I share your sense of how the media covering the war use the word 'strategic' with tactical abandon, as it were. I spent two decades in news, covering Chechnya 1 and 2, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. I was probably guilty of the same sloppiness (though I hope not to the same degree). Why do you think it happens so readily?
In my experience, it is a combination of inexpert journalists trying to sound cleverer than they are, and the need baked into the medium itself to create meaning where (from time to time) there is very little. For example, it suits all parties (including the audience, perhaps) to say 'The battle continues for the town of X because of its strategic importance' and not 'The battle continues for the town of X for no clear reason, but in part because a gerontocrat without proper frontline intelligence, or the means to receive it, and a disregard for life, and very pliant home front, sitting in full control of the media, wills it so (plus inertia)."
On top of everything, the latter approach is hard to fit into the micro-format that news reporting often takes, and runs the risk of not being read to the end: which means editors and reporters fear for the do-or-die 'engagement' statistics they have to present at the next commissioning meeting.
I am exaggerating, but I think this is the core of it. Much more cock-up than conspiracy.
I dont think its a conspiracy amongst the press--as you say. Its seems a combination of laziness, sloppiness, and listening to an analytical community without interrogating its biases
The media was never great at that, especially in broadcast news where I worked. But even in print media, the colossal cuts and industry upheaval (and concomitant focus on short-form, short-term infotainment) have meant insight, experience and contrarian wisdom are far less valued than they used to be. Older journalists who offered some of the above (in broadcast news) were rarely encouraged to go on TV. We used to talk of the Tufty Club - Too Ugly For Television. Nuanced thinkers have now been pensioned off - it was cheaper than keeping them around, and their faces no longer fit the HR profile many broadcasters urgently want to present in a (misbegotten, I think) drive to capture younger audiences.
And Christopher, that makes it even easier for the influence of money to take hold. Journalists and outlets facing these cuts, like another other institution facing financial stress and want of survival, will do things they didn’t not event think they would to survive. You have described and lived the necessary conditions for this to take hold. I am taking to the next step and logical conclusion.
It's a possible (further) conclusion, but not necessarily logical: I think a lack of time to question assumptions and purpose, a badly-designed format, plus a dollop of vainglory on occasion, are the main factors. I never came across good faith journalists seeking extra curricula cash from bad guys.
We had some colleagues who were certainly spooks. But ordinary hacks who wanted cash went to RT or elsewhere quite openly. I don't think the mainstream media, for all its faults, is fundamentally corrupted by external malign actors. (Even though some people found that the best explanation for Brexit, for example, because they preferred this conclusion to any other, including the more obvious but less sexy ones.)
Forgive my cynicism as an Economist, but when I see things that don’t fully add up in my mind, I start looking for additional plausible drivers. I do agree that not having time to think through bad assumptions, purpose, awful format are a major problem. Also, I am not really pointing fingers at journalists per se, but rather the editorial staff at the highest levels as well as executive management at various outlets and their incentives which I am thinking do not align well with good journalism.
Who owns the media explains a lot of what happens, and who pays for it explains some more.
It is not owned and operated in any significant degree by unions, poor people, teachers, Muslims, healthcare workers, scientists, people of color, disabled people (and so on). The people who own it tend to disproportionately be very wealthy, disproportionately white, disproportionately conservative (and so on).
And it is paid for largely by advertisers, which in turn are disproportionately large corporations. Readers and viewers represent a minority of the revenue. Our media tend to focus on issues that don't upset the advertisers.
Foreign actors have influence on the media primarily through the Republican Party. Recent revelations that Trump may have received $10M from Egypt (maybe with the encouragement of China?) just before he scraped out a narrow victory in 2016 make it clear that money is corrupting politics.
Russia and the Gulf States, especially, but actors like Sun Myung Moon of Korea and now whoever/whatever is running the Epoch Times also have influence.
But the point is that if Republicans weren't taking money and spouting foreign talking points, the media wouldn't be reporting them.
Readers should understand that during the period Christopher was active as a BBC journalist, every senior BBC journalist and manager was vetted by MI5. If you think the spooks gave up this privilege without having an alternative structure in place then I’ve got a bridge to sell you (it comes with a free copy of ‘Manufacturing Consent’ so it’s a great offer).
These vettings were, of course, routinely denied, but were exposed by the Observer newspaper. The chances of such revelations occuring now are incredibly small now that the Observer and it’s sister-rag The Guardian have been neutralised by the British Security State and now barely mention UK intel in anything other than glowing terms.
This is the world in which Christopher’s ‘good-faith’ journos work. They know what side their bread is buttered on. There are very few of them, but every now and then a journalist with real good-faith finds it all too much for them to swallow – here’s one example from a case I’ve been following closely for a decade now in an area that Christopher used to cover. I wonder what he would have done with this story:
I have no doubt you are also writing in good faith. Nevertheless, I spent a decade in the BBC, (after a long spell at Associated Press) participated in several boards for jobs, concerning Moscow and Baghdad, and other postings, and in no instance was an MI5 vetting any part of the proceedings. I did not even hear of any such vetting. What you write is, to my mind, and measured against my experience, purely defamatory.
The 'spooks' I mentioned were suspected KGB-vetted appointments and sleepers in the Russian Service and in the admin of the Moscow bureau.
You are free to think and write as you please, of course. Not something available to most of the men and women in the countries I attempted to report on in good faith.
I imagine you might retort 'He would say that, wouldn't he?' But I don't want to put words into your mouth.
(edit to say, I lump most of the "analysts" Mr OBrien refers to in with the journalist I am bashing below.)
An angle on the state of journalism that I think about a lot is access seeking. I feel like there has been a big movement from journalists who cultivate good sources to neo-journalists that seek access without bothering with the journalism ethics or cultivation. So you get a lot of printing of what leads to more access to anyone they see as powerful or maybe just exciting? So from pandering interviews of Trump/Musk types to military "analysis" pieces that toe the line of the powers that give access to rides on fighter jets or ego fluffing meetings with NDA agreements and trips to centers of power.
I think this view might work with the budget and staff cutbacks. You don't go into journalism for a good paying career these days. So perhaps it becomes appealing to those that need excitement and status more than money, coming from privileged background that assures them material comfort. Much like the unpaid internships in government being a gateway for the privileged to seek political careers that become unattainable to the less privileged but often more talented and grounded.
A lot of words to say it may be less conspiracy and corruption as much as venal human nature to sooth and inflate one's ego. Which a sort of comorbidity with the death of principled journalism (which is a historically short and weird phenomenon anyway).
I have been too long out of the profession to be able to comment on motivation in an up-to-date way. However, I believe many go into the job, still, with very high principles indeed. Not necessarily everyone, but it was never the case that all who decided on the profession were saints, or aspired to be so.
The work can knock the stuffing out of you, and idealists quickly get tamed. My concern would be that in a state of constant cutbacks, pressure from social media pile-ons, and sometimes pusillanimous management, even the strongest will find themselves being unable to maintain the standards they personally would aspire to in an ideal world. That eventually happened to many/most of us in the 90s and 2000s when I was a journalist, but I think the reality of burn-out (moral, mental) may come much more quickly nowadays.
Says the Professor who routinely cites the ISW. You do know who they are don't you. Of course you do - I've told you repeatedly and asked you to comment on their track record, but you never have. Disgusting neoconservatives - every last murderous, chicken-hawk one of them. You too it seems. Very sad.
Very interesting set of comments, many thanks. As a non-journalist but avid reader and viewer of their reporting, I also question the inbuilt biases to which our host, POB, refers and which take a very long time to change. For instance, during the Obama Presidency, the Administration’s « pivot to Asia » was based on the correct insight that China would become the principal strategic adversary of the US and thar Russia should henceforth be treated as a « medium sized power ». I would suggest that world public opinion has still not caught on. Russia is still far too often considered a major power that can’t possibly lose a war against a smaller adversary. And yet, its economy is no bigger than that of Italy or Spain, based largely on mineral wealth that can only be exploited with US and European know-how and with agriculture and manufacturing that are about 50 years behind current state of the art. Despite all this, because, perhaps, of its huge land mass, large (but declining and unhealthy) population, nuclear weapons and impact on European history of the past 500 years, people in general still see it as the superpower it is clearly no longer. The Emperor has no clothes, as the brave and resourceful Ukrainians are in the process of demonstrating. Putin is at the head of a lumbering and clumsy giant that can only be held together by propaganda and repression. How long will it take the rest of the world to wake up to this reality and for intelligent journalists to start showing it for what it is and for the biases to shift ?
I must admit in this respect great admiration for Steve Rosenberg of the BBC who regularly shows, with intelligence but also empathy, the reality of Russia today.
Thank you Philip. I have known Steve for about 30 years, and can confirm he is one of the most decent, thoughtful and morally scrupulous men I have had the fortune to meet and work with. He is doing us all a service - and doing Russians themselves a service, ultimately, of course - by his bravery and careful reporting. He feels deeply about the country he has reported on for so long.
What I would pay for a newspaper which was willing to write this!
'The battle continues for the town of X for no clear reason, but in part because a gerontocrat without proper frontline intelligence, or the means to receive it, and a disregard for life, and very pliant home front, sitting in full control of the media, wills it so (plus inertia).'
Christopher, what you say makes sense, but I cannot help but think behind all of this is a more well designed Russian influence campaign where money and more money from the oligarchs is the most effective tool.
Ryan McBeth has pointed out just how rare it is for working journos at major outlets to have any experience in uniform, let alone at war. Because they don't understand anything more about strategy than what some self-interested Pentagon hack tells them off the record, reporters and editors fall back on the habits of sports or election reporting to frame the news as a horse-race. Gotta cover both sides and seem objective, after all.
While you're probably right, I really don't think this is a reasonable excuse for the reporters. It's laziness. I have no personal experience running a railroad, but I did my homework and I know quite a lot about railroad economics, management, and engineering. I have no personal experience in a war, but I did my homework, I read up on military history, read my Sun Tzu, learned about military logistics, technology, etc.
Matt, reporters now aren't even reading their own newspapers. They aren't bothering to fact check basic stuff, such that some of them are *still* saying that Robert Mueller found no evidence of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.
For many years, I wrote to reporters calling their attention to facts which contradicted their stories. They would not respond. That told me everything I need to know about the state of the media. People who publish falsehoods and then, when the falsehood is called to their attention, refuse to correct those falsehoods are liars.
And fact-checking? Don't get me started. (But do read Dan Froomkin on the subject: substack.com/@criticalread/p-147978455). Only Daniel Dale has shown he has what it takes to be fair and balanced.
I do think that the defense of Ukraine is an issue that favors the democrats. I haven't seen a recent poll but if I remember correctly support for aid to Ukraine was still over 60% in the US last spring. About 40% among Republicans. Putin isn't that popular here except among a few alienated (and weird) young males.
I hope it's an issue in coming debates along with trumps adding 8 trillion dollars to debt (25% of all of what we owe in the space of four years).
Looking forward to reading your new book when I return from vacation in September!
Good point Thomas--support for Ukraine remains pretty high in the US--it just shows how much Trump is wedded to Putin that he is staking out such a pro Russian line.
Like any policy position, support for Ukraine must be talked up with the people who make the decisions. This is why I volunteer with my county Democratic committee. This affords me many opportunities to physically meet my congressman and thank him for his support of Ukraine and urge him to do more. The Democrats back Ukraine and the trump party does not. If you want Ukraine to survive and win, the most important thing you can do is vote to give the Democrats strong control of the White House and congress.
It is what I'm basing my vote on. Although I disagree with virtually every policy proposal put forth by Harris/Walz, their full-throated support for Ukraine and Israel has won my vote, despite my swearing never to vote for a Democrat again following my disappointment with Bill Clinton's first term. I'll vote GOP for Congress, hoping they will stymie the Democrats' worst impulses. I'm done with Trump in view of his actions following the 2020 election. I think there are many other Americans like me, hopefully enough to see Trump defeated and gone.
Sure, but readers of this blog are self-selected to care deeply about Ukraine. Even so, you mentioned “full-throated support for Ukraine AND Israel”, so not just Ukraine; you might feel differently if their support for Israel were more qualified. You also said you’re “done with Trump”, so not voting for him even if the Dems were not supporting Ukraine more than Trump does. If you live in a swing state you might be tempted to vote against Trump just for the sake of democracy.
"I'll vote GOP for Congress, hoping they will stymie the Democrats' worst impulses."
Even though many of the Republicans either participated in the 2021 coup effort or protected Trump from consequences for having promoted it?
Even though many of those Republicans protected Trump from consequences after he tried to muscle Zelensky into providing him with phony evidence of Democratic corruption *by threatening to withhold military aid from Ukraine*?
Just do the right thing, and vote for imperfect people who nevertheless usually try to do the right thing.
What is it about the Dem's support of the ongoing Gaza Genocide that you find worthy of your vote? Is it all the maimings? The polio? The hospital destructions? or just the slaughter?
I have to admit that reading the "mainstream media", for example CNN, articles on russian advances towards Pokrovsk has made me feel anxious, and immediately starting to armchair-doubt the whole Kursk adventure. Their dramaturgy is working as intended. Appreciate the sobering, balanced perspective I find here.
There are no acceptable excuses for the poor Ukraine coverage of big US newspapers like the NY Times. One has to wonder whether the cause is sloppiness or, more disturbing, an editorial decision that a Russian win is the only possible outcome. And what is there to say about the Republican Party, led by Trump, a pro-Putin stooge? We all remember Helsinki.
NYTimes reflects the consensus opinion that the war can - and must - only end in stalemate and this does not represent a win for Putin. They claim an armastice is not a partition of UKR or appeasement of an aggressor.
NY Times and most pundits are dug-in on this view and see the conflict through confirmation bias. Professional analysts feel they can't admit they were wrong all along, especially academics.
When was the last time the NYT rooted for the US or its allies to win a war? For crying out loud, they were covering up Holodomor for Stalin and are STILL proud of the Pulitzer they won for that cover-up (even there's documentary evidence that their correspondent writing all that crap about happy life on Soviet collective farm was well aware of millions starving to death in real time). So they have a proud 90+ years tradition of anti-Ukrainian coverage.
The NYT was accused of war boosterism in both Bosnia/Kosovo and Iraq II. So I think there is something different going on with Ukraine.
Christopher Booth's explanation above rings true as part of the story.
I probably am being a bit too gentle with the Times, their news coverage of UKR may be in a class of its own,
I'm making the point that the NYTimes is swimming in the same sea of elite opinion as the rest of media. Their bias is not unusual. The public is more pro-victory for Ukraine than either the politicians (who tend to express mild opinions if any) or certainly the foreign policy pundits. Nearly every expert who marinated in the Cold War or studied Russia/Russian seems dug-in on an eternal dominant presence of Mother Russia. I exaggerate only slightly. Not saying they are keen on rebuilding the Russian Empire, but their muscle memory is all slanted towards accommodating the giant land mass/cultural icon.
Sorry for the spam level posting but i've had a LOT of coffee and am on a roll....
I also do not buy the escalation argument as the real cause of hesitation, in the sense that NATO could be drawn into a shooting war. Its a related fear: fear of chaos and the unknown. The experts & old timers do not want to see the disintegration of the familiar devil. Yes, nukes matter very much in that scenario.
I believe Biden & Putin are united in a desire to preserve Putin's control. THAT is the primary problem. Will Harris be willing to risk instability in Russia?
On politico.com 8/23, a piece called "Ukraine uses Kursk success to press Biden on lifting weapons restrictions" ends this way: "Officials in certain quarters of the administration have told the Ukrainians that the U.S. will eventually want to reset relations with Moscow and lifting the restrictions could upend those efforts." I caught the article before it was revised - from (if memory serves) "in certain corners of the White House" to "in certain corners of the administration." Either way, this sure solidified my belief that Biden does NOT want Ukraine to win and achieve the territorial integrity it had prior to the 2014 invasion. I hope 1) that Harris wins, and 2) that this"neurotic" (as the good professor opines) policy finally has a stake driven through its heart.
Yes Richard, I think you have that exactly right: fear of the chaos in Russia if Putin falls is probably the real driver of Biden's refusal to allow Ukraine the possibility of winning this war. The devil you know rather than the devil you don't. Kissinger real politic redux.
The NYT have also been completely onboard with the various Syrian chemical weapons hoaxes, now debunked by Ian Henderson & Brendan Whelan, the OPCw whistleblowers.
“Hint—none of these areas are strategic as they dont affect the force generation on either side. Its all about political control of territory.”
You’re going to have to explain that one professor. Are transport hubs, junctions and communication centres not strategically important any more? Did I miss that memo?
This point was made in comments in your fascinating interview with Sean Pinner in which he said on the shell/munition shortage he said that although the AFU “have the money now” that money wouldn’t make immediate difference because “it doesn’t work like that”. He pointed out the logistic problems the AFU face in getting those munitions to the front. The Donbas towns the RF are capturing are communications centres with real implications for the fronts – those in the Kursk region are not.
Oh and I’d add to Pinner’s reasons why arming the AFU troops at the front “doesn’t work like that” – it’s the fact that the munitions that the AFU require, that the money is there to buy, don’t physically exist. The West’s hollowed-out, JIT, financialised, profit-driven, rent-extracting military industrial base “doesn’t work like that”.
What matters is what helps generate new force, and none of those cities do. Sudzha, by your definition is as important as Pokrovosk (a very important railway line runs through it, as do roads) but its never discussed as strategic.
If this is confirmed -- capturing the railway station at Sudzha *with access to the entirety of Russian Railways' computers* (apparently they were still logged in), and using that to pull data from the entire Russian Railways system nationwide (which apparently happened), leaving Ukraine now having information about all Russian troop and materiel movement by rail, and a lot more information useful for knowing how to most effectively disable Russian Railways, appears to me to be a genuine strategic-level intelligence success.
I think I only read one article about it! Certainly very little reporting on it.
I follow a few very passionate supporters of Ukraine on Twitter & substack, mostly military analysts, who have been disturbingly open to a Trump return. They have claimed (and I believe them) that their contacts in UKR are similarly ambivalent. There is some truth to the view that Biden has lead a slow bleeding out of Ukraine whereas Trump would either betray or arm-up UKR quickly.
In the past month, all of these oddly Trump curious analysts seem to have backed off the fence (or is the metaphor ledge?). I think the elevation of Vance was shocking. Also, Trump's foolish pow-wow with Orban at the height of a general election was stunningly brazen - at least to me. I haven't read much reaction to Harris yet, but the removal of Biden must play a role in the change of tone.
Perhaps there are a few Republicans still choosing between their own lying eyes and Mike Pompeio's fantasy. You've got to figure it's a dwindling number of Republican persuadables, but I appreciate your laying out the evidence.
Phillips, contrary to what you suggest, I found the dubbed version of Zelensky's address deeply moving. Everyone of us on this Substack should make it our business to circulate it as widely as possible.
So the Kharhiv offensive is largely unchanged in terms of progress. Since presumably both sides have moved some forces away from that front to Kursk, they must have moved roughly the same amount of force around.
And since Kharhiv is unchanged, while Kursk is obviously a Ukrainian gain, that is what supports your view that the Kursk initiative is a strategic success?
Well there is more to it than that (Im working on that piece). Its a question of how it was orignally portrayed--versus what has happened. Kharkiv was a major strategic failure for Russia for a number of reasons. It increased Russian losses by a great deal--and also forced the USA to allow Ukrainian strikes on Russian soil with US systems for the first time
But I love Cessnas with bombs! How much does the new missile cost in comparison with a fleet of Cessnas with bombs? Of course, the Cessnas can't work in an environment with intense observation such as the Donbass.
Great update, Phillips. I too have noticed with great disappointment t the media narrative that always favors and lauds Russia and Putin no matter the circumstances. It makes me wonder how much Russian oligarch money has infiltrated the media in the US, more so at the NYT than the WaPo. Now that investor indemnities have been released for X (Twitter) there are 2 major Russian oligarchs who have invested heavily in it. In the end, one needs to peel back the “money onion” to discover direct or indirect Russian money in the media.
Interested in your take, but I still cannot help but think that once the Kursk salient is established, this becomes a launching point for taking Bilhorod (Belgorod) and swinging behind the entire invading force in Donbas and cutting off all GLOC. And it provides optionality in that if Russia sends forces from Donbas to protect its now exposed right flank and GLOC, does this open up other opportunities.
Pure guess, the drone is guided remotely like an FPV, the cruise missile is pre-programmed and guided electronically after that. Otherwise, no difference.
Oh, yeah, I did not think about that. My first thought was that it's basically a modern version of V1. But V1 was virtually useless (or at least VERY not cost-effective) as it could neither be remotely controlled nor self-guided accurately.
One of the strange things about the way Pokrovsk is being portrayed is an underlying assumption that there is no obstacle there. That russian forces will simply continue advancing at this same pace of 1km per week. But this is a large town. Twice the size of Avdiivka. Why is everyone just assuming it will be nothing for russia to take it? Like they just need to touch the outskirts and that's it, the town is theirs?
If anything, based on the battles for Bakhmut and Avdiivka, it seems at least possible it will take tens of thousands of russian casualties, hundreds of armoured vehicles and months of grinding for russia to capture this town. That possibility should surely form part of the reporting around russian advances.
But instead it is just presented as if when russian reaches Pokrovsk, they have automatically 'won' some sort of major victory.
I look forward to your write-up on the press coverage. I have not lived in the US for 20 years and have come to generally rely more on UK news outlets (FT and Economist) for news over the years and to also value their brevity; NYT/WSJ/WashPo articles are just way too long to read. Perhaps that explains it, but over time I have just accepted that the US press is much less objective and I don't rely on them anymore as a source of truth but do a lot of sampling of different news sources to understand what is going on.
Christopher's comments very much ring true with my impression, there is a focus on the "dramatic" in reporting, which in this war is on the potential catastrophic outcomes for Ukraine as opposed to the more nuanced strategic points you focus on. Personally I was wondering if this is a sign of the need to compete for clicks on the Internet - the US media business is a really tough business so maybe even the "sources of truth" need to resort to "clickbait" and points of view that align with popular narratives of the war (using real facts). James Bennett addressed this a bit in his Lexington column in the Economist at the end of last year with one of his point being how NYT emphasises appealing to its audience by supporting their view as opposed to getting to the objective truth so as to question their audience's view.
Christopher also makes good points about the need for short pieces with quick turnaround - although it must be acknowledged that Sky News is not afraid of the Tuftys Sean Bell and Prof Michael Clarke, who do provide good commentary (even if too infrequently). But should there not be a difference between TV and print where there is more time to research and longer form?
What is the impact of not having access to Russian sources for facts to quote? Western journalists in Russia put their lives on the line to get any news out so reporting is very limited and with Ukranian opsec, there really is just limited access to Russian facts. Even the excellent Ukraine the Latest podcast talks about facts of Ukranian gains and losses but can only refer to claims of Russian gains (as they apparently don't have any losses).
So looking forward to your write up.
Just an aside, for me it is really puzzling that given all of the focus on China in the US and the need to prepare for war with China, that there is such apparent ambivalence and even support for Russia amongst the traditional US hawks. A war with China would be in the Pacific theatre, and the shortest distance for China to get to the US is through Russia to Alaska and about 55 miles by sea - or 2.5 miles between islands. Not the easiest terrain but US territory all the same. Not to forget that the Russians historically had settlements in California and Hawaii so have made the trip before and have the natural resources to fuel a Chinese military.
You're right that the articles are way too long. I studied journalism briefly and remember some of the cardinal rules , one if which is to get to the point quickly. I read these articles and almost scream "get to the point already!", the articles are subjective (which us contrary to all journalistic rules) and replete with an array of unimportant quotes.
I understand that the press has been overestimating Russia and underestimating Ukraine. I suppose what makes many of us so pessimistic is the question of resources in general. While Ukraine has to depend on foreign aid to fight, particularly on US aid, to keep fighting, Russia is able to manufacture (despite Western sanctions) it's own gear and ammunition. There is also the problem of manpower, where Russia also has an advantage. Ukrainians might be smarter and fight better, but in the long term, if for political reasons the resources from it's partners stop coming, Russia would be in a better position to keep fighting.
I share your sense of how the media covering the war use the word 'strategic' with tactical abandon, as it were. I spent two decades in news, covering Chechnya 1 and 2, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. I was probably guilty of the same sloppiness (though I hope not to the same degree). Why do you think it happens so readily?
In my experience, it is a combination of inexpert journalists trying to sound cleverer than they are, and the need baked into the medium itself to create meaning where (from time to time) there is very little. For example, it suits all parties (including the audience, perhaps) to say 'The battle continues for the town of X because of its strategic importance' and not 'The battle continues for the town of X for no clear reason, but in part because a gerontocrat without proper frontline intelligence, or the means to receive it, and a disregard for life, and very pliant home front, sitting in full control of the media, wills it so (plus inertia)."
On top of everything, the latter approach is hard to fit into the micro-format that news reporting often takes, and runs the risk of not being read to the end: which means editors and reporters fear for the do-or-die 'engagement' statistics they have to present at the next commissioning meeting.
I am exaggerating, but I think this is the core of it. Much more cock-up than conspiracy.
I dont think its a conspiracy amongst the press--as you say. Its seems a combination of laziness, sloppiness, and listening to an analytical community without interrogating its biases
The media was never great at that, especially in broadcast news where I worked. But even in print media, the colossal cuts and industry upheaval (and concomitant focus on short-form, short-term infotainment) have meant insight, experience and contrarian wisdom are far less valued than they used to be. Older journalists who offered some of the above (in broadcast news) were rarely encouraged to go on TV. We used to talk of the Tufty Club - Too Ugly For Television. Nuanced thinkers have now been pensioned off - it was cheaper than keeping them around, and their faces no longer fit the HR profile many broadcasters urgently want to present in a (misbegotten, I think) drive to capture younger audiences.
And Christopher, that makes it even easier for the influence of money to take hold. Journalists and outlets facing these cuts, like another other institution facing financial stress and want of survival, will do things they didn’t not event think they would to survive. You have described and lived the necessary conditions for this to take hold. I am taking to the next step and logical conclusion.
It's a possible (further) conclusion, but not necessarily logical: I think a lack of time to question assumptions and purpose, a badly-designed format, plus a dollop of vainglory on occasion, are the main factors. I never came across good faith journalists seeking extra curricula cash from bad guys.
We had some colleagues who were certainly spooks. But ordinary hacks who wanted cash went to RT or elsewhere quite openly. I don't think the mainstream media, for all its faults, is fundamentally corrupted by external malign actors. (Even though some people found that the best explanation for Brexit, for example, because they preferred this conclusion to any other, including the more obvious but less sexy ones.)
Forgive my cynicism as an Economist, but when I see things that don’t fully add up in my mind, I start looking for additional plausible drivers. I do agree that not having time to think through bad assumptions, purpose, awful format are a major problem. Also, I am not really pointing fingers at journalists per se, but rather the editorial staff at the highest levels as well as executive management at various outlets and their incentives which I am thinking do not align well with good journalism.
See my reply above. That journalism is now an Elite profession just makes control easier to maintain than once it was.
Who owns the media explains a lot of what happens, and who pays for it explains some more.
It is not owned and operated in any significant degree by unions, poor people, teachers, Muslims, healthcare workers, scientists, people of color, disabled people (and so on). The people who own it tend to disproportionately be very wealthy, disproportionately white, disproportionately conservative (and so on).
And it is paid for largely by advertisers, which in turn are disproportionately large corporations. Readers and viewers represent a minority of the revenue. Our media tend to focus on issues that don't upset the advertisers.
Foreign actors have influence on the media primarily through the Republican Party. Recent revelations that Trump may have received $10M from Egypt (maybe with the encouragement of China?) just before he scraped out a narrow victory in 2016 make it clear that money is corrupting politics.
Russia and the Gulf States, especially, but actors like Sun Myung Moon of Korea and now whoever/whatever is running the Epoch Times also have influence.
But the point is that if Republicans weren't taking money and spouting foreign talking points, the media wouldn't be reporting them.
Readers should understand that during the period Christopher was active as a BBC journalist, every senior BBC journalist and manager was vetted by MI5. If you think the spooks gave up this privilege without having an alternative structure in place then I’ve got a bridge to sell you (it comes with a free copy of ‘Manufacturing Consent’ so it’s a great offer).
These vettings were, of course, routinely denied, but were exposed by the Observer newspaper. The chances of such revelations occuring now are incredibly small now that the Observer and it’s sister-rag The Guardian have been neutralised by the British Security State and now barely mention UK intel in anything other than glowing terms.
https://www.declassifieduk.org/how-the-uk-security-services-neutralised-the-countrys-leading-liberal-newspaper/
This is the world in which Christopher’s ‘good-faith’ journos work. They know what side their bread is buttered on. There are very few of them, but every now and then a journalist with real good-faith finds it all too much for them to swallow – here’s one example from a case I’ve been following closely for a decade now in an area that Christopher used to cover. I wonder what he would have done with this story:
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/12/08/journalist-newsweek-suppressed-opcw-scandal-and-threatened-me-with-legal-action/
Dear Adrian,
I have no doubt you are also writing in good faith. Nevertheless, I spent a decade in the BBC, (after a long spell at Associated Press) participated in several boards for jobs, concerning Moscow and Baghdad, and other postings, and in no instance was an MI5 vetting any part of the proceedings. I did not even hear of any such vetting. What you write is, to my mind, and measured against my experience, purely defamatory.
The 'spooks' I mentioned were suspected KGB-vetted appointments and sleepers in the Russian Service and in the admin of the Moscow bureau.
You are free to think and write as you please, of course. Not something available to most of the men and women in the countries I attempted to report on in good faith.
I imagine you might retort 'He would say that, wouldn't he?' But I don't want to put words into your mouth.
(edit to say, I lump most of the "analysts" Mr OBrien refers to in with the journalist I am bashing below.)
An angle on the state of journalism that I think about a lot is access seeking. I feel like there has been a big movement from journalists who cultivate good sources to neo-journalists that seek access without bothering with the journalism ethics or cultivation. So you get a lot of printing of what leads to more access to anyone they see as powerful or maybe just exciting? So from pandering interviews of Trump/Musk types to military "analysis" pieces that toe the line of the powers that give access to rides on fighter jets or ego fluffing meetings with NDA agreements and trips to centers of power.
I think this view might work with the budget and staff cutbacks. You don't go into journalism for a good paying career these days. So perhaps it becomes appealing to those that need excitement and status more than money, coming from privileged background that assures them material comfort. Much like the unpaid internships in government being a gateway for the privileged to seek political careers that become unattainable to the less privileged but often more talented and grounded.
A lot of words to say it may be less conspiracy and corruption as much as venal human nature to sooth and inflate one's ego. Which a sort of comorbidity with the death of principled journalism (which is a historically short and weird phenomenon anyway).
I have been too long out of the profession to be able to comment on motivation in an up-to-date way. However, I believe many go into the job, still, with very high principles indeed. Not necessarily everyone, but it was never the case that all who decided on the profession were saints, or aspired to be so.
The work can knock the stuffing out of you, and idealists quickly get tamed. My concern would be that in a state of constant cutbacks, pressure from social media pile-ons, and sometimes pusillanimous management, even the strongest will find themselves being unable to maintain the standards they personally would aspire to in an ideal world. That eventually happened to many/most of us in the 90s and 2000s when I was a journalist, but I think the reality of burn-out (moral, mental) may come much more quickly nowadays.
All the best journalists I know work for themselves, running their own blogs.
I think there's a reason for this. "Management" is great at preventing journalism.
Says the Professor who routinely cites the ISW. You do know who they are don't you. Of course you do - I've told you repeatedly and asked you to comment on their track record, but you never have. Disgusting neoconservatives - every last murderous, chicken-hawk one of them. You too it seems. Very sad.
Very interesting set of comments, many thanks. As a non-journalist but avid reader and viewer of their reporting, I also question the inbuilt biases to which our host, POB, refers and which take a very long time to change. For instance, during the Obama Presidency, the Administration’s « pivot to Asia » was based on the correct insight that China would become the principal strategic adversary of the US and thar Russia should henceforth be treated as a « medium sized power ». I would suggest that world public opinion has still not caught on. Russia is still far too often considered a major power that can’t possibly lose a war against a smaller adversary. And yet, its economy is no bigger than that of Italy or Spain, based largely on mineral wealth that can only be exploited with US and European know-how and with agriculture and manufacturing that are about 50 years behind current state of the art. Despite all this, because, perhaps, of its huge land mass, large (but declining and unhealthy) population, nuclear weapons and impact on European history of the past 500 years, people in general still see it as the superpower it is clearly no longer. The Emperor has no clothes, as the brave and resourceful Ukrainians are in the process of demonstrating. Putin is at the head of a lumbering and clumsy giant that can only be held together by propaganda and repression. How long will it take the rest of the world to wake up to this reality and for intelligent journalists to start showing it for what it is and for the biases to shift ?
I must admit in this respect great admiration for Steve Rosenberg of the BBC who regularly shows, with intelligence but also empathy, the reality of Russia today.
Thank you Philip. I have known Steve for about 30 years, and can confirm he is one of the most decent, thoughtful and morally scrupulous men I have had the fortune to meet and work with. He is doing us all a service - and doing Russians themselves a service, ultimately, of course - by his bravery and careful reporting. He feels deeply about the country he has reported on for so long.
What I would pay for a newspaper which was willing to write this!
'The battle continues for the town of X for no clear reason, but in part because a gerontocrat without proper frontline intelligence, or the means to receive it, and a disregard for life, and very pliant home front, sitting in full control of the media, wills it so (plus inertia).'
Great comment, Mr. Booth.
Christopher, what you say makes sense, but I cannot help but think behind all of this is a more well designed Russian influence campaign where money and more money from the oligarchs is the most effective tool.
"The Medium is the message" - Marshall McLuhan. Indeed, if content cannot fit the constraints, change the content.
Ryan McBeth has pointed out just how rare it is for working journos at major outlets to have any experience in uniform, let alone at war. Because they don't understand anything more about strategy than what some self-interested Pentagon hack tells them off the record, reporters and editors fall back on the habits of sports or election reporting to frame the news as a horse-race. Gotta cover both sides and seem objective, after all.
Thats actually a good way of putting it Matt
While you're probably right, I really don't think this is a reasonable excuse for the reporters. It's laziness. I have no personal experience running a railroad, but I did my homework and I know quite a lot about railroad economics, management, and engineering. I have no personal experience in a war, but I did my homework, I read up on military history, read my Sun Tzu, learned about military logistics, technology, etc.
Ah, but do you have a 5 PM deadline? It may appear lazy from the outside, I assure you from the inside it seems very much like work.
Matt, reporters now aren't even reading their own newspapers. They aren't bothering to fact check basic stuff, such that some of them are *still* saying that Robert Mueller found no evidence of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.
For many years, I wrote to reporters calling their attention to facts which contradicted their stories. They would not respond. That told me everything I need to know about the state of the media. People who publish falsehoods and then, when the falsehood is called to their attention, refuse to correct those falsehoods are liars.
And fact-checking? Don't get me started. (But do read Dan Froomkin on the subject: substack.com/@criticalread/p-147978455). Only Daniel Dale has shown he has what it takes to be fair and balanced.
Thanks Prof. P. One of your best columns yet!
I do think that the defense of Ukraine is an issue that favors the democrats. I haven't seen a recent poll but if I remember correctly support for aid to Ukraine was still over 60% in the US last spring. About 40% among Republicans. Putin isn't that popular here except among a few alienated (and weird) young males.
I hope it's an issue in coming debates along with trumps adding 8 trillion dollars to debt (25% of all of what we owe in the space of four years).
Looking forward to reading your new book when I return from vacation in September!
Good point Thomas--support for Ukraine remains pretty high in the US--it just shows how much Trump is wedded to Putin that he is staking out such a pro Russian line.
Hope you enjoy the book!
Support for Ukraine may be broadly popular but few people will base their votes on it
Like any policy position, support for Ukraine must be talked up with the people who make the decisions. This is why I volunteer with my county Democratic committee. This affords me many opportunities to physically meet my congressman and thank him for his support of Ukraine and urge him to do more. The Democrats back Ukraine and the trump party does not. If you want Ukraine to survive and win, the most important thing you can do is vote to give the Democrats strong control of the White House and congress.
It is what I'm basing my vote on. Although I disagree with virtually every policy proposal put forth by Harris/Walz, their full-throated support for Ukraine and Israel has won my vote, despite my swearing never to vote for a Democrat again following my disappointment with Bill Clinton's first term. I'll vote GOP for Congress, hoping they will stymie the Democrats' worst impulses. I'm done with Trump in view of his actions following the 2020 election. I think there are many other Americans like me, hopefully enough to see Trump defeated and gone.
Sure, but readers of this blog are self-selected to care deeply about Ukraine. Even so, you mentioned “full-throated support for Ukraine AND Israel”, so not just Ukraine; you might feel differently if their support for Israel were more qualified. You also said you’re “done with Trump”, so not voting for him even if the Dems were not supporting Ukraine more than Trump does. If you live in a swing state you might be tempted to vote against Trump just for the sake of democracy.
"I'll vote GOP for Congress, hoping they will stymie the Democrats' worst impulses."
Even though many of the Republicans either participated in the 2021 coup effort or protected Trump from consequences for having promoted it?
Even though many of those Republicans protected Trump from consequences after he tried to muscle Zelensky into providing him with phony evidence of Democratic corruption *by threatening to withhold military aid from Ukraine*?
Just do the right thing, and vote for imperfect people who nevertheless usually try to do the right thing.
What is it about the Dem's support of the ongoing Gaza Genocide that you find worthy of your vote? Is it all the maimings? The polio? The hospital destructions? or just the slaughter?
I have to admit that reading the "mainstream media", for example CNN, articles on russian advances towards Pokrovsk has made me feel anxious, and immediately starting to armchair-doubt the whole Kursk adventure. Their dramaturgy is working as intended. Appreciate the sobering, balanced perspective I find here.
Thanks Euro--tried to provide a little counter to what seems to be to be weird analyses
There are no acceptable excuses for the poor Ukraine coverage of big US newspapers like the NY Times. One has to wonder whether the cause is sloppiness or, more disturbing, an editorial decision that a Russian win is the only possible outcome. And what is there to say about the Republican Party, led by Trump, a pro-Putin stooge? We all remember Helsinki.
NYTimes reflects the consensus opinion that the war can - and must - only end in stalemate and this does not represent a win for Putin. They claim an armastice is not a partition of UKR or appeasement of an aggressor.
NY Times and most pundits are dug-in on this view and see the conflict through confirmation bias. Professional analysts feel they can't admit they were wrong all along, especially academics.
When was the last time the NYT rooted for the US or its allies to win a war? For crying out loud, they were covering up Holodomor for Stalin and are STILL proud of the Pulitzer they won for that cover-up (even there's documentary evidence that their correspondent writing all that crap about happy life on Soviet collective farm was well aware of millions starving to death in real time). So they have a proud 90+ years tradition of anti-Ukrainian coverage.
The NYT was accused of war boosterism in both Bosnia/Kosovo and Iraq II. So I think there is something different going on with Ukraine.
Christopher Booth's explanation above rings true as part of the story.
I probably am being a bit too gentle with the Times, their news coverage of UKR may be in a class of its own,
I'm making the point that the NYTimes is swimming in the same sea of elite opinion as the rest of media. Their bias is not unusual. The public is more pro-victory for Ukraine than either the politicians (who tend to express mild opinions if any) or certainly the foreign policy pundits. Nearly every expert who marinated in the Cold War or studied Russia/Russian seems dug-in on an eternal dominant presence of Mother Russia. I exaggerate only slightly. Not saying they are keen on rebuilding the Russian Empire, but their muscle memory is all slanted towards accommodating the giant land mass/cultural icon.
Sorry for the spam level posting but i've had a LOT of coffee and am on a roll....
I also do not buy the escalation argument as the real cause of hesitation, in the sense that NATO could be drawn into a shooting war. Its a related fear: fear of chaos and the unknown. The experts & old timers do not want to see the disintegration of the familiar devil. Yes, nukes matter very much in that scenario.
I believe Biden & Putin are united in a desire to preserve Putin's control. THAT is the primary problem. Will Harris be willing to risk instability in Russia?
On politico.com 8/23, a piece called "Ukraine uses Kursk success to press Biden on lifting weapons restrictions" ends this way: "Officials in certain quarters of the administration have told the Ukrainians that the U.S. will eventually want to reset relations with Moscow and lifting the restrictions could upend those efforts." I caught the article before it was revised - from (if memory serves) "in certain corners of the White House" to "in certain corners of the administration." Either way, this sure solidified my belief that Biden does NOT want Ukraine to win and achieve the territorial integrity it had prior to the 2014 invasion. I hope 1) that Harris wins, and 2) that this"neurotic" (as the good professor opines) policy finally has a stake driven through its heart.
Edit to: its black heart.
Yes Richard, I think you have that exactly right: fear of the chaos in Russia if Putin falls is probably the real driver of Biden's refusal to allow Ukraine the possibility of winning this war. The devil you know rather than the devil you don't. Kissinger real politic redux.
The NYT have also been completely onboard with the various Syrian chemical weapons hoaxes, now debunked by Ian Henderson & Brendan Whelan, the OPCw whistleblowers.
“Hint—none of these areas are strategic as they dont affect the force generation on either side. Its all about political control of territory.”
You’re going to have to explain that one professor. Are transport hubs, junctions and communication centres not strategically important any more? Did I miss that memo?
This point was made in comments in your fascinating interview with Sean Pinner in which he said on the shell/munition shortage he said that although the AFU “have the money now” that money wouldn’t make immediate difference because “it doesn’t work like that”. He pointed out the logistic problems the AFU face in getting those munitions to the front. The Donbas towns the RF are capturing are communications centres with real implications for the fronts – those in the Kursk region are not.
Oh and I’d add to Pinner’s reasons why arming the AFU troops at the front “doesn’t work like that” – it’s the fact that the munitions that the AFU require, that the money is there to buy, don’t physically exist. The West’s hollowed-out, JIT, financialised, profit-driven, rent-extracting military industrial base “doesn’t work like that”.
What matters is what helps generate new force, and none of those cities do. Sudzha, by your definition is as important as Pokrovosk (a very important railway line runs through it, as do roads) but its never discussed as strategic.
If this is confirmed -- capturing the railway station at Sudzha *with access to the entirety of Russian Railways' computers* (apparently they were still logged in), and using that to pull data from the entire Russian Railways system nationwide (which apparently happened), leaving Ukraine now having information about all Russian troop and materiel movement by rail, and a lot more information useful for knowing how to most effectively disable Russian Railways, appears to me to be a genuine strategic-level intelligence success.
I think I only read one article about it! Certainly very little reporting on it.
https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-kursk-railway-train-station-russia-1938924
Thanks for the video with translation. Very moving.
It really js
I follow a few very passionate supporters of Ukraine on Twitter & substack, mostly military analysts, who have been disturbingly open to a Trump return. They have claimed (and I believe them) that their contacts in UKR are similarly ambivalent. There is some truth to the view that Biden has lead a slow bleeding out of Ukraine whereas Trump would either betray or arm-up UKR quickly.
In the past month, all of these oddly Trump curious analysts seem to have backed off the fence (or is the metaphor ledge?). I think the elevation of Vance was shocking. Also, Trump's foolish pow-wow with Orban at the height of a general election was stunningly brazen - at least to me. I haven't read much reaction to Harris yet, but the removal of Biden must play a role in the change of tone.
Perhaps there are a few Republicans still choosing between their own lying eyes and Mike Pompeio's fantasy. You've got to figure it's a dwindling number of Republican persuadables, but I appreciate your laying out the evidence.
Phillips, contrary to what you suggest, I found the dubbed version of Zelensky's address deeply moving. Everyone of us on this Substack should make it our business to circulate it as widely as possible.
So the Kharhiv offensive is largely unchanged in terms of progress. Since presumably both sides have moved some forces away from that front to Kursk, they must have moved roughly the same amount of force around.
And since Kharhiv is unchanged, while Kursk is obviously a Ukrainian gain, that is what supports your view that the Kursk initiative is a strategic success?
Well there is more to it than that (Im working on that piece). Its a question of how it was orignally portrayed--versus what has happened. Kharkiv was a major strategic failure for Russia for a number of reasons. It increased Russian losses by a great deal--and also forced the USA to allow Ukrainian strikes on Russian soil with US systems for the first time
But I love Cessnas with bombs! How much does the new missile cost in comparison with a fleet of Cessnas with bombs? Of course, the Cessnas can't work in an environment with intense observation such as the Donbass.
Cessnas with Bombs sound like a great name for a band!
Kind of like the Stay Puff Marshmallow Man becoming the existential threat to New York City.
Great update, Phillips. I too have noticed with great disappointment t the media narrative that always favors and lauds Russia and Putin no matter the circumstances. It makes me wonder how much Russian oligarch money has infiltrated the media in the US, more so at the NYT than the WaPo. Now that investor indemnities have been released for X (Twitter) there are 2 major Russian oligarchs who have invested heavily in it. In the end, one needs to peel back the “money onion” to discover direct or indirect Russian money in the media.
Interested in your take, but I still cannot help but think that once the Kursk salient is established, this becomes a launching point for taking Bilhorod (Belgorod) and swinging behind the entire invading force in Donbas and cutting off all GLOC. And it provides optionality in that if Russia sends forces from Donbas to protect its now exposed right flank and GLOC, does this open up other opportunities.
What's the difference between a drone missile and a cruise missile?
Pure guess, the drone is guided remotely like an FPV, the cruise missile is pre-programmed and guided electronically after that. Otherwise, no difference.
Oh, yeah, I did not think about that. My first thought was that it's basically a modern version of V1. But V1 was virtually useless (or at least VERY not cost-effective) as it could neither be remotely controlled nor self-guided accurately.
One of the strange things about the way Pokrovsk is being portrayed is an underlying assumption that there is no obstacle there. That russian forces will simply continue advancing at this same pace of 1km per week. But this is a large town. Twice the size of Avdiivka. Why is everyone just assuming it will be nothing for russia to take it? Like they just need to touch the outskirts and that's it, the town is theirs?
If anything, based on the battles for Bakhmut and Avdiivka, it seems at least possible it will take tens of thousands of russian casualties, hundreds of armoured vehicles and months of grinding for russia to capture this town. That possibility should surely form part of the reporting around russian advances.
But instead it is just presented as if when russian reaches Pokrovsk, they have automatically 'won' some sort of major victory.
I look forward to your write-up on the press coverage. I have not lived in the US for 20 years and have come to generally rely more on UK news outlets (FT and Economist) for news over the years and to also value their brevity; NYT/WSJ/WashPo articles are just way too long to read. Perhaps that explains it, but over time I have just accepted that the US press is much less objective and I don't rely on them anymore as a source of truth but do a lot of sampling of different news sources to understand what is going on.
Christopher's comments very much ring true with my impression, there is a focus on the "dramatic" in reporting, which in this war is on the potential catastrophic outcomes for Ukraine as opposed to the more nuanced strategic points you focus on. Personally I was wondering if this is a sign of the need to compete for clicks on the Internet - the US media business is a really tough business so maybe even the "sources of truth" need to resort to "clickbait" and points of view that align with popular narratives of the war (using real facts). James Bennett addressed this a bit in his Lexington column in the Economist at the end of last year with one of his point being how NYT emphasises appealing to its audience by supporting their view as opposed to getting to the objective truth so as to question their audience's view.
Christopher also makes good points about the need for short pieces with quick turnaround - although it must be acknowledged that Sky News is not afraid of the Tuftys Sean Bell and Prof Michael Clarke, who do provide good commentary (even if too infrequently). But should there not be a difference between TV and print where there is more time to research and longer form?
What is the impact of not having access to Russian sources for facts to quote? Western journalists in Russia put their lives on the line to get any news out so reporting is very limited and with Ukranian opsec, there really is just limited access to Russian facts. Even the excellent Ukraine the Latest podcast talks about facts of Ukranian gains and losses but can only refer to claims of Russian gains (as they apparently don't have any losses).
So looking forward to your write up.
Just an aside, for me it is really puzzling that given all of the focus on China in the US and the need to prepare for war with China, that there is such apparent ambivalence and even support for Russia amongst the traditional US hawks. A war with China would be in the Pacific theatre, and the shortest distance for China to get to the US is through Russia to Alaska and about 55 miles by sea - or 2.5 miles between islands. Not the easiest terrain but US territory all the same. Not to forget that the Russians historically had settlements in California and Hawaii so have made the trip before and have the natural resources to fuel a Chinese military.
You're right that the articles are way too long. I studied journalism briefly and remember some of the cardinal rules , one if which is to get to the point quickly. I read these articles and almost scream "get to the point already!", the articles are subjective (which us contrary to all journalistic rules) and replete with an array of unimportant quotes.
I understand that the press has been overestimating Russia and underestimating Ukraine. I suppose what makes many of us so pessimistic is the question of resources in general. While Ukraine has to depend on foreign aid to fight, particularly on US aid, to keep fighting, Russia is able to manufacture (despite Western sanctions) it's own gear and ammunition. There is also the problem of manpower, where Russia also has an advantage. Ukrainians might be smarter and fight better, but in the long term, if for political reasons the resources from it's partners stop coming, Russia would be in a better position to keep fighting.