“At some point you have to take a moral stance and say that undermining authoritarian governments is better than undermining democratic ones.” This is how Robert Orttung, from the Elliot School of International Affairs at George Washington, answered my question today. Robert, together with Sufian Zhemukhov, have written enough about the Sochi Olympics that you pretty much have to cite them if you do any work at all in this area (see, for example, this article in East European Politics, this one in Euxeinos from the Center for Governance and Culture at St. Gallen, and of course this book from Routledge in 2017).

Today, Robert came to the Center for Eastern European Studies at the University of Zurich and gave a talk about Russia Today, the – how can I put this? – controversial media outlet funded by the Kremlin. A lot of people wouldn’t hesitate to call RT pure propaganda but, truthfully, I’m not comfortable with that. That’s not to say that RT doesn’t broadcast with an agenda. Clearly it does. But I would argue that there’s more to the story than that. And I think it’s worth mulling over some of these issues because they bring up some uncomfortable topics, and what is academic exploration good for if not dragging the hidden or uncomfortable into the light and trying to explain it? 

My question to Robert was about where he drew the line – if indeed a line can be drawn – between an alternative source of information on one side of the spectrum, and disinformation on the other? And I was curious how he would respond to a hypothetical Russian point of view that might see Voice of America, or Radio Liberty / Radio Free Europe, as being targeted at destroying the Soviet way of life… and then comparing that to the activities of RT today? In other words, is it not a bit rich of us in the west to complain about RT broadcasting into the USA today when this is, arguably, what we have been doing into Russia for decades? 

I think Robert’s answer, quoted above, is good. In general I try to shy away from overtly normative judgements, particularly about other cultures and contexts, but at some point you do have to take some kind of moral stance. And, more broadly, you have to decide what kind of a structure you want in your society, what kind of shape your government should take. These are ancient questions, fundamental ones that, as far as I know, were first posed by Aristotle. What is government for? How should we organize ourselves? 

I liked that Robert didn’t pretend that the USA hadn’t been trying to undermine the USSR. And I appreciated the courage of his moral stance: Authoritarian governments are not great, objectively. Living conditions for people in authoritarians systems could be improved. And none of this means that the democratic experiment in the USA is flawless or that Americans are blameless on the international stage. Instead, he takes the stand that this is indeed an ideological struggle, and that RT is one of many weapons in an attempt to undermine American and western democracies.

Robert and I agree that none of these tactics would be effective if there weren’t already existing fundamental divisions in the United States. My own view is that these divisions are the result of a deliberate ploy enacted over the decades by plutocrats who are dedicated to destroying the New Deal, but that’s a rant for another time. In any event, Robert argues that Russian meddling – if you will – can serve to tip the scales one way or another in a close call. It can exacerbate existing fractures. But, I would add, Russia emphatically did not create 30 million nationalistic Trump voters. We did that on our own, I’m afraid. 

As I left Robert’s provocative and impressive talk (can you imagine trying to make sense of 70,000+ youtube videos from RT?), my only nagging thought was about the media in general. In his talk, Robert mentioned the idea of “objective information”, specifically in regards to what RT is not. But this idea brings up some uncomfortable ideas for me.

I don’t think you’ll find anyone who believes that it is possible – or even good – to eliminate bias in reporting. After all, there is always going to be some overarching narrative or framing, even if only subconsciously. What’s wrong with admitting that we have a left wing slant, or we have a right wing slant, and just moving on? Why pretend to have a monopoly on The Truth? I have to admit that any claims to objectivity make me uneasy. Because it seems to me that, especially now, there are multiple competing versions of Objective Truth arguing for dominance online and in the airwaves. I don’t hesitate to denigrate Fox News in all the ways familiar to progressives in the USA (“faux news” “fox news” “propaganda” “right wing anger project” and so on). But I’m also aware that Fox News viewers don’t hesitate to use their own pejoratives on the media I consume (where “fake news” is only the tip of the iceberg). 

The problem is with these alternative sources of information, we now have separate reference points for what we establish as facts. So my question is how to move forward as a society if we can’t even agree on what is true. So either climate change is happening and we as a species are doomed… or it’s just a liberal hoax (psst: it’s not). Either Trump is a vile, corrupt, megalomaniacal wannabe dictator… or he’s the savior of America. 

My worry is that these polar views are so distant as to be practically irreconcilable. But if we can’t even agree on what facts are – and if we can easily reference a slick, million-dollar media production to back up our preferred facts, then how on earth are we going to go on? 

Because it should be OK to settle some things, even if we can’t be objective about it. I am going to go out on a limb here and establish a moral statement that Murder Is Bad. Also: Climate change is happening. Trump is vile. Authoritarian governments are awful. And Robert Orttung did in fact gave an interesting talk today.