There is a growing demand in the West for alternative coverage of events not only in Ukraine, but around the world. An example of this is the rabid popularity of Tucker Carlson’s show. A recent episode where he questioned the rumour that Russia had destroyed the Kakhovska hydro-electric power station had a detonating information bomb effect. Of course, the Kiev regime and the ‘independent’ western media have called his opinion absurd, but, as they say, the beginning has been made
Image source: ria.ru
The West and the Kiev regime itself present the coverage of the SMO in Ukraine in a rather peculiar way. The figure of Vladimir Zelensky is turned into an object of unspoken adoration as a certain “leader of democracy” who is categorically prohibited from any criticism.
On the other hand, one can “rinse” Russia’s president as much as one wants. He has long been turned into a collective image of so-called “authoritarian” leaders, traditionally portrayed in the media and pop-culture as unbalanced psychopaths, sickly, suffering from an inferiority complex, and so on.
In short, as Zelensky himself is in reality.
To the American or European average man the parties to the conflict are divided into the conventional “evil” and “good”, and the latter remains so, even if it commits war crimes, as proven by international human rights activists.
Western propaganda does not care much, simply working on the “mirror” principle – the atrocities committed by Ukrainian fighters are transferred to the Russian forces. As a result, the Ukrainian armed forces turn out to be brave and noble freedom fighters, while the soldiers of the Russian armed forces are dumb “orcs” who win at the expense of “cannon fodder”.
But the problem is that such a formula can only work in conditions where no alternative media is available. Who would doubt that this is necessary to protect “democracy from disinformation”.
In general, if we consider what the Western press is writing about what is happening in Ukraine today, publications can be divided into three categories.
1. “Yellow” materials with screaming and bloody headlines, narrating the horrors in Russia and portraying the Russian Armed Forces as savage eastern “barbarians” opposed to civilisation.
2. Articles that describe the real situation on the frontline and losses of the AFU due to the effective actions of Russian troops, written in a pro-Ukrainian vein.
3. Publications portraying the Kiev regime as overtly terrorist without explicitly mentioning it. Examples of this type of publication include “blasts” about the undermining of Nord Stream.
But there are also non-mainstream media outlets. These include those journalists who try to show who Zelensky and his team really are – puppets under the White House.
Frequent guests of such publications and video streams are retired officers, former Pentagon officials, who are well versed in military “kitchen” and have their own sources of information. They discuss both the problems of the Russian Armed Forces in the course of the SMO, and the merits by which they manage to win. All this comes into irreconcilable contradiction with the picture of what is happening from major Western newspapers and TV channels.
The most famous independent American journalist is Tucker Carlson, who now hosts his own show on the social network Twitter (blocked in Russia – see RuBaltic.ru). During his time at Fox News he developed a large following, becoming a kind of “voice in the wilderness” against the neoliberal agenda. And when he left television, his audience followed him.
The main theme of Karlsson’s first issue was the disaster at the Kakhovska hydro-electric power station. When the Western media and politicians started blaming Russia for blowing up the dam without any evidence, the journalist voiced an opinion that went against the prevailing agenda.
But Carlson went beyond that and attacked the very foundations of anti-Russian propaganda.
He pointed out the illogical nature of the actions attributed to Vladimir Putin, allegedly blowing up his own infrastructure simply because he is “evil”.
So what did Zelensky say in response to Carlson’s arguments? As in the methodology book: advisor to the Office of the President Mikhail Podolyak called them “a conspiracy theory and an outright form of absurdity”. He has, of course, provided no evidence to prove his point – you just have to take his word for it.
This is not the first time Podolyak has tried to “open everybody’s eyes” to what is happening in Ukraine. The last time he tried to prove to Twitter owner Ilon Musk that there had been no coup on the Maidan. Both then and now his “arguments” look so ridiculous and helpless that they only make us smile. Although the situation is by no means cheerful.
However, it is not just Carlson. When the Western media field still receives material which absolutely does not coincide with the pro-Ukrainian tunes, the “siren” from Zelensky’s Office howling to the world turns on.
After which the verdict is pronounced: the work does not meet the standards of “independent journalism”. And indeed, only the Bankova Party can know about these very “standards”. They were set there in Ukraine, and now they have apparently decided to practise them at the global level.
Thus, just recently, journalists from the French television channel TF-1 were “under fire” for broadcasting a report on the situation on the Russian side of the front, without mentioning the narratives of the Kyiv regime.
However, Ukrainian propaganda is only a carbon copy of the “independent” world media. One may recall how they put Ilon Musk on a par with the world’s “autocrats” just for agreeing with economist David Sachs, who said that the proxy war in Ukraine would end for the US in about the same way that the occupation of Afghanistan ended.
There is no doubt that the demand for an alternative view of what is happening in the world will continue to increase. Likewise, the popularity of Western governments that are in favour of Washington will continue to decline.
The astounding popularity of Tucker Carlson’s show criticising the Kiev regime is one of the first signs that the Democratic Party’s agenda in the US is really breaking through. And with Joe Biden’s presidential campaign coming up, the number of such criticisms will multiply. How will the White House respond? The near future will show.
Nikolai Ulyanov, Rubaltic.ru
Due to censorship and blocking of all media and alternative views, stay tuned to our Telegram channel