Reply To: “Cancel culture” as a weapon of war

jackk,

“If you would have written this before the first day of the attack , I could understand your questioning about a “balance”

1. The lack of coverage of the Russian position predated the invasion. There was widespread coverage of the Russian military buildup along the Ukrainian border and the threat of war, but very little coverage of why the buildup was occurring. Therefore Russian atrocities did not cause the lack of balanced coverage.
2. I think you misunderstood my intention with the OP; maybe I didn’t write it clearly. In many cases when the media gives equal coverage to both sides in a conflict, I 100% agree with you; it actually creates a coverage imbalance when responsibility for the violence is not symmetric. The media invariably plays this equal coverage game during conflicts between Israel and Hamas or Hezbollah, with the result of elevating terrorism and creating a false narrative of a “cycle of violence”. My point in the OP is that with respect to this conflict in Ukraine, the media has departed from the both sides covered equally philosophy. And this has given moral cover (and pressure) for governments and corporations to launch an astonishingly coordinated and rapid removal of Russia from global society. Propaganda, sanctions, and boycotts have always been a part of warfare, but it’s the global extent, speed, scale, and coercive nature of these tactics in this conflict that have surprised me. And made me wonder who they’ll be used on next.

TL;DR, Russia deserves the cancellation it’s getting, but the machinery of this cancellation itself is rather frightening. It’s the first time global interconnectedness has been weaponized to this extent and speed.

“Plus, the media has covered Putin’s public pronouncements. So , they have given his side of the story.”

They have covered his statements insofar as to make him look deranged and unhinged. Which he may be, but I think is unlikely given his long history of cold, calculated patience. My best guess is that he was hoping to replicate the United States’ 2003 shock and awe campaign against Iraq to demonstrate Russia’s military might to the world, followed by a rapid invasion to topple or exile Zelenskyy’s government as the US then did to Saddam Hussein. Then either negotiate a demilitarized Ukraine or install a pro-Russian government and leave it to fight any insurgencies with Russian backing. I think he believed the world was resigned to this outcome. But unlike the US, Russia did not immediately achieve air superiority, leaving its invasion forces vulnerable to attack from the air, and its multi-pronged invasion was poorly coordinated, poorly supported, and the troops poorly trained.

“If NK would attack SK would you expect the media coverage to be balanced?”

No, but I think I’d expect to know why NK attacked at that particular time.

“If NK attacked SK and started killing civilians , caused millions to become refugees, and destroyed cities do you think the media should be fair to what Kim’s reasons for wanting SK ?”

It’s not about fairness, I never wrote fair. It’s about knowing what’s going on in the world, and getting a better handle on the complexity of the situation beyond “he’s the devil, you must hate him or you’re a bad person yourself.”