PBS
Cannot Be Trusted
PBS Cannot Be Trusted
PBS is a major part of the US
propaganda machine
PBS’
Anti-Russia Propaganda Series
July
27, 2017
PBS
has joined the anti-Russia propaganda stampede with a five-part documentary
series that recycles the false and deceptive claims that have become Official
Washington’s dangerous new groupthink, reports Rick Sterling.
By
Rick Sterling
The
U.S.-government-supported Public Broadcasting System (PBS) recently ran a
five-part series dubbed “Inside Putin’s
Russia”. With a different theme each night, it purports to give a realistic
look at Russia today. The image conveyed is of a Russia that is undemocratic
with widespread state repression, violence and propaganda. Following are
significant distortions and falsehoods in the five-part documentary.
Some
of the estimated 12 million Russians who took part in Immortal Regiment parades
across the country over three days in May 2016. (RT photo)
Episode
1: “How Putin Redefined what it means to be Russian”
In
this episode, the documentary:
–Claims
that Russian identity is based on “projection of power.” In
reality, “projection of power” characterizes the U.S. much more than Russia.
For the past two centuries the United States has expanded across the continent
and globe. The last century is documented in the book Overthrow:
American’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq. The U.S. currently
has nearly 800 foreign military bases in over 70 countries. In contrast, Russia
has military bases in only two countries beyond the former Soviet Union: Syria
and Vietnam.
–Ignores
crucial information about events in Ukraine. Russian
involvement in eastern Ukraine and Crimea are presented as examples of
“projection of power.” But basic facts are omitted from the documentary. There
is no mention of the violent February 2014 coup in Kiev nor the involvement of
neoconservatives such as Sen. John McCain and U.S. Assistant Secretary of State
Victoria Nuland in supporting and encouraging the overthrow of Ukraine’s elected
government. In a December 2013 speech,
Nuland outlined her intense involvement in Ukraine including U.S. insistence
that Ukraine choose a “European future” since the U.S. had “invested $5 billion
to assist.” Days before the coup in February 2014, Nuland was captured on
audio planning the
composition of the coup leadership.
–Ignores
Crimea’s historic connections with Russia and the Ukrainian violence. The
documentary says, “In 2014 in Crimea, Russia helped install
separatist leaders who rushed through a referendum that led to Crimea’s
annexation.” This gives the misleading impression the decision was Russian, not
Crimean.
Even
the New York Times report on
March 16, 2014, acknowledged that, “The outcome, in a region that
shares a language and centuries of history with Russia, was a foregone
conclusion even before exit polls showed more than 93 percent of voters
favoring secession.”
Nazi
symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine’s Azov battalion. (As filmed by a
Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)
The
documentary fails to mention the fear of violence after Crimean travelers to
Kiev were beaten and
killed by Ukrainian hyper-nationalists. One of the first decisions of
the Kiev coup government was to declare that Russian would no longer be an official
language. A good overview including video interviews with Crimeans is in this
video, contrasting sharply with the implications of the PBS documentary.
–Trivializes
Russian opposition to NATO expansion. The documentary suggests
Russians feel “humiliated” by NATO expanding to their borders. This distorts a
serious military concern into a subjective, emotional issue. In 2002, the U.S.
unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty and started construction of missile defense systems
which could be used in tandem with a nuclear first strike. In recent years,
NATO troops and missiles have been installed at Russia’s borders. Imagine the
response if Russian troops and missiles were placed at the U.S. border in
Canada and Mexico.
–Falsely
claims that coup violence in Odessa was “exaggerated.”
The
documentary says that Russians who went to help defend civilians in eastern
Ukraine were convinced by Russian “propaganda” where “dozens of pro-Russian
separatists died in Odessa, Ukraine” but “Russian media exaggerated the
attack.” In reality, the Odessa attack killed at least 42 people and injured
100. This video shows
the sequence of events with the initial attack on peaceful protesters followed
by fire-bomb attacks in the building. Fire trucks were prevented from reaching
the building to put out the fire and rescue citizens inside.
Episode
2: “Inside Russia’s Propaganda Machine.”
In
this episode, the documentary:
–Suggests
Russians are aggressive and threatening. The
documentary highlights a Russian TV broadcaster who is translated to say,
“Russia is the only country in the world that is realistically capable of turning
the United States into radioactive ash.” And later, “If you can persuade a
person, you don’t need to kill him … if you aren’t able to persuade, then you
will have to kill.” We do not know the context or accuracy of these translated
statements. However on the basis of my own travels in Russia and the experience
of many other Americans, these statements are strange and uncharacteristic.
At
the popular and government level, Russians are typically at pains to call the
U.S. a “partner” and to wish for peace and better relations. With 27 million
killed in World War 2, most Russians are very conscious of the consequences of
war and deeply want peace. Russians vividly recall the Russia-U.S. alliance
during WW2 and seek a return to friendly collaboration. The film producers must
have heard this message and desire for peace expressed by many Russians many
times. But the documentary only presents this uncharacteristic aggressive
message.
–Inaccurately
suggests that producers of a private TV network received angry public messages
because they were exposing corruption. In reality, the angry public
response was because the TV station ran a poll asking viewers if the Soviet
Union should have surrendered to Nazi Germany to save lives during the siege of
Leningrad.
–Falsely
suggests that RT (Russia Today TV) typically features Holocaust deniers and
neo-Nazis. This is a grotesque distortion Anyone
who watches RT will know that American personalities such as Chris Hedges,
Larry King and Ed Schultz are regulars on RT. Interviewees on international
affairs generally come from the left side of the political spectrum – the
opposite of what is suggested.
–Uncritically
repeats the conspiracy theory that Russia hacked the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton emails. The findings
have been disputed by the publisher of the emails, Julian
Assange of Wikileaks , as well as Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. A recent
forensic examination confirms that this was a leak not a hack (inside
job done by local data transfer NOT a hack over the internet) and points to “Guccifer 2.0”, the
presumptive “hacker,” being a hoax intentionally created to implicate Russia.
–Falsely
suggests that anti-Clinton social media messaging during 2016 was significantly
caused by Russian government trolls.Hillary Clinton was strongly opposed
by significant portions of both the left and right. There were probably
hundreds of thousands of Americans who shared anti-Clinton social media
messages.
–Claims
that research showing a Google search engine bias in favor of Hillary Clinton
was “quickly debunked.” The documentary ignores the
original article describing
the potential effect of search-engine bias, which was published in the
prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The
author is Dr. Robert Epstein, former editor-in-chief of Psychology
Today magazine. Contradicting the claim that this research was
“debunked,” this
academic article estimates the effect of the Google bias and how the
bias went away AFTER the election. The response from Google and very
shallow Snopes ”fact
check” are effectively rebutted by the lead author here. In neo-McCarthyist
style, the documentary smears the findings and claims they were “laundered”
after being published by the Russian “Sputnik” media.
–Suggests
the “idea that President Kennedy was killed by the CIA” was “planted” by the
Soviet intelligence agency KGB. Many impressive American books
have been written supporting this contention, from New Orleans District
Attorney Jim Garrison’s book to David Talbot’s 2015 book Devil’s
Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA and Deep State. Claiming that this
accusation is based on KGB “disinformation” is another grotesque distortion. It
is not revealing disinformation; this is an example of disinformation.
Episode
3: “Why are so many from this Russian republic fighting for Isis?”
In
this episode, the documentary:
–Rationalizes
and almost justifies Russian Muslims traveling to join ISIS. The
documentary suggests that religious repression and discrimination is a cause of
ISIS recruitment and that “Dagestanis who fought for ISIS continue a
decades-old legacy here of radicalism and militancy.”
Journalist
James Foley shortly before he was executed by an Islamic State operative.
–Ignores
the role of the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in promoting Islamist
fundamentalism in Dagestan. As described by Robert Dreyfus in the
book Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist
Islam: “the Casey-ISI (CIA and Pakistan Secret Service) actions aided the
growth of a significant network of right-wing, Islamist extremists who, to this
day, plague the governments of the former Soviet republics … In particular, the
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Islamic Liberation Party, the powerful
Islamist groups in Chechnya and Dagestan.”
–Ignores
the role of the US and allies in facilitating ISIS. As
journalist Patrick Cockburn has written, “In
the 20 years between 1996 and 2016, the CIA and British security and
foreign policy agencies have consistently given priority to maintaining their
partnership with powerful Sunni states over the elimination of terrorist
organizations such as al-Qaeda and Isis.”
Journalist
Nafeez Ahmed exposed the role of Turkey here,
“A former senior counter-terrorism official in Turkey has blown the whistle
on President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s deliberate sponsorship of the Islamic State
(ISIS) as a geopolitical tool to expand Turkey’s regional influence and
sideline his political opponents at home.”
Elements
of the U.S. military/intelligence suggested the establishment of ISIS to
“isolate the Syrian regime.” This was revealed in the classified
2012 report of the Defense Intelligence Agency that “THERE
IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST
PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT
THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN
REGIME”
In
short, ISIS recruitment from Muslim communities in Russia and worldwide has
been spurred by the policies and actions of the U.S. and allies such as Saudi
Arabia and Turkey. This is what Dreyfus calls The Devil’s Game, but
is ignored in the documentary.
Episode
4: “The Deadly Risk of Standing up to Putin”
In
this episode, the documentary:
–Suggests
that critics of Putin and the Russian government face “consequences” including
death. These accusations are widespread in the West but
largely based on the claims of different U.S.-supported “activists.” One of the
most famous cases, and the one on which U.S. congressional sanctions against
Russia are based, is that of Sergei Magnitsky. Magnitsky’s death was the
subject of a documentary, which has been effectively banned in the U.S. In the
course of researching what happened, the filmmaker learned that the truth was
very different than has been told in the West and promoted by hedge-fund
executive William Browder. Gilbert Doctorow outlines what happens in his review
of the film here:
“‘Magnitsky
Act: Behind the Scenes’ is an amazing film which takes
us through the thought processes, the evidence sorting of the well-known
independent film maker Andrei Nekrasov as he approached an assignment that was
at the outset meant to be one more public confirmation of the narrative Browder
has sold to the US Congress and to the American and European political elites.
That story was all about a 36 year old whistle-blower ‘attorney’ (actually a
bookkeeper) named Sergei Magnitsky who denounced on Browder’s behalf the theft
of Russian taxes to his boss’s companies amounting to $230 million and who was
rewarded for his efforts by arrest, torture and murder in detainment by the
officials who perpetrated the theft. This shocking tale drove legislation that
was a major landmark in the descent of US-Russian relations under President
Barack Obama to a level rivaling the worst days of the Cold War.
Financier
William Browder (right) with Magnitsky’s widow and son, along with European
parliamentarians.
“At
the end of the film we understand that this story was concocted by William Browder
to cover up his own criminal theft of the money in question, that Magnitsky was
not a whistleblower, but on the contrary was likely an assistant and abettor to
the fraud and theft that Browder organized, that he was not murdered by corrupt
Russian police but died in prison from banal neglect of his medical condition.”
The
PBS documentary quotes an opposition leader, Vladimir Kara-Murza, saying “We
have no free and fair elections. We have censorship in the media. We have
political prisoners, more than 100 political prisoners now in Russia, today.”
Kara-Murza now lives in Washington “for his safety” but returns to Russia
periodically. He claims to have been poisoned several times.
Opponents
of the Russian government are quick to accuse but the evidence is largely
hearsay and speculation. Public polls of citizens in Russia repeatedly indicate
that Putin and the government have widespread popularity, in contrast with the
accusations in this documentary that they rule by intimidation and violence.
Episode
5: “What Russians think about Trump and the
U.S.”
Based
on the content, the final episode should be titled “What the U.S. establishment
and media thinks of Putin and Russia.” In this episode, the documentary:
–Features
accusations by CIA Director Mike Pompeo that Russian President Putin, “ is a
man for whom veracity doesn’t translate into English.” An
objective documentary would take CIA claims about “veracity” with a healthy
dose of skepticism. Just a few years ago, former Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper was confirmed to have lied
under oath to Congress. Former CIA chief of counterintelligence James
Angleton said in
his dying days, “Fundamentally, the founding fathers of U.S. intelligence were
liars. The better you lied and the more you betrayed, the more likely you got
promoted.” So it is curious to see the PBS documentary uncritically presenting
the new CIA director as a judge of veracity.
Secretary
of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations on Feb. 5. 2003, citing
satellite photos which supposedly proved that Iraq had WMD, but the evidence
proved bogus.
–Implies
that President Trump is out of line to question “the U.S. intelligence
community’s unanimous assessment that Russia hacked the 2016 election.” It
has been recently exposed that
the “unanimous assessment” was, in reality, by “hand-picked” analysts at three
agencies, under DNI Clapper’s oversight, not all 17 agencies and that the
National Security Agency did NOT have “high confidence” in a key finding. The
“assessment,” which the Jan. 6 report acknowledged was NOT an establishment of
fact, was based on the forensics of a private company, Crowdstrike, with a
checkered record in this field, and the dubious Christopher Steele dossier, a
collection of “opposition research” reports against Donald Trump, paid for
unidentified allies of Hillary Clinton and compiled by Steele, an ex-British
intelligence agent.
In
March 2017, Crowdstrike was found to
have made false claims in another investigation of an alleged Russian “hack.”
Yet, neither the CIA nor FBI examined the Democratic National Committee’s
computers. If the issue was as important as it supposedly has now become, the
FBI should have issued a subpoena to do its own examination. Why the DNC
rejected the FBI request, and why the FBI did not insist, raises serious
questions given the enormous publicity and accusations that have followed.
–Uncritically
features two US politicians making loose accusations and effectively
criminalizing “contacts” with Russians. Sen. James
Lankford, R-Oklahoma, says President Trump is “pushing out some messages that
are consistent with the Kremlin policies … there’s no question that the
Russians were trying to hack into our elections.” Yet, former U.S. intelligence
officers with experience in these areas recently presented
evidence raising significant questions about this conventional wisdom.
On
the Democratic side, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia indicates the Senate
investigation reached its conclusion before it began. He said, “The goal of
this investigation is not only to reconfirm Russian intervention and explain
that to the American public, but to also see if there were any contacts between
Trump and the Russians.”
In
the current environment, to have “contacts” with Russians has been
criminalized. Instead of questioning the validity or wisdom of this position,
the documentary presents it with seeming approval.
–Uncritically
promotes false statements and reckless threats. Sen.
Lankford says “We believe strongly that what Russia continues to do
to be able to threaten Ukraine, threaten its neighbors, threaten NATO, to
continue to pry into not only our elections, but other elections, is
destabilizing, and it demands a response. They have yet to have a consequence
to what they did in the election time. And they should.”
Lankford’s
assertions are presented as facts but are debatable or false. For example,
security services in Germany, France and
the U.K.
all found that – despite the international accusations – there was NO evidence
of Russian interference in their recent elections.
–Justifies
and promotes “punishment” of Russia. The belligerent approach of
Lankford and Warner is continued by PBS host Judy Woodruff and narrator Nick
Schifrin. The U.S. is portrayed as a vulnerable victim with a future that is
“foreboding”. Russia is portrayed as threatening and needing some punishment
soon: “The Russian government doesn’t feel like the United States
government really penalized them for what happened last year…. a lot of
officials here in Washington agree with that… Russia should have paid for what
they did last year.”
Russian
President Vladimir Putin answering questions from Russian citizens at his
annual Q&A event on April 14, 2016. (Russian government photo)
This
threatening talk is then followed by the following assessment from the
narrator: “There are analysts in Moscow who think the only thing we can hope is
that we avoid war.”
In
2002-2003, American mainstream media failed to question or challenge the
assertions of the CIA and politicians pushing for the invasion of Iraq. At that
time, the false pretense was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and
posed a threat to the U.S.
Much
of the media and many of the same politicians are now claiming Russia is an
adversary that has “attacked us.” This claim is being widely made without
serious question or challenge. “Liberal” media seems to be in alliance with
hawkish neoconservatives on this issue. Virtually any accusation against Russia
and its leader can be made with impunity and without serious evidence.
The
PBS documentary “Inside Putin’s Russia” aims to expose Russian repression,
aggression and disinformation. As shown in the many examples above, the
five-part documentary is highly biased and inaccurate. While it shows some
features of Russia, it also demonstrates American propaganda in the current
tumultuous times.
Rick
Sterling is an investigative journalist based in northern California. He can be
contacted at rsterling1@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment