tralalalala...
“Ooh, look here! What a jolly strange thing! This seems to be Ukraine. Oh my, how silly of us. I think the proverbial old “oops” is in place, old chaps. Oh, there are some Ukrainians soldiers waving at us. Well, this is embarrassing! Oh my. Hullo there. Yes, yes. My bad, my bad. An honest mistake; to err is human, as they say, is it not? Could you please escort us back to our country – we seem to have got lost. There: I’ve said it. There’s no need to be proud. No shame in asking for assistance.”
This is a fictional account, a dramatized rendition of how 10 Russian paratroopers “accidentally” crossed into Ukraine. Emphasis on the accidental: that’s how a Russian military source explained the 10 paratroopers captured by the Ukrainian army after crossing the border. It’s also what Russia wants us to believe.
And I do. Presumably, they were simply looking for the nearest open McDonald’s. Unidentified sources have confirmed that, during the interview, one Russian soldier asked: “Are these coupons valid here?”
It’s not that accidental crossings never happened in history: apparently a Swiss unit inadvertently marched into neighbouring Liechtenstein back in 2007. It wasn’t the first time Switzerland mistakenly invaded the small country either. And what about the British invasion of Spain? In 2002, British Marines stormed a Spanish beach, after mistaking it for Gibraltar. Inaccurate military manoeuvres leading to accidental invasions and possibly international incidents happen.
It’s the time when and the place where this particular occasion happened, that make it different from the rest: only 50 kilometres away from intense fighting, following a number of government offensives in Donetsk. The context makes the whole incident look fishy, and far from accidental.
Which is what motivated the Canadian Nato delegation to post a helpful map which, using colours we Maltese are too familiar with, designates which areas are Russia and which are Not Russia. What is even more controversial (and therefore interesting, according to the criteria used in this day and age to assess news value) is that the map clearly designates Crimea as part of Not Russia.
Other gems from this week’s world news?
Plenty. China has executed eight people, while North Korea apparently only executed one. Not to be outdone by their big brother, they have made up for the quantity by the method chosen: reportedly executing the deputy public security minister – who had strong ties with the leader’s uncle – by flamethrower (his uncle had been brutally executed: thrown in a cage and fed to a pack of ravenous dogs). Recep Tayyip Erdogan has unexpectedly been sworn in as the new Turkish President, after serving three terms as Prime Minister. Just as surprisingly, in the game of thrones, Platini has stepped down from the contenders’ podium. This means that there is only one challenger to Supreme Leader Blatter: Jérôme Champagne, which indicates it’s likely that the former will be popping a bottle. A cure for Ebola, which had previously been preoccupying people of all ages and backgrounds, has apparently been found in the form of an ice-bucket challenge.
A caveat is in order however, as it turns out that the starving dogs story was merely that: a story fabricated by Western media. There is no guarantee that the barbequing of opponents is a true story either, as the Washington Post is quick to point out, though it certainly makes for an interesting and morbidly entertaining read. People enjoy these articles, despite feigning otherwise to keep up appearances. Take the man-eating dogs legend for instance: the original story earned 1,520 Tweets, whereas the piece refuting it, published three days later, earned only 77. Interestingly enough, the Washington Post faults North Korea, and attributes this to “the country’s isolation and the difficulties Western journalist have covering it.” Let’s always blame North Korea for everything. In fact, this very attitude is North Korea’s fault.
World news has become an added burden in an already overburdened fast life – we are bombarded by a barrage of constant information that we cannot sift through, let alone verify or properly analyze. Developments occur at dizzy speeds, and the news constantly transports us from one continent to another in a desperate effort to keep up with globalization. The media is biased, and the solution – to follow more than one account of the same story from different reporting sources – is hard, if not impossible, to put into practice. Nor is it ideal: how can one decide the true account of events from two conflicting views? Without actually being there, or being part of the story, it’s difficult, if not, once again, impossible. Merely exposing oneself to different sources is a herculean task in itself (which reminds me: if you’re thinking of watching the Rock’s latest bodybuilding show disguised as a movie, don’t. No need to read other reviews, either). Most times, we have a select few sources (though it’s always a good idea to have more than one) and it is only by chance that we stumble on other news sources.
Remember the austerity protests, especially the ones organised by the Occupy Movement? Despite the scale, they were rarely covered extensively by the big names, like the BBC, CNN, etc, as these had vested interests not to. Extensive coverage came from RT1, who had a vested interest in exposing the story. No wonder RT won awards for its coverage of the movement, and boasts of its “intrepid coverage” on its website. (http://rt.com/about-us/history/).
The Huffington Post had a good article on this phenomenon, still available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-r-barber/may-day-media-mayhem_b_1475336.html
Same goes for the Assange case: here again, RT and Al Jazeera provided better coverage, with the former dedicating a whole show to the man, a slot creatively named The Julian Assange Show.
The diversity of news and the extent of coverage have increased considerably thanks to satellite TV and the Internet. This is not necessarily a good thing. Sure, it helps to know how people are being treated in other parts of the world: thanks to global coverage we are now more aware of the world around us, and are given the possibility to help (though, in truth, most of the time we aren’t). It’s our responsibility as human beings to go beyond our close circle of influence. But it can be counter-productive. Especially when we can’t do anything about it. While international news has helped spawn and promote the creation of global NGOs, it has also helped governments in alienating their people away from problems closer to home. Problem-solving, like charity, should begin here.
Increasing awareness of global issues is a positive thing. And yet I can’t help but feel that international news has become a clever ruse: it’s a cunning way to divert the public’s attention elsewhere. “Oh we have some problems sure, but hey look there! Look, how many problems they have! Look at those big bangs and explosions.”
And while the public is busy being mesmerized by flashing lights and, let’s admit it, enjoying the spectacle in a case of nation-wide schadenfreude, governments sneakily sign an agreement or two.
And if anyone would deign to recall anything and wake up from the media-induced slumber to protest, he’d be met with dismissive disinterest: “Oh that’s past news. Look at the shiny thing on another continent.”
International news has quickly become a tool for alienation.
There’s another factor whose effects are just as deleterious, as brilliantly and hilariously illustrated by comedian John Oliver on his show, and that’s the boring tinge applied to the most important news, to developments which actually affect us. We are so bored by their presentation, which is so incredibly boring, that we naturally switch off. Let them babble: even if it means we pay later, at least we are saved from the torment. It’s achievement of goals by torture. Some things, usually of a legal nature, are so boring, couched in such boring terms, requiring tedious and monotonous study, requiring the dedication of a number of one’s hours to boring, dull explanations with boring information papers and lectures by boring people who apparently can do nothing but be boring, who dedicate their whole existence to being boring, who have perfected the art of being boring and can be nothing but boring, so utterly and effectively boring, boring, boring... wait, what was I saying?