Did you know Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was
full of corpses when it took off from Amsterdam? Did you know that, for some darkly inexplicable reason, on July 17, MH17
moved off the standard flight path that it had taken every time before, and moved north, toward rebel-held areas outside Donetsk? Or that the dispatchers
summoned the plane lower just before the crash? Or that the plane had been
recently reinsured? Or that the Ukrainian army
has air defense systems in the area? Or that it was the
result of the Ukrainian military mistaking MH17 for Putin’s presidential plane, which looks strangely similar?
Did you know that the crash of MH17 was all part of an American conspiracy to
provoke a big war with Russia?
Well, it’s all true
—at least if you live in Russia, because
this is the Malaysia Airlines crash story that you’d be seeing.
READ: I Slept Next to the Wreckage of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17As
the crisis surrounding the plane crash deepens and as calls for
Vladimir Putin to act grow louder, it’s worth noting that they’re not
really getting through to Putin’s subjects. The picture of the
catastrophe that the Russian people are seeing on their television
screens is very different from that on screens in much of the rest of
the world, and the discrepancy does not bode well for a sane resolution
to this stand-off.
Western media has been vacillating for days between
calling Putin a murderer and peppering their coverage with allegedlys, telling the
heart-rending tales of the victims, scrounging for anonymous leaks to link the Russians to the downed jet, and
punditizing about exit ramps.
But in Russia, television
—most of it owned or controlled by the Kremlin
—is trying to muddy the water with
various experts who insist that there is no way that an
SA-11 missile system
could possibly have downed a plane flying that high. And, mind you,
this is not part of a larger debate of could they, or couldn’t they;
this is all of Russian television and state-friendly papers pushing one
line: The pro-Russian separatists we’ve been supporting all these months
couldn’t have done this. Watching some of these Russian newscasts, one
comes away with the impression of a desperate defense attorney
scrounging for experts and angles, or a bad kid caught red-handed by the
principal, trying to twist his way out of a situation in which he has
no chance.
READ: Malaysia Air Corpses Used as Sickening PR Stunt for Rebels' Fake RepublicAnd
that’s when they’re not simply peddling conspiracy theories, which have
become a kind of symbiotic feedback loop between state TV and the most
inventive corners of the Internet. The best of the bunch is, of course,
an elaborate one: MH17 is actually MH370, that Malaysia Airlines flight
that disappeared into the Indian Ocean. According to
this theory, the plane didn’t disappear at all, “it was taken to an American military base, Diego-Garcia.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Then
it was taken to Holland. On the necessary day and hour, it flew out,
bound for Malaysia, but inside were not live people, but corpses. The
plane was flown not by real pilots; it was on autopilot. Or take-off (a
complicated procedure) was executed by live pilots, who then ejected on
parachutes. Then the plane flew automatically. In the necessary spot, it
was blown up, without even using a surface-to-air missile. Instead the
plane was packed with a bomb, just like the CIA did on 9/11.
The
theory also notes that the passports of victims at the crash site all
look brand new even though there was an explosion and a fire. “That is,
the passports were tossed in [after the crash].” And, most damningly,
all the victims’ Facebook pages were created in one day and the media is
not showing any of the victims’ families, just the crash site. Though
this is not true of Western media, Russian television has not featured
any of this. “There’s very little talk about the human cost of this
catastrophe,” says independent television analyst Arina Borodina,
formerly of the prominent Russian daily
Kommersant. “Instead
we’re seeing these unbelievable versions. For example, that someone had
actually been hunting for the president or that some of the locals saw
parachutists coming down from a height of 30,000 feet.”
But though
it may look unconvincing to us in the West, that is because we have
seen and read other things that contradict it. The Russian media space
has become so uniform and
independent voices so cowed and marginalized that there is no counterweight and, when there’s no counterweight, if you repeat a thing often enough, it becomes the truth.
This
isn’t an innocent you-say-tomato moment; this is a very problematic
development. The result of all this Russian coverage is that Russians’
understanding of what happened is as follows. At best, the crash is an
unfortunate accident on the part of the Ukrainian military that the West
is trying to pin on Russia, which had nothing to do with it; at worst,
it is all part of a nefarious conspiracy to drag Russia into an
apocalyptic war with the West. So whereas the West sees the crash as a
game-changer, the Russians do not see why a black swan event has to
change anything or they want to resist what they see is a provocation.
To them, after a few days of watching Russian television, it’s not at
all clear what happened nor that their government is somehow responsible
for this tragedy. And the more we insist on it, the less likely the
Russians are to agree.
Floriana Fossato, a longtime scholar of
Russian media, says that this, coupled with the media’s conscious use of
the Soviet language of crisis
—“traitors,” “fascists,” “fifth columns”—quickly
brings to the surface the psychological demons of a society massively
traumatized by the twentieth century, traumas that society has never
adequately addressed. The result, she says, is
a kind of collective PTSD-meets-Stockholm Syndrome.
In
Russians' view, “Americans have recreated the situation where they have
excuse for intervention,” Fossato says. “No one admits that they are
afraid, but they are. They are panicked. And they are right in being
afraid because they
know what happened, and they know there
must be an answer to what is going on. And so they lock onto Putin for
protection. This is why they don’t turn to Putin and ask him to do
something.”
But in addition to the Russian public not clamoring for decisive action from Putin, there is a far more serious problem. As
The New Yorker's David Remnick noted in his
column
on the crash of MH17, Putin has become prisoner to his own propaganda
machine, much as he’s become prisoner of the rebels he thought were
doing his geopolitical dirty work in Ukraine.
After Putin’s
ascent, media became the flexible element that could be readjusted for
any twist or turn of the political rudder. “Today, it’s the opposite,”
says Gleb Pavlovsky, a political consultant who helped Putin win his
first election and was a Kremlin advisor for years afterwards. “It’s
almost impossible to turn the rudder of the picture that’s formed on
television because it would mean losing the audience they formed in this
year” of sword-brandishing and imperialistic conquest.
This
audience is now fired up and brandishing its own swords, and the
propaganda apparatus, much like the rebels in eastern Ukraine, has
rolled on and on, fed by inertia and paranoia, reproducing and
magnifying itself with each newscast. The sensationalized newscasts are
now neck-and-neck, ratings-wise, with the sitcoms. “It keeps people in a
traumatized state,” Pavlovsky says. “It’s notable in media metrics, and
in conversations with people. They lose their sanity, they become
paranoid and aggressive.”
This has had a noticeable impact on the ruling class, Pavlovsky says, which has to watch this stuff in order to stay
au courant. And
they become less sane as a result, too, which limits their ability to
adequately assess a situation such as this and devise a good way out of
it.
“It’s noticeable that the Kremlin is much more tempered than
Russian TV but can’t change it,” Pavlovsky says. “It’s fallen into a
trap, so it's now trying to function within the strictures of this
picture.” He cites the example of the PR contortions the Kremlin had to
use just to announce that it would not send troops into eastern Ukraine.
“In this seemingly controlled media, any rational political arguments
of the state have to be hidden and packaged in idiotic, jingoistic
rhetoric,” Pavlovsky says.
None of this looks very good for the
West, which is clearly hoping that MH17 is the thing that will bring
Putin to his senses and get him to agree to some kind of off-ramp, or,
at least, a deescalation. But that’s hard to do if neither your public
nor your political class see it as a game-changer or as anything that
should force Russia to end this game.
“Of course it gets in
Putin’s way. He has to be the hero of this TV material, he’s not free
from it anymore,” says Pavlovsky. “I have a feeling he's not very
comfortable right now.”
http://www.newrepublic.com/