Media analysts have identified a number of these underlying narratives. They are, among others: the West wishes Russia only evil, and its media spreads anti-Russian propaganda. The Third World War is looming (this fits in with the previously mentioned headline). Europe is sinking into chaos. The U.S. is sinking into chaos. Putin is strong, as is Russia. And in general—don’t believe anyone and don’t trust any information.
The last point is by far the most deceitful, because it makes sense to any thinking person, but at the same time it implies that you can reach different conclusions for any incident. Thereby information from the Guardian or New York Times is put on the same level as information from RT, the conspiracy theories and gossip of Infowars.com, or any random post on Facebook. Welcome to the post-fact era, where news just becomes a matter of opinion.
A research report, published after two years of meticulous work, concludes that Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down over Ukrainian territory by a Russian Buk missile system? There must be a Western conspiracy against Russia behind it! And here are five other variations of how it could have happened: the plane wasn’t shot down but just fell from the sky. The U.S. downed the plane to damage Russia’s reputation. It was a Ukrainian ground-to-air missile. A Ukrainian fighter pilot attacked the plane in the air. Or there weren’t any living beings on the plane in the first place—MH17 was loaded with dead bodies in Amsterdam and was flying on autopilot. All these theories can be found in Russian media.
When different versions of stories circulate, the natural reaction of the reader is to assume that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. This can be a trap, as sometimes there really is a true and a false version.
Many media outlets, not only in Russia, use narratives in their work, and some politicians do too. The narrative could also be: refugees are criminals. Or the New York Times is a propaganda outlet against Trump. Or Brexit opponents are financed by the EU. If there are enough true, half-true, and outright false pieces of information released that support these claims, the impression is reinforced that there must be some truth, even if occasionally some items of fake news are revealed as such. The narrative, however, should contain a “perceived truth” that seems plausible to many people. You won’t get particularly far with “Hillary Clinton is an extraterrestrial from the planet Krikkit and plans to destroy Earth.” The combination of a number of narratives has a stronger effect: for instance, “Donald Trump has achieved more than any other U.S. President” plus “the mainstream media is lying to us.”
An aspect of human behavior seen less frequently in Russia than in other countries—at least in public places. Someone who smiles at a stranger might be considered either crazy or a thief; a serious face, on the other hand, represents trustworthiness and commitment. In the digital world, the topic is tackled economically: the Russian close brackets smiley ) consists of half as many symbols as the colon close brackets :) used in the rest of the world.
A survey in Germany revealed that the main reason for people’s loss of trust in the established media was that information and stories you could read on Facebook and its ilk hadn’t been picked up in the mainstream media.
A paradox: the greater the amount of information chaos, the more white noise of scandals and controversy, the more trust dwindles in those who have years of experience in sifting through information.
So, is the established media always right? Of course not; they provoke, simplify, and scandalize—the British tabloid Sun more, and the Washington Post less. And are they not also working to narratives to which the news is subordinated, just as the Russian media routinely claim? Yes, they are. A large majority of journalists in Western media would agree with the following two sentences and allow their essence to be incorporated in their work: democracy, as a system of governance, is relatively sensible. And pluralism, the acceptance of various opinions on a subject, is good for society.
Plus they believe in a “checks and balances” function of journalism: a critical view on government decisions is a crucial part of the job.
And precisely here lies the difference from RT and Sputnik. You won’t find any critical words about Vladimir Putin or investigative reports on technological flaws of the Black Sea Fleet. And you won’t find a large plurality of opinions. Who needs “fake news” when the selection of news items, their tone, and their headlines are enough to paint the picture you want?
It is, however, even more effective if you also manage to spread a few made-up stories. It’s never been easier than it is today to reach a large audience. Particularly sensational news, regardless of whether it’s true or false, reaches many people on Facebook. During my travels in Russia the story was going around in the U.S. that Pope Francis, in a historic move, had recommended that all American Catholics vote for the presidential candidate Trump. The fake report from WTOE 5 News (the Russians are not behind it) got almost 900,000 shares on Facebook; a report by Snopes.com saying that it was absolute nonsense, only 67,000.
The USSR had a long tradition of inventing stories. One active measure of anti-American propaganda, for instance, was the story that HIV spread from a bioweapon operation initiated by the U.S. To this day many people consider it plausible, although the relevant secret documents of the KGB have long been released and no evidence exists.
A case from 2014 also shows that not all Russian fairy tales are about Baba Yaga. Channel One, the most popular TV broadcaster in the country, reported on Ukrainian nationalists who had nailed a three-year-old boy to a billboard right in the middle of the city of Sloviansk. A weeping sole witness named Galina Pyshniak gave her account in front of rolling cameras.
A reporter from the independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta visited the alleged scene and interviewed the locals. No one could confirm the incident, which would have caused uproar in the city. Also, a number of details in Pyshniak’s testimony were false, including the name and size of the central square. But the original account reached a larger public than the later doubts.
Who makes the effort to check sources for every Facebook post? Or thinks about who is financing the source, about which self-interests the authors might be propagating?
In Volgograd, when I spent some time with David, the backpacker from New Zealand, he told me he was a big fan of RT because he could get information there that was withheld elsewhere. When I told him that RT was one hundred percent financed by the Kremlin, he didn’t believe me at first. But he did firmly believe that soy sauce was causing a worrying feminization of the world because it contains estrogenlike substances.