin’s Syrian adventure could have prompted the worst civil air attack in Russia’s history, would be not just an embarrassment but a potentially grievous political wound.
Comparing Putin to Egyptian ruler Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the Post declared:
Both rulers have sold themselves as warriors courageously taking on the Islamic State and its affiliates; both are using that fight as a pretext to accomplish other ends, such as repressing peaceful domestic opponents and distracting attention from declining living standards.
France has likewise been enduring years of anemic growth, resulting in Hollande consistently coming in third behind the leading right-wing and far-right parties in polling about the 2017 elections. But you’re unlikely to see that brought up as a possible motivating factor when US media report on Hollande’s request for extended emergency powers, including “increased surveillance, soldiers on the streets, the ability to place people under house arrest and sweeping capabilities to carry out additional raids and searches by security forces” (USA Today, 11/18/15).
Because Russia’s government is considered to be an enemy of Washington, US media express skepticism about its interest in increasing its powers, suspecting it might have its own self-interest rather than the safety of its citizens foremost in mind. US news outlets depict Russia as living in a world of cause and effect, where Moscow’s own actions have an impact on how other nations and groups respond to it; it is not portrayed as a passive victim of others’ inexplicable violence. The Kremlin’s power is seen as finite, with its ability to achieve its ends not guaranteed by its good intentions and inexhaustible supply of willpower.
In other words, if you want US media to cover your government’s response to a terrorist attack in a way that’s actually useful to you as a citizen, you might get more news you can use if you live under an enemy regime rather than one counted as a friend of the United States.
Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org.
Putin is a vile (in)human being who gives zero shits about his (or any other) people. He sent thousands of Russians to die in Ukraine (and kill thousands of Ukrainians) and now – when the Ukrainian project all but failed – decided to try to win a victory elsewhere – in Syria. Putin needs a pretext to tighten his grip in Russia even more. A threat of terrorism is perfect. Comparing Hollande to Putin is just silly. Has Hollande been in charge of the country for 20 years? Is he the richest man in the country? Does the vast majority of the country borderline psychotically worship him? No, that’s Putin. That’s why he’s the enemy, and that’s why there is a difference in reporting (not the other way around).
This cracks me up: “both [Putin and al-Sisi] are using that fight as a pretext to accomplish other ends, such as repressing peaceful domestic opponents and distracting attention from declining living standards.”
Geez, WaPo. Project much? That’s exactly what’s happening here in the US, but far be it from our mainstream media to bring our own repression to our attention.
ISIS may very well have downed that Russian airliner, but let’s not forget who controls ISIS – Western powers. So, it very well could’ve been a message from the West to Putin to get out of Syria.
“Because Russia’s government is considered to be an enemy of Washington, US media express skepticism…”
Not hardly, for the richest of the rich have an owner’s dictatorship over all of mainstream media, and use it to instill a fake morality and war-hawk mentality in the mainstream maddening crowd.
For the likes of Russia and Washington has not the slightest impact on what gets broadcast by our corporate media, but money, the whole money and their god called money. For things like maximizing profit in the trading of war materials for Middle-East oil, now that is media motivation unequaled, as it is the greatest money maker the rich have ever known.
Or maybe Hollande’s motivation for requesting emergency powers is that ISIS just launched a horrific, murderous attack on Paris.
Once again Naureckas attempts to one-up his previous inane posts.
The coverage of Russia and Syria has been abysmal even by the low standards of the corporate media.
Two recent examples:
The Syrian army has recently won a major victory against ISIS with Russian air support, liberating an important airbase that was under siege for 2 years. It will allow the army to project further into ISIS-held territory. And the US media only wants to talk about Jihadi John, who nobody is even sure is dead. The liberation of Kuweires is a far more important development for the progress of the war, but all we hear is dead silence.
The second example is even more egregious. At the G20, President Putin called the western powers out on the carpet for their support of ISIS. He told them to their faces that we [Russia] is aware of 40 countries funding ISIS, including some at the G20. He said there are convoys of oil trucks dozens of kilometers long, stretching as far as the horizon even when seen from 5000 meters in the air. He said we have the intelligence on who is funding them. We have the satellite pictures, and we’re willing to share it all.
DEAD silence from western media, including, shamefully, progressive media.
How about a story of that, FAIR?
Valentine Azbelle ,repeating corporate media BS not gonna help your case,now go crawl back under that stone with your Ukrainian Neo-Nazi mates!
When, some ten years ago, the US National Geographic Society published an international survey of young people in a number of countries, it found that 87% of Americans, aged 18 – 24 couldn’t find Iraq on a map of the world, while 29% couldn’t locate the Pacific Ocean, should we be surprised at the written and verbal sludge that is passed off as “news reporting” in this country at this time? The national media function as cheerleaders and inciters, favorably covering the multinational corporate class while seeing the use of force as the reasonable, adult and necessary response to any problems with the 95% of the world’s population who generate the wealth for the dominant 5%. With drones and countries claiming the right to attack “terrorists” anywhere in the world, national sovereignty, much as person privacy, is fading into a forgotten history.
If they really want to nail Putin, the media should demand the black box results from the Malaysian Airliner that was shot down over Ukraine. The silence is deafening especially as I heard a report that the damage done to the airliner’s fuselage was determined to have come from an air-to-air missile, not surface-to-air as the US had claimed in the attempt to blame the attack on a Ukraine rebels using Russian supplied SAMs. It’s been many months; when will we hear?
Vladimir Putin’s intervention in Syria would fuel radicalisation, David Cameron warned. The Paris attacks show western military action has the same effects
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/17/russian-bombs-terror-vladimir-putin-syria-david-cameron
“…you might get more news you can use if you live under an enemy regime rather than one counted as a friend of the United States.”
Hence, the pragmatic reason to “love one’s enemies.” They never lie about how they perceive me, unlike my friends…
Be well.
Couldn’t agree more. Wonder what the xenophobic and increasingly racist Charlie Hebdo has made of their own, French, victims in the Paris attacks? Pity this box does not accept pictures, but you can find them in these links:
About the 224 Russians who died in the plane crash:
http://www.wikistrike.com/2015/11/quand-charlie-hebdo-se-fout-de-la-gueule-des-victimes-du-crash-de-l-avion-russe.html.
For those who do not speak French, the left one says : Daesh – “The Russian airforce intensifies its areal attacks”, the right one “The dangers of Russian ‘Low Cost’: I should have taken Air Cocaine” [supposedly suggesting: as opposed to Air Vodka?].
And for those ‘Je suis Charlie’ adepts who still have not understood that satire and caricatures are supposed to expose and ridicule the powerful, not their victims, here’s what this ‘satirical’ pamphlet had to say about Aylan Kurdi, the Syrian toddler washed up on Greek shores:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/french-magazine-hebdo-mocks-drowned-toddler-150914200930751.html
The title on this CH page reads: “Welcome migrants!”
“Almost made it … Promotion. Two childrens menus for the price of one.” In other words : this toddler was not a refugee but a migrant who wanted hamburgers [and our economic and social welfare, as CH regularly likes to insinuate] but he didn’t manage to get what he wanted. The heading of the other picture says: “The proof that Europe is Christian” “Christians walk on water. Muslim children drown.”
Why does this remind me inquisition times, when ‘proof’ that a woman was a witch, was if she did not survive being set on fire? Seems that way of ‘reasoning’ still has its adepts …
Pamela, nice try. In fact, the head of SOS-Racisme called Charlie Hebdo the greatest anti-racist weekly.