Narrative Critical Analysis: The Most Dangerous Place on Earth
Narrative critical analysis: week 1
Selected text
The Most Dangerous Place on Earth (Politico Europe, June 2022).
Summary
This article is a dispatch that discusses the security situation in the Suwalki Gap, a small strip of land between Russia (Kaliningrad) and Belarus, with Lithuania to the north and Poland to the south. Many see it as one of the first places Russia could attack NATO in a “future war”.
Why did I choose this text?
This is one of many similar articles published about the Suwalki Gap after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2015 and is a fairly recent example. Arguably, this genre is its own category.
I believe it is a typical example of Grosser’s (2017) “law of narrative gravity” as it repeats well-known tropes, cliches and factual errors about the region and attitudes toward security.
Googling “Suwalki Gap” also shows it has been an “agenda setting” article (Grosser 2017) as it was followed by several stories published by different outlets which focus on the “The Most Dangerous Place on Earth” angle (The Guardian, The Times, WSJ, The Week, Unherd).
In response to Politico Europe’s article, Lithuania’s public broadcaster, LRT, published a “counter-narrative” story. Journalists went to the region and spoke to locals about how they felt living in the area.
Additionally, experts LRT spoke to dismissed the article saying it failed to take into account the most recent research on the security situation in the region.
Genre
This article fits into several genres due to its theme and structure.
First and foremost, it is a dispatch. The journalist has gone somewhere, in this case, Lithuania and Poland, and reported back about what they’ve seen. This journalist (looking at their Twitter profile) is not usually based in the region, so it is a dispatch from abroad, perhaps also fitting into foreign correspondence, if this is its own genre.
It takes the reader on a day-long journey, a road trip, across two different countries.
Clickbait is an accurate way to describe the headline, it’s clearly designed to catch attention.
Audience
Politico Europe, as a publication, is aimed at people who have an interest in European Politics, the European Union, and EU institutions. Its audience is largely made up of the same people, such as:
- politicians,
- policymakers,
- journalists,
- diplomats,
- and eurocrats.
In short, people working in the “Brussels Bubble” or “Westminster Village”, and those following events from outside.
Its coverage focuses on, in the publication’s own words “global power centers”, which in Europe’s case are based in the west of the continent and the UK. As a result, countries in Eastern and Northern Europe tend to have less consistent coverage.
It follows, then, that the intended audience for my chosen article is politicians, policymakers, journalists, diplomats and eurocrats in Western Europe.
Readers would likely need a surface-level understanding of the context around the tensions between Russia and NATO and be sufficiently interested to read a 1,000+ word feature article on the topic.
However, they do not need to be experts in this field, as the article focuses on emotions and opinions, skimming the surface of the topic, rather than seeking expert or military technical commentary.
Identifying Huisman’s narrative concepts
Mode
Written text, this is an online article and, as far as I know, no audio (such as a podcast) or video recordings were published alongside it.
It is suitable for the story and illustrated with several images. It does have an automated audio track of the article on the page.
Narrative
A road trip across the borderlands between Poland and Lithuania told from both sides over the course of one day.
The narrative starts in Lithuania and the first sentence starts slowly, but then ratchets up the tension at the end: “Strolling amid the ornate 19th-century villas, fountains and lakes that dot this sleepy spa town, it’s easy to forget that you’re standing in Vladimir Putin’s crosshairs.”
It does not lay out exactly where the journalist went, the article flits between speaking to people in the region (residents) and that outside of it (experts).
Characters
Residents living in the region, former politicians, experts and military officials. The journalist.
Rhetoric
Tropes can be seen across the genre of articles this sits within, such as the idea the area is inherently dangerous and that NATO would not trigger article 5 to protect a small country.
Rhetoric is still used to ramp up the drama: “it’s easy to forget that you’re standing in Vladimir Putin’s crosshairs” and “Such a move would … [push] the world to the brink of world-ending confrontation.”
Alternative editorial choices
Incorporating data into this article would have given a better overview of the situation.
For example, this could have been Russian or NATO data showing the build-up of military hardware in the region.
Public opinion polling in relation to concerns about security would have given a better overall view of the sentiment in both countries after the war broke out in February.
Additionally, a map of the region with areas the journalist visited and the four countries discussed would have given readers a better understanding of the region’s geography.
Critical
The headline is clickbait so when it's shared on social media, with no additional context as a link, it projects a dramatic situation.
The illustration, a man looking into a pond but seeing the reflection of himself amid an ongoing conflict staring back at him, also emphasizes this.
The journalist undermines the opinions of the people he speaks to. One commentator says he is not worried, but in the next sentence the journalist suggests a deserted border post means “it might be wise to pack a bag”.
Despite the premise of the article being that this is the most dangerous place on earth, the reporter says he “didn’t even see one military vehicle or soldier” on his daylong journey across the border area.
This suggests there is a gap between his idea of what is happening and the reality on the ground. This might be an example of a narrative “myth”.
Practical
In general, the structure of the story is good because lots of people are interviewed in both countries and people from outside the region.
But additional context and the use of data (public opinion, military equipment in the region) would have given the reader a better overall understanding of the discussion.
