With this video I aim to encourage everyone to think for themselves. No matter what governments and the media tell us, we should always look at important issues (COVID-19, climate issue, war on terror and other wars, 9/11, obesity epidemic etc) with a critical mindset to avoid being manipulated into things we as societies could come to regret. COVID-19 and the climate issue are at the centre of this video. The basic message is: inform yourself as broadly as possible, learn to recognise spin and propaganda, but above all, #thinkforyourself.
Below a selection of non-mainstream sources of news and in-depth information I find useful:
You don’t know Anjali Sharma? She’s the young woman the Australian media would love to style as Australia’s own version of Greta Thunberg – Saint Greta – remember her?
So, Anjali recently wrote a short opinion piece in The Guardian Australia. In it, the young climate starlet complains bitterly that leaders aren’t listening to the young generation and don’t care that they’re burning up their future.
You see, after her ultimately failed law suit against the federal environment minister she thinks legislation will fix her generation’s future, so she and her movement convinced a senator to support and introduce into parliament the duty of care bill, which late last year was recommended not to be passed.
My first reaction to Anjali’s article was a sarcastic ‘boohoo’.
But then I cast my mind back some thirty odd years, and I remembered a highly idealistic, leftist, much younger me, green behind my ears, convinced that the world was going down the gurgler because those in power were acting so irresponsibly. I, on the other hand, knew exactly what had to change for the world to be saved.
I do have sympathy for young people. Teenagers and young people experience angst and insecurity – it’s part and parcel of growing up. No matter how intelligent they are, it takes time to overcome those unknown unknowns. No doubt: sometimes young people do have a point and can be positive agents for change. And absolutely there are still environmental crimes being committed. However, the prevailing catastrophism for which Anjali stands is ultimately based on ludicrous junk science in my view. She and her friends are fighting against windmills… But seriously, there are many social and environmental issues they could focus on instead.
There is nothing new about young people feeling their future is being destroyed. I remember similar sentiments were prominent during the Cold War and the heyday of Greenpeace.
But what has changed is the ferocity, prevalence and intensity of the fear mongering in a hyper-connected culture plagued by incessant information overload, while at the same time debate, discourse and critical thinking are not promoted or even actively suppressed in mainstream society. There’s barely time to think and reflect. And there is no escaping for most people from this doom and gloom propaganda.
Little wonder our societies, and young people in particular, are in the grip of nihilism and a victim mentality mindset. The media happily perpetuates this status quo and shamelessly exploit people like Anjali.
This unhappy constellation inevitably has an effect on the state of mind of an increasing number of young people. We already have psychologists specialising in ‘climate anxiety’ and ‘eco anxiety’. No kidding! They are benefitting and feeding the monster even further. Next will probably be TRAD, Trump-related anxiety disorder, or something similarly absurd. Not to speak of other hangers-on to this apocalipsology: lawyers, NGOs, and even industry and politics who all love to virtue signal and get their share of the panic pie. It appears our society exists and is driven by a constant state of fear, crisis and emergency.
What can be done?
Well, what I’ve learnt throughout covid and the whole climate debate is that you cannot change people’s minds.
All we can do is role model what we’d like to see: critical thinking and analysis, engage in nuanced discussion, call out the nonsense, and express and promote commonsense views at every opportunity.
You-know-who is in power now, and surprisingly, the world is still spinning…
I listened and watched Trump’s inaugural speech and his signing of the first batch of executive orders. Admittedly, it was difficult to withstand this tsunami of arrogance and hubris.
Then I visited the White House website. The splash screen that welcomes the visitor underscores the bellicose language Trump uses to bully the rest of the world into becoming US territory or otherwise submit to the “greatest, most powerful, most respected nation on earth” – even though he apparently wants to go down in history as a “peacemaker and unifier”.
As hard as it is to listen to him and to watch him, and in spite of the incessant sabre rattling, I’ve decided to take a deep breath and over the next four years simply listen carefully to what Trump actually says and what he then does.
Right now, Trump looks like he’s invincible, and that’s no doubt how he must be feeling. He came in with clear objectives and he’s wasting no time implementing his plans – at least that’s how it looks. The executives orders range from the reasonable to the regressive to the ridiculous.
At the moment, he’s cutting through butter everywhere he goes. Some who would have gladly celebrated his defeat have quickly morphed into disciples – at least that’s how it looks. Power attracts power. Even the up until recently Trump-scathing mainstream media seem to go relatively easy on him following his inauguration. That’s interesting.
The reality is: Trump is seen by many as the saviour. At least for now. But shit will happen. His shock and awe strategy will loose steam eventually. Not even he can control everything that happens around him, not even he can revoke the mad wave of woke with a stroke of his pen. There will be resistance and he will be forced to return to Earth. That’s when it gets even more interesting.
Nobody can predict him, nor whatever else might happen over the next four years. There is no point making predictions in either direction. He’s not going to single-handedly save the world, nor is he going to destroy it. He will do some good and some bad things. He too is only human, neither god nor devil. He’s a flawed human like all of us, perhaps more extraordinarily so than most, but nevertheless human. He has fears, insecurities and complexes.
Only one thing is certain: This fascinating freak show will be over in four years … followed by the next freak show.
hMPV is the ultimate nothing burger: people getting the sniffles and a cough from an alleged virus that’s been around for at least 70 years and is totally harmless.
But as if on command, the WHO in concert with news channels resurrect the spectre of covid, right on cue, around the 4th anniversary. Even if they do say this one is nothing like covid – just mentioning some parallels, an increased occurrence of that virus in China, and more people ‘getting it’ outside of China would probably trigger enough people. Remember? Well, just in case you’ve forgotten, it could happen again, you know, and it will, as we’ve all been told time and time and time and time again. This one might be relatively benign, but the next one, remember: the next one, that one’s really going to be deadly and get your attention…
Monkeypox and now hMPV are boosters stories they can inject into the population to ensure the fear levels remain acceptably high, and people remain receptive and alert. It seems like they can hardly wait for ‘the big one’.
Perhaps it’s as simple as ‘fear sells’, or perhaps it’s just a sick obsession with disease, but it’s of course also a great chance for the next crop of journos, experts and health propagandists to hone their skills, do the bidding for the billion-dollar pharma giants by hammering home the virtues of vaccines and dangling the possibility of a vaccine for this harmless virus – complete with ever more scary-looking alleged virus images for extra effect, thanks to the wonders of AI.
I didn’t fall for the covid nonsense four years ago, I’m not falling for this one, and I won’t be falling for the next one. I sincerely hope by the time they (whoever they are) try to launch ‘the big one’ enough people will have seen through the charades and also refuse to play along.
The world seems to have gone nuts over the last few years. I’ve heard a lot of people say something along those lines.
Has the world really gone mad? Is it madder than say five years ago? Or does it just seem like that, because we’ve been through the traumatising covid experience (no matter how you look at it), and our world is so hyperconnected, and our brains are constantly bombarded with information leaving us simply overwhelmed?
Did people living through the latter part of the 1930s think the world was going crazy? I grew up during the Cold War – I think people were saying it then too.
Of course, it’s all relative. It depends on many factors, including where you live, and what is happening, but I do think that the fact that we can experience live what’s happening on the other side of the world can make us feel like everything is happening in our own lives. We can’t switch off, because every catastrophe is immediately in our face, nonstop.
Covid with all the associated fallout is just the major example. Now we’re in the grip of the craze of AI – hardly a day goes by without some big story about how AI is going to change how we live and work, or how it’s going to doom us to oblivion.
It’s extremes, black and white thinking, and fear mongering everywhere you look: the ridiculous gender debates, the unhinged climate hysteria, the very real power grabs and the undermining of fundamental human rights by national governments and quasi world governmental organisations like the UN and the WHO; some societies seem to be literally self-destructing under incompetent governments, for example Germany; the ongoing censorship efforts by governments and private organisations to silence anyone who doesn’t agree with the loopy woke culture agenda that, ironically, represents the height of intolerance and virtue signalling; the noticeable erosion of political, cultural, judicial, educational and science institutions that are bowing to wokeism; the peddling of unrealistic and self-destructive energy, social, economic and other policies; the comatose state of journalism.
Then there’s the madness of the current political flashpoints – the US government’s proxy war in Ukraine with its long-anticipated war in Iran only a question of time, the unspeakable irony of what the Israeli government is doing in Gaza, the sense that somehow, sooner or later, there will be a major conflict involving China, probably over Taiwan.
The pot appears to be full of lunacy and this concoction is simmering dangerously. Will the next four years of Trump bring it to boil over? That seems to be the biggest fear of most people.
I’m no fan (why does one have to state this not to be misunderstood?), but I think, provided Trump stays alive for another four years, he could certainly shake things up. What the powers that be hate most about him, I suspect, is that he’s unpredictable and not just a puppet on a string, but he’s rational, and he picks his battles carefully. The only thing that’s certain is that he will upset the established political elite, and seeing that play out will be interesting.
Personally, I’m hopeful that peak insanity is already behind us. Even in 2024 I think I’ve seen the first signs that the pushback has seriously begun. More and more people are seeing through the absurdities and ‘voting’ with their feet and through their actions. And those propagating nonsense are starting to get worried.
In a recent article I came across, titled ‘Climate change isn’t woke’, the author comes to the conclusion that “climate action is under threat” but, with his head firmly planted in the ground, he has nothing more to offer than more of the same old propaganda – the kind that’s increasingly wearing thin.
There is hope, because you really cannot fool all the people all the time.
I finally did it! I visited South America, a destination on my bucket list since I’ve been a teenager learning Spanish in school.
There was only so much I could do on a limited budget in a month, so I will have to go back another time to visit some of the famed ruins of the ancient cultures, and to savour more of that continent’s nature.
But this first trip was already a fascinating, exhilarating, and eye-opening experience.
In Chile I tasted Santiago, Valparaiso, and the breathtaking Cajón de Maipo in the nearby Andes. Next I roamed the streets of Buenos Aires in Argentina. And in Brazil I visited Florianópolis, Curitiba, São Paulo, and the simply spectacular Rio de Janeiro.
For almost a month I lived out of my 45 litre backpack and I immersed myself in societies and cultures that were completely alien to me. Well, I was the alien, of course. Sometimes I felt unsure, slightly uncomfortable, self-conscious, cautious. Wherever I went, even amongst tourists, I was usually the only one who was not from South America. And yet, it felt strangely liberating to be so out of my comfort zone.
I was free to be curious, to learn, to observe, to compare, to make mistakes, to feel ignorant. I took one day at a time, constantly exploring, soaking up the vibe on the streets, breathing in the culture as much as I could, chasing art and history, working out the weird money, getting my head around different toilet habits, marvelling at the many beautiful sights, the unfamiliar fauna and flora, impressive buildings and architecture, tasting different foods, vibrant streets, running the constant traffic gauntlet, being shocked about the sheer number of people who are obviously doing it tough or barely surviving on the streets. I constantly asked myself: what would it be like to live and work and to raise a family here?
I appreciated just being there, in each moment, and I enjoyed putting to good use my Spanish and Portuguese language skills with hotel and wait staff, tour guides, museum and shop attendants, and having some good conversations with taxi and Uber drivers.
So much richer for all my experiences I say ‘gracias’, ‘obrigado’, South America, until next time.
Despite serious question marks around RNA technology, another research and pilot facility is being built in New South Wales.
Instead of politicians finally acknowledging there are serious safety concerns around mRNA ‘vaccines’ and slamming on the brakes in the interest of public safety, it’s heads down and full steam ahead with a $96m research and pilot facility already under construction on the campus of Macquarie University in Sydney, expected to be completed in 2026.
The facility is proudly sponsored by the NSW government. Aurora Biosynthetics, a subsidiary of US-based Myeloid Therapeutics, will operate the facility, developing and testing a wide range of RNA products, overseen by RNA Australia Limited, a joint venture consisting of the NSW Government and four universities (including Macquarie University, the Australian National University, and possibly the University of New South Wales and the Sydney University), with the NSW government already having contributed $10m on the entity, and a further $119m being spent on the technology over 10 years.
I only managed to watch about two thirds of the recent US presidential debate.
What a ridiculous, cringe-worthy clown show. The reason why I’m writing this is because I can now see why German political commentator Thomas Röper suspected that the debate was announced to be held much earlier than ever before because Biden would not be fronting Trump at the elections.
He said on 20 May1 the Democrats needed a pretext to swap out puppet Biden for another one, and an early debate, before the party’s big bash on 19-22 August, would give them enough time to do just that.
During the debate, my impression was that Biden wasn’t actually quite the demented bumbling fool I’d expected him to be. Of course, both candidates were incapable of doing anything better than slinging mud and repeating the same tired old phrases ad nauseam.
Despite Biden not completely imploding on stage, at least some of the US mainstream media channels played ball and described Biden’s performance as ‘disastrous’, ‘alarming’, ‘unsteady’, ‘inadequate’, and an ‘unmitigated disaster’, with suggestions Biden should make way for another candidate.
So, Röper was absolutely on the money. Holding this event so early would allow it to be the catalyst to remove Biden, even though they refused for so long to acknowledge that he has been losing his marbles for a long time. Suddenly, with Trump as the obvious opponent and polling better than expected despite a criminal conviction, the Democrats desperately needed an excuse to make a late change.
The interesting questions are now: how will the Democrats go about getting rid of Biden, and who will the strategically selected, no doubt attractive and charismatic, Democratic candidate be that can deny Trump a second term in office?
I decided to make use of my rights as a Swiss abroad and take part in the next popular vote on 9 June.
Yesterday I received some snail-mail: an envelope with materials about the upcoming popular vote taking place across Switzerland on 9 June 2024.
As a Swiss citizen registered for voting I can partake in these quarterly pilgrimages to the voting box via postal vote, and if I’m interested in the topic(s), and I think the voting materials have a chance of getting back to the municipality where I’m registered in time, I will do so.
The front page of the red government-issued booklet lists the four questions put before the people of Switzerland. On the back page you see how the government wants you to vote. The cynic in me thinks there’s already an unfair advantage for the government, because if you’re super lazy you don’t even look inside to make up your mind.
Inside the booklet you’ll find the detailed arguments by the organisation committees of the initiatives or referenda, followed by the arguments by the executive and the parliament (who have already formed an opinion on each of the proposals), as well as the actual text of the proposed changes to the Swiss constitution. Yes, the constitution! The people can only propose changes to the constitution, which would direct the government to create laws in line with those proposed changes. That’s one of the reasons why our constitution needs a bit of a cleanup from time to time.
You can read the 88-page booklet in colour and in English here. You can learn more about how popular initiatives work here, and you can find out more about referenda here.
So what is this round of voting all about?
Two popular initiatives seek to address the insane health insurance cost increases. Switzerland has a high quality health system, but it’s rapidly becoming unaffordable for the average citizen. There is no Medicare and you have no choice but to take out health insurance. For years, politicians have recognised there’s a problem and promised action, but nobody seems to have a clue what to do about it.
By way of illustration, the graph below shows the cost of compulsory health insurance over the last ten years (dark blue line), compared with how the general economy is doing (blue line), and nominal pay increases (light blue line).
The thing is, neither of the popular initiatives really addresses the underlying causes of the problem, and the government has already promised a counter-proposal, which will be adopted if these two popular initiatives fail: it would make health insurers more accountable for the premium increases they demand. I know, that doesn’t sound like much either, and time will tell, but in my view it’s slightly better than the proposed bandaid solutions.
So that’s a NO to both initiatives from me. Perhaps Switzerland should look towards Singapore, which is taking a different approach.
Then there is the initiative for freedom and physical integrity, which was sparked by the covid era. The government of course wants the people to vote down this initiative, arguing that the Swiss constitution already guarantees ‘my body – my choice’ rights. That may be so (for example Article 10 [1]), but we saw during covid how effective this ‘protection’ was. Like in most other countries, those who refused to be injected were shunned and excluded from society for a considerable period, with sometimes devastating consequences.
The initiative wants to ensure that those who refuse to subject themselves to such medical interventions do not suffer any kind of disadvantage or punishment. Now that’s a clear YES from me.
Finally, a committee of concerned citizen has gathered enough votes for a referendum against a law that was passed by parliament last year, which seeks to build renewable energy projects that would allow Switzerland to produce all the electricity the country needs all year round (currently the country imports electricity during the winter months).
Again, I won’t go into details here, but I think so-called renewable energy technologies are a nonsense. They are anything but environmentally friendly, make energy much more expensive as we now see in different parts of the world, and because in Switzerland renewables means mainly hydro and wind, they would have a considerable impact on nature.
In my mind, the best solution would be nuclear power. Therefore, I vote NO, in favour of this referendum. Huh? Yes, I vote NO! It’s just that the question is phrased around the original law: ‘Do you want to accept the […] law which was passed on 29 September 2023?’ NO!
Today, after writing YES or NO in the relevant boxes of the ballot papers, signing my voting certificate and placing both in the same ingeniously designed envelope in which they had arrived (see video below and enjoy the cartoonish voiceover), I queued up at the post office for 45 minutes and then forked out a small fortune in return for a vague promise that express post would guarantee that the item would arrive in time in the mailbox of my municipality.
Finally, why the quote marks around ‘direct democracy’ in the title of this post? Well, I’m not going to discuss here the meaningfulness of voting as a democratic process. But I’m not going to complain either. At least us Swiss have some opportunity to directly influence politics through this mechanism, even though there are flaws and hurdles and in reality, few initiatives and referenda succeed.
Stay tuned for part 2, which will be about the outcome. My prediction is that the people will vote with the government.
Still, I live in hope, and I’ve done my bit.
[1] Art. 10 states: “Every human has the right to personal freedom, in particular to bodily and mental intactness, and to freedom of movement.” [My translation]
There’s now an instant and very cost-effective cure to all your climate woes!
In less than an hour, the documentary “Climate: The Movie” explains why there is no climate crisis. At the very least it should make you think twice whether all the climate panic around you is really justified.
According to producer Tom Nelson and director Martin Durkin, a week after launch in mid-March 2024, there were already numerous copies floating around the internet with over 1.5 million views combined. It’s great to see that more and more people are growing sceptical.
Of course, this one movie can’t address all the climate nonsense that surrounds us. For more climate relief, I highlight recommend the Climate Discussion Nexus.
It was without a doubt the interview of the year.[1] On 6 February 2024, US journalist Tucker Carlson talked with Russian president Vladimir Putin. Even more fascinating than the 2-hour conversation itself was how the media reported on this event.
Swiss peace researcher Daniele Ganser analysed how German-speaking newspapers from a range of political affiliations reported on the interview in quite a predictable way.
The more NATO-aligned the newspaper, the more negative or dismissive was the framing of the interview, whereas those newspapers which are more NATO-critical tended to simply state what was said, convey that the interview was interesting, or encourage their readers to watch the interview for themselves.
Dr. Daniele Ganser: Carlson und Putin im Mediennavigator, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_o0DnTbumA
Inspired by Ganser’s analysis, I examined how the interview was portrayed in Australia. The Australian media landscape is much smaller, and there is a lot less diversity. What I have found is that to the extent there was any coverage of the Carlson-Putin interview at all, the vast majority of it framed the interview in a negative way – not only in relation to the content of what Putin said; much of it was openly hostile towards the interviewer as well. There was no positive framing of this event in the sense that the content was interesting or that Australians should watch the full interview to form their own opinion.
Before I examine in more detail how the Australian media portrayed this interview, here are a few key points Putin made during his interview:
The NATO attack on Serbia in 1999 was illegal.
The US instigated a coup in Ukraine in 2014 which ignited the current conflict.
Ukraine is a satellite state of the US and the US are essentially fighting a proxy war in Ukraine.
UK prime minister Boris Johnson sabotaged the peace negotiations in Istanbul 18 months ago.
Putin wants to achieve de-nazification in Ukraine, and the end of the cultivation of Nazism in Ukraine was part of the Istanbul agreement.
The CIA was behind the sabotage of Germany’s Nord Stream gas pipelines
Germany’s current government is incompetent and more led by Western interests than national interests.
The Cold War was ended by Russia, and Russia expected friendly relationships with the West.
Despite promises made not to expand, NATO expanded eastwards in five waves since then.
Russia has no expansionary interests.
Russia is always willing to negotiate.
There are ongoing negotiations between the special services of the US and Russia for Wall Street Journalist Evan Gershkovich to return to the US.
Australian Financial Review (AFR)
The AFR and sister publications Sydney Morning Herald and The Age didn’t even bother to write their own articles. The AFR simply reprinted, more as an afterthought, it seems, a New York Times piece from an Anton Troianovski, and a headline which at least fairly conveyed one of the main points Putin made, namely that negotiations should take place, but the quote marks around the word ‘negotiate’ constitutes negative framing in itself.
AFR, 10-11 Feb 2024, p15
The article concluded by citing some think-tank person from the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Centre, who reckons Putin is using the US to pressure Ukraine into entering a peace deal that would install a Russia-friendly government there. Hugh? Speaking of the pot calling the kettle black. I wonder who is using whom in this war, starting at least in 2014, when the US orchestrated a coup to… anyway, moving on.
The Australian
The Australian had more coverage, although most of the content consisted of syndicated pieces.
One dated 9 February came from international news company Agence France Press (AFP) which for the most part simply states some of the things Putin said, but sandwiches them between the catchy but weird headline
The Australian online, 9 Feb 2024
The headline is full of negative framing, and the article ends with the commonly told story that allegedly Putin and Trump love each other, whereas Biden hates Putin, and because Biden called Putin a ‘war criminal’, you should also think that, unless you love war criminals. Something along those lines anway.
Another article from the same source loosely strung together a few Putin quotes and otherwise didn’t miss the opportunity to frame Carlson as a Trump-supporter and to criticise him for not asking tougher questions:
The Australian online, 9 February 2024
Yet another AFP article framed the interviewer as a “controversial right-wing US talk show host” and otherwise was substantially the same as the previously referenced piece:
The Australian online, 9 February 2024
A more positive and accurate framing might have been: “Putin tells West: Peace is possible through negotiation.”
The UK Times article the Australian re-published was purely about giving the UK prime minister a voice to dismiss anything Putin said in the interview. The authors then engaged in some good old-fashioned “fact checking” to steer the reader’s mind in the right direction.
The Australian online, 10 February 2024
There was also a Wall Street Journal article that dealt exclusively with the prisoner exchange part of the interview. Evan Gershkovich is a WSJ reporter held in Russia accused of espionage. The WSJ called again for the release of Gershkovich, stating emphatically that “journalism is not a crime”. Indeed. I’m sure Julian Assange, realistically facing a life sentence in the home of the free would strongly agree with that.
The Australian online, 10 February 2024
The only original contribution was by Paul Monk, who made it all about interviewer Carlson and how he, Monk, would have done a much better job. Negative framing all the way.
The Australian online, 12 February 2024
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)
Rachael Hayter’s shortish ABC Listen piece, Putin blames US for war in Carlson interview, simply reported some of the main arguments Putin made during the interview, without resorting to loaded language.
In contrast, the article by European correspondents Kathryn Diss and Lucy Sweeney, Why Russian President Vladimir Putin and Tucker Carlson need each other right now, was full of negative framing. Carlson was described as a “right-wing host” (twice), as a sympathiser of Putin, and they tried to paint the Russian president as a cornered leader, something that even back in February was nothing more than wishful thinking.
They dismissed Putin’s long historical excursions as “long-winded anecdotes and lectures” and as a “sermon”. They fairly reported some of Putin’s statements but used the usual fact-checking techniques to dismiss others.
For example, they said that Putin’s argument that he’s also fighting Nazism in Ukraine was debunked by “hundreds of historians who study genocide” – the authority for which is a short article signed by many historians who seem to be primarily offended at the suggestion that there is anything like a holocaust going on in Ukraine – something I don’t think Putin is claiming in any event. The referenced article even acknowledges the neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine:
Jewish Journal, 27 February 2022, https://jewishjournal.com/news/worldwide/345515/statement-on-the-war-in-ukraine-by-scholars-of-genocide-nazism-and-world-war-ii/
The other example is Putin’s assertion that the US was behind the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines, for which they link to another ABC article that is inconclusive and does nothing more than cite various US officials who, predictably, deny the allegations.
A substantial portion of the article is dedicated to painting Carlson in a bad light. They also take issue with Carlson’s claim that Western media hadn’t bothered to give Putin a voice. I’m pretty sure that was indeed a whopper.
But, firstly, I can understand why Putin can’t be bothered to talk with Western media – he knows they will simply twist his words and spin his statements to suit their needs before publication. With Carlson he might have had some assurances about the format of an uncut interview, and that he would be allowed to talk. Also, Putin knew full well that Carlson has a huge audience, and there would be no better channel to be heard uncensored by more people in the west than ever before.
Secondly, dear ABC and all other Western journalists, if you really want to, you can hear and report on what Putin is actually saying at any time. You could translate his speeches, interviews with Russian media etc, and just listen to what he’s actually saying. One lone German journalist does this, Thomas Röper who has lived in St Petersburg for many years. Just make sure you too wear your critical thinking hat. Propaganda abounds, but that’s no different in the West.
You don’t have to like what Putin says or does, but as a leader of a big nation he must be taken seriously, and some honest reporting would be more useful than faithfully repeating the usual US narrative.
The Media Watch program dedicated a 5-minute segment to the interview. It was mainly concerned with denouncing Carlson as a “Russia apologist” and a “useful idiot”.
Host Paul Barry went on to call the event a “snooze fest”. Classical negative framing. Yes, Putin took a few detours on his history tour, but you would only find that boring if you had absolutely no interest in actually understanding how this war came about – from Putin’s point of view for a change – or if you already knew all of that.
Sure, you could argue Carlson should have asked Putin about the justification for the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives. Would he have received a better answer than US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright gave when she justified the killing of similar numbers during the Iraq war?
I can imagine Putin would have simply laughed if he’d been asked whether he eliminated Prigozhin, who was never a serious competitor, something Putin would have been aware of.
And if Barry had asked Putin whether he was guilty of war crimes, he would have simply denied it and laughed it off in the same way every single recent US president would answer such a question – all of whom have been waging wars of aggression for decades, claiming they were under attack or saving another country or gifting democracy.
Partlett tried to argue that Putin has an expansive agenda which means the war won’t end anytime soon. He based this on an alleged statement in the interview that Putin said Russia had a claim to parts of western Ukraine. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nowhere in the interview does Putin say that, not even implicitly.
Strangely, it is ‘Russia-friend’ Carlson who falsely says in his (in my view unnecessary) introductory remarks to the interview that “Russia has a historic claim to parts of western Ukraine.” Why and how Carlson himself made that statement on the basis of this interview is a bit of a mystery, actually. The only point at which Putin even mentions the western Ukraine is in one of his historical excursions, when very early on in the interview he merely refers to the pre-World War II Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Germany and the USSR, according to which (probably pursuant to Article II of the Secret Additional Protocol) part of what is now the western Ukraine was to be given to the USSR “in the event of territorial and political rearrangement of areas belonging to the Polish state”.
So how did Partlett, who apparently studied Soviet and Russian history, spin a territorial claim out of this interview?
And Partlett completely dismisses Putin’s NATO argument, as if that didn’t or perhaps shouldn’t matter. In his view, the NATO argument is one that “plays well with Republicans” and those into conspiracy theories “who think that America has played too much of a role in trying to be the policeman of the world.” You get the framing, right? The Americans are the good guys, and don’t you forget it.
Another ABC Listen episode with Sam Hawley, ominously titled What Putin wins from Tucker Carlson’s ‘interview’ promises to “unpack” the event by subtly suggesting in the opening lines that the interview was a failure because Putin won. But that’s only the beginning of this negative framing frenzy.
The invited guest, academic Gordon Flake from the USAsia Centre at the University of Western Australia, gets stuck into negative framing right away by delegitimising Carlson, saying he is engaged in “infotainment” and pro-Donald Trump with a huge MAGA Republican following, adding the suggestion that Carlson allowed himself to be used by Putin. That might all be correct, but why this obsession with Carlson?
Hawley took it to another level when she said:
It was far less of an interview than a platform for the Russian president to say whatever he wanted to say; and it was rather bizarre in parts, wasn’t it?
Seriously? I always naively thought the purpose of an interview was to find out what the interviewee thinks. Then again, reflecting on the days when I still watched the ABC 7:30 program, it already seemed to increasingly be more about what the interviewer wanted to get across.
Also, journalists all over the world were all so very good at letting the politicians talk and not ask any pointy questions during the entire covid era.
Oh, I’m getting confused! Are you? But it gets even more confusing when Flake agrees:
In some respects, I think it probably will have backfired in the long run, just because letting someone like Vladimir Putin just ramble on for two hours straight isn’t always [chuckle] a good idea. Letting Putin be kind of be Putin undermines the broader political narrative of the Russians that it’s not their fault, right, because he makes it pretty clear what his intent is in Ukraine and that’s not a message they [the Russians] probably want out.
But that would make Carlson more like a genius, no? He managed to trick Putin into revealing his true intentions.
Putin never made a secret of what his intentions were and why he was doing what he was doing in Ukraine. In his mind, he’s playing defence.
A third into this episode Hawley steers the conversation towards what she called was Putin’s “diatribe”. Next negative framing incident: Allegedly, Putin said nothing new.
Indeed, there was much that Putin had already said in the past, only this time he had the largest audience ever. But there were also other interesting statements that the media could have literally feasted on.
At various points Putin referred to conversations he had had with US leaders, broken promises and such, although he didn’t reveal the full details. Will Carlson or any other Western journalist ask these US leaders to confirm or deny what Putin said in the interview? Hardly. The media didn’t even pick up on these points.
Flake rounds off his assessment of the interview by lamenting that it was a “clear statement of Russia’s view of the world which is inconsistent with history in fact.”
Remember, the stated intention of the interviewer was to allow Western audiences to hear Russia’s view. But naturally, only the Western view of history is correct (sarcasm intended).
Hawley proceeded to frame the interview in an even more negative light, suggesting that by listening to this interview one would show openness to the Russian perspective when she says:
So this interview shows just how open some Americans are to Russia’s perspective on the world and that they actually want to listen to its leader. They care what he says and thinks.
She may not have done this consciously, but there was a message that this interview and listening to a Russian leader in general is forbidden fruit for decent Western ears.
Flake takes it a step further by stating that the interview is another manifestation of the Russians’ desire to sabotage American society.
Personally, I don’t think that’s necessary. The Americans do a pretty good job themselves of sabotaging and dividing their own society.
All in all, analysing the Australian media coverage of Carlson vs Putin was an interesting exercise. This example demonstrated that our news channels don’t just tell us what happened. More often than not, they use framing language to tell us what to think about what happened, in strict accordance with whatever the dominant narrative is.
[1] The transcript can be found here on the Kremlin website. Your browser (or the owner of your browser) may not like it, so I’ve downloaded a PDF version which you can download below.
