This article is outrageous propaganda, I knew that the US government had issues with the Russian government, but it saddens me to see that most posters here have nothing but hatred towards Russia.
Just the fact that the NYT picked life in a gypsy settlement (no water, no electricity, child weddings) to generalize about the life in Russia makes it obvious to me that the journalists had no other intentions but to villify the Russians.
What they did not tell you is that gypsy settlements look the same in France, Germany and other industrialized countries. (Yes - children not going to school, no electricity, no water, weddings of 13 year olds and so on)
Are any of the facts mentioned false? Is the author implying that all of Russia is like this?
As a journalist I find it very surprising when people react to specific articles (often "negative" to their own beliefs) by imagining a grand conspiracy.
There are numerous realities in every country and every company. A skilled journalist can tell any one of those in an interesting manner. But that doesn't imply there aren't other stories.
For instance, the USA is currently
(a) leading the "software disruption" war
(b) shut down and about to default because of partisan politics
(c) spying indiscriminately on almost everyone in the world
(d) incarcerating the largest proportion of its citizens
(e) meddling in the affairs of numerous countries
(f) reshoring manufacturing that had been outsourced
(g) saddled with a fighter jet program that is outrageously expensive and possibly average
(h) trying to reform one of the most convoluted & corrupt healthcare systems in the world
Is the author implying that all of Russia is like this?
I did find that to be the implication, yes. e.g. At the edges of Russia’s two great cities, another Russia begins. - this implies that only the two largest cities in Russia are first world, and another decaying world begins beyond the pale. Perhaps that's an accurate description, but given the treatment of stories like the NSA surveillance in the NYT (severely lacking, and often just parroting the government line without question), Iraq wars (again, severely lacking), and the lack of similar treatments of similar US problems with decaying infrastructure, I'm inclined to think that there are plenty of other stories about Russia to be told which don't paint it as a third world country in decline, and that this is a somewhat biased, limited portrait. I cancelled my subscription recently because of the limited coverage of world events - it's just too one-sided, but perhaps that's inevitable when you're reporting from within a superpower.
Which of these are reality? Which are propaganda?
Well, quite. We rely on journalists to sift through information and give us a balanced story based on their perception of the truth. That means we need journalists to step outside the view of the world that their country, culture and government gives them and try to see it afresh, without preconceptions. So we have to trust them to some extent, and when that trust is abused to present things through a distorted prism, it is disheartening.
Still, this is quality journalism (particularly the mix of map/graphics/text), and perhaps to say it is propaganda is a bit harsh, I'm not sure I'd go that far, but I do find the lack of balance and parochial worldview of the NYT and US press disturbing at times. The temptation is to see the world through a US prism without taking into account other viewpoints. Sometimes the NYT get it right though - for example this article on healthcare comparing systems around the world:
I'm a neutral party, neither American nor Russian. To me it was very clearly a very well produced and written story about life along a 12-hour train ride between two cities. I concede that my views might have been different had I been Russian.
It is the second part of your comment that I disagree with more strongly.
> We rely on journalists to sift through information and give us a balanced story based on their perception of the truth. That means we need journalists to step outside the view of the world that their country, culture and government gives them and try to see it afresh, without preconceptions.
I'm afraid this is a dated and soon to be extinct definition of journalism. Instead of an artificially inserted "balance" (which too is subjective), its better to look for truth, transparency & engaging storytelling. As a reader I'd prefer Glenn Greenwald's biased but fierce, well-researched & take-no-prisoners style stories than, say, the BBC's articles. As readers we have our own biases, and so do journalists (and their publications).
> I do find the lack of balance and parochial worldview of the NYT and US press disturbing at times. The temptation is to see the world through a US prism without taking into account other viewpoints.
This one is easy. The NYT's key market is the USA. Most of its journalists are from the US. Naturally, their writing will tend to have that bias. As readers we just need to be aware of that and calibrate their versions of the truth accordingly.
"balance" (which too is subjective), its better to look for truth, transparency & engaging storytelling.
That's what I mean by balance, we probably substantially agree there, but perhaps the misuse of the word 'balance' in US media to mean presentation of false dichotomies has distorted the term in this context. I don't think allowing opinions means you disclaim all responsibility to objectivity. Just because you can't achieve objectivity doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for it. A search for truth involves striving to rise above parochial and partial concerns, particularly in reporting on wars or nations in conflict.
Naturally, their writing will tend to have that bias.
As editors and journalists, they should strive to rise above it, that's their job, not the readers'. That's not to say they shouldn't have an opinion, but that it should be informed, clearly stated and not an attempt to distort the truth as they see it or insert their own narrative. Personally I think it's time for a new global journalism, without attempts to filter the truth and pick a side amongst often unpalatable narratives presented by national governments.
Well, life outside Russia's big cities really is completely different than the Moscow megapolis, I've seen that and the article illustrates that point quite well.
And read the article - it's not anti-Russian in any way, it simply shows how economic inequality looks like.
> We rely on journalists to sift through information and give us a balanced story based on their perception of the truth.
We rely on journalists to sift through information and give us the truth, period. I don't want a balanced story, and such 'balance' tends to be struck between reality and what appears to be lunacy.
Actually, I think anyone who reads a single article and takes it for truth is a fool. If something peaks your interest then you need to research more, there are different truths based on your perspective (exactly as you have pointed out).
Newspapers are too much of a propaganda machine, with the ease of the internet research is only a click away and you can make up your own mind.
I don't want a balanced story, and such 'balance' tends to be struck between reality and what appears to be lunacy.
Apologies, I shouldn't have used the word 'balanced' as apparently it has been debased so much by its use in a Fox News slogan that the original meaning has been lost.
I didn't mean a sort of false balance which parrots two opposing sides of a political debate, no matter how insane both sides are, I meant the sort of balanced reporting which tries to verify facts, reports not just what was said but what was done, reports and verifies the claims of all parties involved in a dispute, and most importantly tries to see past and acknowledge the very real bias and blind spots of journalists themselves.
Truth is not objective when you tell a story. Are drug users destroying themself, or are they live there live to the fullest. This is a question of values, not truth.
> given the treatment of stories like the NSA surveillance in the NYT (severely lacking, and often just parroting the government line without question), Iraq wars (again, severely lacking)
We must be reading different versions of the NYT, as they've been severely critical of the US government in both situations.
author took only dirty facts, that's the propaganda.
I'm russian and I admit it's a wild country. But Gypsy.. calm down, they never were even called russians.
This article is barely about Russia at all. It's mainly about wealth! privilege! inequality!, which is a perennial favorite topic of the NYT.
You aren't expected to read this and thing "omfg, Russia is so bad". No one in the US is thinking this - all they are thinking is "omfg, if inequality keeps growing, the US will be like this". This is of course nonsense for various reasons (we don't have gypsies and therefore the bottom 50% will not adopt gypsy cultural indicators, and our inequality seems to be merely differing rates of positive growth).
Note that many of the Americans on this thread are posting about Detroit, Appalachia and even Oakland (!?!?).
You aren't expected to read this and thing "omfg, Russia is so bad".
I think that's exactly what you're supposed to think, and you'd be quite justified in coming away with that impression when the strapline is 'A journey through a heartland on the slow road to ruin.' It's a beautifully executed and written article with a slanted premise. Reminds me of Newsweek or Time with better graphics/writers to be frank.
Imagine this as an NYT article about the US (which has examples of much of the same poverty, inequality and disillusion) - there's no way it would be published in this paper, without sympathetic asides/articles about other areas of the US which are developing well. The slant here is that the entire Russian nation is decaying and on a road to ruin.
I admire the quality of the writing in the NYT (it beats any other english language paper I'm aware of), but often the editorial slant is far too parochial for a truly global newspaper, and far too close to the official US government line on important topics (like surveillance or budgets for example) where the NYT should be standing up to government, not relaying its pronouncements without question.
Imagine this as an NYT article about the US...there's no way it would be published in this paper, without sympathetic asides/articles about other areas of the US which are developing well
A quick ddg search for "site:nytimes.com detroit" shows this to be incorrect:
Nor was this presented about the entirety of Russia. The NYT has featured the infrastructure and inequality problems in America dozens of times. If you actually read the paper it's a theme that appears almost daily (healthcare is a big part of this). Here's a very recent example that I remember reading titled "Inequality in America: The Data Is Sobering":
Nor was this presented about the entirety of Russia.
I disagree there, the strapline talks of a heartland in decline, and the article talks of the rest of Russia as separate from the two major cities. Not sure I would have called this propaganda myself but it does read to me as a portrait of the entire country and system in decline, not a single journey, partly because of the framing and strap.
If you actually read the paper
I've read it extensively for years thanks as I used to be a subscriber; the snark is not helpful.
Here's a very recent example that I remember reading titled "Inequality in America: The Data Is Sobering"
I agree the NYT features some great writing and some great journalism (including the article you cite). I'm not trying to say they never criticise the US, but that they haven't produced splashy front-page spreads about the decline of the once great nation of America which compare to this article - given the recent hostilities between Russia and the US (Georgia, Syria, Snowden), they should be doubly careful about cheering on the side of a very partial US administration or denigrating Russia as a country. To my mind, they haven't challenged that administration sufficiently on drones, surveillance, budget, wars, Guantanamo bay, etc. They have published critical articles but have also published many apologias for the gov. position, and on Snowden for example their coverage has been more notable by its absence from the front page than by its presence. I remember when the story broke the largest story on their home page for the day was a story about high prices in Disney theme parks.
Still, they compare well to almost every other newspaper, most of them have their blind spots, and there are some real high points in their coverage IMHO, like The drone that killed my grandson, though that was an op-ed rather than one of their writers.
But then again most of the US is not like Detroit. There are many pockets of disenfranchisement throughout the country, but by and large the infrastructure and social institutions are in decent shape considering their scale. In contrast, much of Russia is dilapidated.
> (we don't have gypsies and therefore the bottom 50% will not adopt gypsy cultural indicators,
Am I misreading this or are you throwing the "gypsies are like this because of culture making them lazy" argument?
> and our inequality seems to be merely differing rates of positive growth)
Then why has median purchasing power gone down for the past fifteen years? It doesn't matter if the dollar value goes up when prices go up faster.
Am I misreading this or are you throwing the "gypsies are like this because of culture making them lazy" argument?
I'm more referring to child marriage than anything else.
Then why has median purchasing power gone down for the past fifteen years?
This begs the question - if purchasing power went down over the past 15 years, people should be purchasing fewer goods and services than in 1998. What goods/services do you believe people have less of now than they did in 1998?
Upper education, health care, healthy food? It is easy to ignore if you are not at the bottom, but all of these things are less available to a growing number of people.
Higher education is incorrect. I'd love to cite the census, but the servers are shut down as part of the Washington Monument strategy. So here are news reports instead:
Food is a harder thing to pin down. There is no doubt that americans of most any income level have access to sufficient calories, but trying to purchase healthy fresh fruits and vegetables takes up a significant portion of my monthly income (family of 5, a long distance from the bottom income levels), but I could buy huge quantities of bread and rice for much less :-)
You derive such a different lesson than I do from the same facts.
You're mentioning areas in the economy that have had drastic price increases that far outpace inflation. Coincidentally, these are all areas that have seen heavy state and federal government involvement over the last 40 years.
Even the food disaster is easily attributed to the government's horrible misunderstanding of diet in the 70's and drive to create cheap low-fat (but high fcs) products.
While you see lessons of inequality, I see lessons of the danger of government interference in the economy and our daily lives.
I'm amazed you believe that's what Americans will be reading into this article - it's not what I read. FWIW, I grew up in Appalachia and it ain't nothing like the Russia the article discussed - plenty of food for the most part, water, decent roads.
drive by comment: I don't know what you mean to imply by Oakland (!?!?), but... I took the amtrak south from Oakland, and I was shocked by the level of poverty thats visible from the train.
the problem is that living near the rail line* has been traditionally one of the least desirable places to live. I'm not hand-waving away the poverty or even it's ratios but you will see lots of poverty around a rail line.
*there's a long, long history here going way, way back in the US. Living near a light rail or a commuter station is completely different than living near a freight rail/mixed use rail
> What they did not tell you is that gypsy settlements look the same in France, Germany and other industrialized countries
Exactly. I'm Romanian and when I saw the photo with the young gypsy couple I said to myself: "Hey! These people look exactly like the gipsies I used to grow up with". At least I learned that there are gipsies in Russia, also.
I'm Russian too but I see there only dirty facts. I live in Saint Petersburg now, but I lived 27 years in 2 another cities, small towns. One if them is rich, without gipsies, full of green woods and with clean streets. So yes, Russia is not a best country, but this article is a pure propaganda. I like story "Vasily" on Vimeo - there less propaganda and more true.
Yes, this article is a disgrace. Putin has built a relatively successful and stable economy, which worst of all for the NYT is both pursuing an independent path and is rich in natural resources. If they weren't able to defend themselves Russia would fulfil all 3 of Chomskys criteria for Western Intervention, however they have a capable defence and cannot be "Iraq'd" or "Libya'd", so instead of missiles they have to settle for black propaganda instead.
LOL @ 'relatively successful and stable economy'. Their economy is entirely based on selling off natural resources (sell 5%, steal 95% for yourself). When those resources run out, entire country will be bankrupt.
Source: I'm from Russia and know what I'm talking about.
No. You can not compare a period after privatesation and other social, political and economic changes directly with now. The fact is that there was less political elitism and state power in russia but it increased a lot.
If you have small political elite you will never have stable growth. You might not get stable growth under a more broader politcal system (socialist india was relativly democratic) but much more likly.
See these two books, one from a economist perspective, on from a politcal sienctist perspecitve (both considered top people in the field):
- Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty
- Dictator's Handbook
The both tell the same story with diffrent words, or maybe one would better say diffrent but overlapping parts of the same story.
This is fine but kind of getting away from my main point, which is that the NYT is denigrating Russia, not because of it's economic and social problems which are real, but because it is an independent country that is rich in natural resources, therefore a target for the West. But it is too powerful to be threatened militarily, hence articles like this about its problems instead.
Oh my god, conspiracy theories abound on HN now. :-(
Living in Western Europe, life is busy. I spend all my time implementing conspiracies against Russia, Pakistan, etc, etc...
In fact against all countries which are controlled by authoritarian b-ds that use West as an external enemy to keep people from complaining about how much they steal. Weird coincidence.
It doesn't make it more successful or stable. Putin simply continued Yeltsin changes: more power to the government, suppress the opposition, consolidate the power in few hands. He haven't done anything new, except creating a new image of an iron man that Russia loves (Like Stalin, translated from Russian - steel).
I am a citizen of a country near Russia and have a rather good knowledge about Russia internal politics and economics.
Black propaganda, you say? That's adorable.
Not so stable now given the lack of economy growth and perspective of cuts amidst growing oil prices and diving into recession. Russian economy outlook is less than bright for a few years now.
I agree this is propaganda, and it is dangerous. Despite the fact that bad roads and decaying villages are very real in Russia, Russia has tremendous oil and gas wealth, and the medium and long-term economic trends for Russia are upward.
Russia has many symptoms of an industrial nation turning into a resource-extraction oligopoly, but it would be a very risky mistake to think Russia headed toward collapse. Russia may have many problems, but it will be a strong and rich nation. Allowing that fact to surprise us will lead to bad policy decisions.
As a Russian i know this is all true and much more than that.
They never 'picked' gypsy settlement, it was one of the many places they visited. It was you DominikR who 'picked' the gypsy part out of the long article.
Yes of course Roma are special. And they are nearly like that everywhere (possibly in places where they are living more permanently, like Romania, they are better off than in others, but more or less the same). This is part of Russian and European life. Native Americans are living about like that in the USA and nobody is trying to conceal that fact, or present things in a way that all of the USA is like that, neither does this article try to present all Russian to be gypsies and marry at 13.
But looking at the article overally yes, this is how Russia actually lives. And, further away from large railways (railways, not highways, are the bloodlines of the economy in Russia, like in XIX century America) - and the places visited are closest to most important railway - things are much, much worse. In many places you will need AWD vehicle to move around, and even that possible only in dry summer, and find little more than rotten huts and peasants who look like zombies, and illiterate children who drink at the age of 10. These places were too scary to travel too (you can be killed just for wearing suit and tie and not looking like zombie), but THAT is also how about 20-30% of Russian live.
'The _____ left behind' is a phrase with a well established meaning.
The poor parts of Eastern Kentucky, West Virginia, as are well as parts of the Ozarks are 'The America Left Behind'. Recently they have been seized upon by the artistic elite and made hip by music like Mumford and Sons and movies like The Hunger Games.
The phrase means a subgroup that is not enjoying the prosperity that the rest of the group enjoys. To use the phrase, the author must believe the opposite of what you read.
Just the fact that the NYT picked life in a gypsy settlement (no water, no electricity, child weddings) to generalize about the life in Russia makes it obvious to me that the journalists had no other intentions but to villify the Russians.
What they did not tell you is that gypsy settlements look the same in France, Germany and other industrialized countries. (Yes - children not going to school, no electricity, no water, weddings of 13 year olds and so on)