More Lame Pseudo Journalism from the New York Times
Filed under: Russia
Sometimes I really wonder whether any actual editor reads the pablum generated by New York Times "reporters" before it gets into print.
Take, for instance, a recent story about Russia headlined "Unshackled and Flush, Russians Venture Abroad" and bearing the above photograph. It seems that virtually every word, starting with the headline, is coming straight from the Kremlin's propaganda machine.
The article claims that "wide swaths of the citizenry are being exposed to life in far-off lands" but its own data (which apparently no editor deigned to actually read and think about) shows that less than 5% of Russians leave Russia each year, and nearly one-third of those who do only get as far as Turkey, just across the Black Sea and hardly a bastion of liberal Western values (the Wall Street Journal recently called the country's ruler "Turkey's Putin"). Moreover, I believe the 5% is likely a significant overstatement, since it almost certainly includes multiple visits abroad by the same wealthy individuals. How is it possible that the nation's so-called "paper of record" could print a statement that is so ludicrous on its face, in its own context? One grew accustomed to this type of thing from Soviet propagandists.
Flush? The average Russian citizen only earns a wage of $4/hour, so the $800 cost of a trip to Turkey the article cites represents more than a full month's wages to the average Russian. With general inflation raging in double digits, and inflation on basic items roaring even higher, it's not an expense the average Russian person can even consider. As for experiencing "different" cultures, the paper's own photograph shows Russians flocking to a resort in Turkey made to look just like Red Square, hardly much change at all.
Now put all these basic facts aside and answer me this: If Russians are so interested in widening their perspectives, how is it that they elected and reelected a proud KGB spy to be their leader, then allowed him to appoint a hand-picked successor and remain prime minster, in essence ruling for life? If their minds are so open to change, why did they allow that spy to abolish local government, independent media and opposition politics? Anyone casually aware of these facts understands the true extent to which Russians are willing to consider other options.
It really does seem that it's time to put the Old Gray Lady out to pasture. This is just getting plain embarrassing. I know enough about Russia to spot red herrings like this immediately, but I'm not an expert in any other region. Who knows how many bogus statements about other countries I've swallowed whole, unknowingly?
Sheesh. Give me a break!
NOTE: If this post had been written about and linked to a story in the Washington Post, then a sidebar item in that paper's web page would have shown the link, allowing readers to find this post and see its criticism. That's because WaPo proudly stands by its content. The same is not true of the Gray Lady, which cowers in the shadows. I've written a letter to the editor raising the concerns set forth in this post, but odds are the NYT won't have the guts to run it.
del.icio.us | 
digg | 
technorati | 
stumble upon | 
furl | 
reddit