In most modern industrialized countries there is a shortlist of newspapers that, according to general consensus, belong in a top tier of journalistic excellence. In France until recently I would have placed both Le Monde and Le Figaro in the shortlist. However, Le Figaro’s editorial policy on Russia has been gradually changing to the point that I wonder whether the paper understands the damage it is doing to its own credibility.
Owned by a French arms company with close ties to President Nicolas Sarkozy, and tremendous growing interests in Russia, Le Figaro has been increasingly soft on Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, reading like tendentious sycophancy. This became clear this week as they welcomed Putin to Paris with a flattering page one photo along with his French counterpart, François Fillon under the headline “Putin in Paris to negotiate some 20 agreements“.
In the large spread inside, the paper fawns about the wonderful versatile warshipFrance is selling to Russia to the tune of 3/4 of a billion dollars.Another article covers the tandemocracy and Putin’s grip on power thatwill last to 2024 – yes, a stable regime that we can and must learn towork with! Then, on the oped spread there is a big piece by none otherthan Gazprom Chairman Alexei Miller, headlined “Gazprom to EDF: Welcome to South Stream!”
In stark contrast, Le Monde’s coverage, as reported here, was firmly denouncing Putin’s record on the rule of law, and the other major French newspaper, Libération, headlined: “Putin in Paris, Murders in Moscow“, with a two-page spread inside focusing on Magnitsky, Markelov, Estemirova, rather than gas and gunboats.
Subscribe by Email
6 Comments
I Commend Nicolas Sarkozy for his modern attempts at bringing peace to the Middle East, for heightening international French pride and recognition, for bordering French culture and maintaining French authenticity. He has heightened French identity like no other President since Napolean and on top of that is as handsome as a Klein model. I hope he forever leads France as he has so successfully done in the past.
” Le Figaro’s editorial policy on Russia has slowing been changing that I wonder whether the paper understands the damage it is doing to its own credibility.”So according to your standarts Mr Amsterdam , it ‘s when a newspaper gives a balanced view of the events in Russia that it doesn’t tells the truth and when it pours of Russophobia and Putinophobia that it’s worth to be read ?Concerning ” Le Monde ” , its foreign correspondant in Moscow are making false assumptions on ” Vedemosti ” or ” The Moscow Times ” articles , without giving the link and when they have nothing to say they give an, op ed to Mr Glucksman who as everyone knows is very balanced in its analysis !I have know find a method to choose a good newspaper on Russian issues : Reading ” Blog Robert Amsterdam ” !If ” Le Figaro ” has lost a reader , it has won an other !
Daniel, you must understand where Robert is coming from. You see, from the Anglo-American perspective, what Le Figaro has done is little less than treason. You see, the owners of the Anglo-American corporate media looked forward to buying Russia’s energy assets from various Oligarchs cheaply, and are deeply upset that Putin destroyed the independent political power of the Oligarchs before they could do so. Worse, he then taxed away the huge financial windfall from rising energy prices into the Russian government’s coffers instead of letting Western investors get at it. Worse from their perspective, the Russian government used those reserves to ride out the worst global financial crisis in 80 years. Occasionally you see free-market ideologues writing about their frustration that Russia’s recession due to the global financial collapse did not last long enough and was not severe enough to discredit Putin in the eyes of the Russian people and force the Russian government to quietly submit to their socio-economic experiments, like what occurred after 1991.So you see, the owners of Anglo-American corporate media really hate Putin, because he has deprived them of the opportunity to make collossal sums while rendering the Russian people destitute once again.
All of the points above regarding Le Figaro giving Russia “balanced coverage” would make some sense if 1) the government hadn’t just murdered Magnitsky, or 2) if the owners of Le Figaro weren’t just trying to sell billions of dollars worth of weapons to Russia.
Rkka, I think you’ve stopped even trying to make sense. Notice how you are guilty of exactly the sin you purport to denounce: accusing people of ideological interpretations without evidence, and leaving aside facts such as the connection between the owners of Le Figaro and Russia (plus the Magnitsky case).Just ask yourself: if a newspaper/blog/etc published something against Russia while ignoring important positive factors, what would you think of it? (Your answer is of course already in your post.)So, if you don’t address the claims James makes above — how the hell do you want to have any more credibility, and for the very same reasons that you claim, than those you criticize?
“Just ask yourself: if a newspaper/blog/etc published something against Russia while ignoring important positive factors, what would you think of it? (Your answer is of course already in your post.)”Don’t worry, I do have my critique of the Russian government, having mostly to do with the excessive, unchecked power of the Presidency in the Constitution Boris wrote then rammed through in a highly abusive referendum. And Boris used those powers recklessly and destructively, though because he was a drunken incompetent comprador buffoon who submitted to Western demand on demand, not much was said about it at the time in the Anglo-American media. Putin and Medvedev have used those vast powers soberly and constructively. They have been “Good Tsars”. Hence they are vituperated in Anglo-American media.But not all Tsars are “Good Tsars”. Their powers are still excessive and unchecked. Vast potential for abuse remains. Russia needs a new Constitution.By the way, this is an example of constructive criticism. There is no instinctive, categorical rejection of the Russian government and everything it stands for here. There is recognition that it does a lot right, and that Russia has been pretty well governed the last decade or so, and that the biggest step forward in that good governancehas been the breaking of the independent political power of the Oligarchs. There is a suggestion that a particular problem needs addressing, conveyed with an intention to be helpful.”So, if you don’t address the claims James makes above — how the hell do you want to have any more credibility, and for the very same reasons that you claim, than those you criticize?”I post on blogs. If I provide a contrast to unremitting hostility to and unremitting destructive criticism of the Russian government, than I am more useful than any number of Gobles, Satters, and Piontkowskis.