A Twist on Words

When reporting or commenting on the civil war in the Ukraine we affix a label describing those who are fighting the Ukrainian government -  pro-Russian separatists, Russian-backed separatists, anti-government separatists.  The label used influences both our view of the situation and our understanding of the conflict.  For me, Pro-Russian separatists gives the impression that the separatists want to become a part of Russia. Russian-backed separatists gives me the impression that Russia  is taking an active part in the conflict, sending arms, equipment, men.  Anti-government separatists gives me the impression that the armed activists want the Ukrainian government to change and to recognize and safeguard their Russian culture and language and, if this fails to occur, they want to form a separate state.

Why does Western Media consistently use the term Russian-backed?  Is there any real proof of this?  Are we looking for an excuse to send aide, money, arms, equipment, and men to take sides in the conflict?  Why are we  in the West taking sides in this conflict at all?  Should the known to be corrupt, financially failing Ukrainian government be backed and safeguarded by the west, by the Euro Zone?  If they had treated their Russian speaking population well in the first place would this civil war have taken place?  It is totally possible that this separatist movement has roots in some very real grievances.  In my opinion this conflict should be settled by diplomacy, not by war.  But this is my opinion. These are my wonderings.  You can find opinions in print, on the net, and on the TV screen in direct opposition to my view.  The world of the Media is a very confusing place.

It is easy to skew our picture of what is going on in the world, especially the world beyond our borders, beyond what we can actually experience first hand. By using particular wording, particular photos and/or films, by including some shots or interviews and excluding others, by toning down or sensationalizing, the media is able to colour our thinking, to induce us to believe the "truth" according to their editors (or censors, or governments, or causes, etc.).  In my opinion most news media is slanted toward one ideology (version of the truth) or another.  Look, for example, at Fox News, a news station which I see as the right wing mouthpiece of America.  Look at the fearsome news releases if ISIS.  Look at the Conservative government of Canada's current ads on TV.

Reporters, news-anchors, newspapers have a responsibility to be unbiased when airing the news for the public, a lofty ideal which is difficult to achieve.  I hope most do try.  Movies, one of our "sources" of information, tell us that every good reporter seeks the truth, the scoop, the exposé.  (Superman comes to my mind.)  It will not only make their name, it will reveal a hidden truth, and it will sell. Most media outlets are dependant on ratings.  The news is now another show. Viewers/readers must not only be informed, they must be entertained.  Their editors and station managers control what is printed/shown, and in some cases their governments also have a hand in the pie.

People are busy.  They want to be "informed" but can rarely spare the time to ferret out "reality".  We have become a society with an attention span of 10 seconds to 10 minutes, the length of commercials and the shows in-between.  News is only newsworthy when it's fresh and seems to disappear in the face of something new on the scene.  Have you heard much of anything about Ebola lately?  It's still there, still ongoing, but in the media is largely absent.  It's old news. Old news does not get high ratings.  Low rated media does not attract advertisers.  Media without financial backing has a hard time surviving.          

So how in the world can we get the truth?  The dictionary definition of truth says that the truth is the real facts about something or, and this is an important distinction, a statement or idea that is accepted to be true.  The problem is that truth is in the eye of the beholder.  This is not an indication that we should avoid the news altogether.  Slanted or not there's bound to be a certain amount of reality within, probably lots.  At the very least it keeps us apprised of disasters, conflicts, local maniacs, successes, government plans and expenditures, and more. We just need to be aware that what is written or filmed or spoken will always reflect a point of view, and, because of this, may be a partial truth that requires some scrutiny.