What’s Russian Media Saying About Intervention in Syria?
This is that time of the week. I take a seat in front of the TV with a cup of tea, and wait for the brainwashing to start. And here he comes, the host of the show, wearing a black Chinese silk shirt with a Mandarin collar, he confidently begins his speech. His first words reveal what’s going to be discussed in this episode of the weekly show. Today, it’s Syria.
In September, Russia decided to re-draw the map of the Syrian conflict by launching air-strikes, and since then, Syria, is dominating headlines of Russian news agencies. Russian citizens, even those who cannot point Syria on the map, have become experts in the region. They defend Russian intervention and eloquently describe how powerful ‘Mother Russia’ has become in the past two years. There are even shops, which began to sell T-Shirts with slogans “Support Assad”. All of this shows, how Russian elites brilliantly mastered the art of social engineering. To see that clearly, let’s get back to the host.
After his expressive presentation of topic of debate, the host invites the guests of the show. This week it’s Russian political scientist and security analyst, Semen Bagdasarov, who is opposed by Moscow-based American journalist, Michael Bohm. The debate starts and viewers can take their phones and vote by text message for either of sides.
Ten minutes into the debate, I see the friction between the sides becoming clearer with each argument. Russian expert focuses his argument on the mess United States has done in Syrian conflict; American journalist argues that it’s the Syrian dictator, who is responsible for the mess. Then, a bit later, the arguments mysteriously transform into emotions. Twenty minutes ahead, emotions become accusations. That’s when the emotions prevail over the common sense.That’s when the difference, between the viewer who cannot point Syria on a map and viewer who is expert on Syria, dissapears. But that was the desired result.
This is how it works. The first several minutes of the debate was preparation to bring the viewers from all backgrounds to one, certain state, in which it will be easy to create the desired opinion among them. The desired opinion is that Syrian dictator, Bashar Assad, is the only force that fights terrorists. Yes, that simple.
The average Russian hears this opinion from every news source: the radio stations, when he or she is listening in the car or when reading newspaper in the tube or when watching television in the evening after work.
It’s really disturbing to observe how a complex, four-year civil war, which left thousands killed, millions displaced, and even more remaining under the barrel of Islamists, is being simplified to such low level of understanding. No wonder only 150 people turned up to protest in Moscow against Russian intervention in Syria. So few people turn up to demonstrations because there is no second opinion. The wider public needs to receive the full picture of the situation on the ground.
Only few news outlets express different views: radio “Echo Moscow”, ‘TV Rain’ and newspaper ‘Novaya Gazeta’. This doesn’t mean that these agencies are always telling the truth. No. Their function is to question everything that the government does, because it’s the essential function of a journalist — to question authorities. And that is right thing to do. However, modern Russia isn’t the place for independent thinkers and people who show to public inconvenient facts are being instantly prosecuted. And that leads to this conclusion of the show.
The man in a black Chinese silk shirt with a Mandarin collar comes back to the scene to make concluding remarks. And here it is, the most important part of the show. The moment when people will stop voting for either of the guests and vote counting will start. The results show what has been evident from the start — the majority supported the opinion that the Syrian dictator must remain in power. The opinion has been successfully formed, my brain has been succesfully washed and I can go to sleep, so my brain can be ready to hear the same tomorrow — all over again.
