Time and time again we read Russophobic stories in "prestigious" Western newspapers, written by "journalists" who are paid to tow the editorial line which has failed to move on from Cold War days, perpetuating a negative myth that Russia is dark, dour and downright dangerous. Why do they get it so wrong?

An easy source of disinformation for the wannabe future editor is to find anti-Russian stories from former Soviet Republics such as the Baltic States, Georgia or Ukraine, regardless of the fact that there are many Georgians who favour excellent relations with Moscow, many who are married to Russians, many who live in Russia and live very well, regardless of the fact that the Baltic States are small and if they press the right buttons they can get more out of NATO and regardless of the fact that opinion polls point towards very warm mutual feelings between many Ukrainians and Russians.

As Vladimir Putin said, why is the West trying to create problems between Ukraine and Russia?

And it is in opinion polls that we see what is really happening, how Russians really feel and get the pulse of what is really happening on the ground, for to write a piece worth reading, a journalist has to understand the psyche and context of what (s)he is writing about.

Let us take as an example an excellent set of statistics put together by Anatoly Karlin, based on an opinion poll carried out by the Levada Center (Russia's Gallup Poll). In this poll, ordinary Russians answer questions about themselves (all data referring to 2009). Let us see some of the results:

It is clear for a start that Russians are not trying to copy Western culture and are proud of their own. Only 4 per cent celebrated Christmas on December 25 in 1999, the same percentage as those who celebrated Hallowe'en. 70% however support the teaching of "The Foundations of Orthodox Culture" at elementary school level.

Regarding the transition from the Soviet past to modern-day Russia, only 29% consider that the country is better off now than in Soviet times; 60% "regret" the end of the Soviet Union and consider it could have been avoided, while 51% would like to see more State interventionism than there is today and 63% consider that the State should provide public services and guarantee a decent standard of living.

As for the Western media's constant drivel about "dictatorship", President Medvedev enjoys popularity ratings of 74%, Prime Minister Putin of 79% (and we must remember both were democratically elected with huge margins over their closest rivals).

As for the criticisms that all is gloom and doom in Russia, then let's ask the Russians. Ten per cent say they have a difficult life and can barely make enough to buy food, while 90 per cent answer anywhere between they have "as much food as they need" to "can easily get durable consumer goods".

Two to three percent consider Western-style "democracies" as being necessary in Russia, while the same percentage of people approve of Western darlings like Kasparov.

This does not mean to say that Russians want a return to the Soviet system or Soviet times - after all, who wants to go back in time twenty years? However it also sheds light on the arrogance, intrusion and insolence behind the irregular and inaccurate reporting by Western "sources" of...disinformation, which in practice are no more or less than propaganda outlets serving the interests of those who wish to perpetuate the myth, shape public opinion and kowtow to the (unelected) arms lobby which dictates foreign policy - NATO. Now, how democratic is that?

The Soviet Union, while being far from perfect, and while needing economic reforms to reward human endeavour and increase quality, was also far from the shambles it is so often painted as. We must also remember that the external relations of the USSR followed the developmental approach in countries which had been held back by the yolk of Imperialism. They were set free, the people were educated and public services were implemented.

The world today would be a far better place, freer from terrorism and much less dangerous, if these developmental programmes had been allowed to flourish instead of being sabotaged twenty or thirty years ago, for it is precisely the areas in which Soviet influence was substituted by Western interests where the problems reside today.

It is worthwhile Western journalists and media outlets thinking carefully before they write, trying to understand the deeper and wider picture so as not to consign their "news" to the realm of the drunken town crier, the tabloid rag or the guttersnipe.

Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY

PRAVDA.Ru

Disaster strikes some poor, forgotten corner of the world which most people had never heard of. The media circus descends, outlets vying with one another to show the most shocking pictures. The international aid circus follows this, promises of aid by Governments follow that and finally, in-depth stories and profiles flow on the Net and in newspapers. A week later the story starts to slide. Two weeks later it's behind the Oscars and after the third week, it's forgotten.

Then what happens?

The aid pledged by the Governments simply does not appear (unless it is to bail out some irresponsible banker) and the food, water and medicines arrive too late to save many (unless it is a military invasion, when miraculously everything is done within hours). The profiles brandishing swords, waved in the faces of former imperial or colonial powers, blaming them for the plight of the nation Armageddon and the Apocalypse themselves were visited upon melt away and the world then slips back into a comfortable self-righteous snooze seeing pics of babies saved after ten days, old ladies after 11 and old men after 12. Those who bothered to donate something can feel satisfied, as well they should, because it is the voluntary donations raised by the hard-working tax-paying public that ends up footing the bill.

After all, someone has to pay the banks off for their irresponsibility; someone has to pay NATO's trillion-dollar war bills. Right, that is also the taxpayer but don't tell anyone. (They might get annoyed).

So when all is said and done, and forgotten, who is accountable? What about those media reports, those in-depth histories for example about Haiti? Those potted histories in which we read that the Spanish exterminated the local population of Hispaniola (the Isle on which Haiti is situated), just for starters, then the entire country was turned into a giant plantation, a colony, ruled over by Europeans thousands of miles away. Those histories which tell us the country's wealth was stripped, its assets stolen, that dictators were imposed from abroad and democratically elected leaders were kidnapped and whisked away to the Central African Republic, those stories which inform us the country was a gigantic sexual tourism destination, that the first slave revolution was not recognised for decades by nations who were terrified their own slaves would revolt and that an embargo was slapped on the country as a punishment.

And a massive reparations package to France which basically meant Haiti was a non-starter with a massive financial boulder round its neck to repay the debt. And interest. For what? Why, independence. Those stories then tell us Haiti had to borrow from Washington to give to Paris. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Right. Those stories that then inform us that the USA massacred 2,000 Haitians at the beginning of its military invasion in 1915, this was after France then Germany had interfered, the stories that tell us that Haiti today is still paying off the massive billion-dollar debt run up by dictators Papa Doc and Baby Doc. The same potted histories tell us that Haiti, once self-sufficient in rice and an exporter of sugar, had its agriculture destroyed by foreign parties (World Bank and IMF), had its rural society ripped apart, which then morphed into slum dwellers in the main cities and lo and behind started to import everything, at exaggerated prices and ever-increasing interest rates, of course.

And finally these in-depth profiles which have suddenly sprung up tell us of military coups supported from abroad and the suspension of hundreds of millions of dollars in humanitarian aid by the United States of America in 2002 - aid which was going to rebuilding programmes, healthcare and education.

So are we supposed to shrug and forget these stories as the media circus moves on? Or is someone somewhere accountable? And what a deplorable, disgusting and revolting comment on Humanity if Haiti does not become a starting point for real change, a new leaf and a fresh start.

Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY

PRAVDA.Ru

The first anniversary of the war in South Ossetia has become the main topic of the week for the Western media. However, most articles can be characterized as anti-Russian as they were a year ago.

At the same time one has to say to say that, presently, Western journalists accuse Russia of attacking Georgia much less, than they did before. Moreover, they do not glorify and justify Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili Pravda.Ru reports.

The article, which has recently been published in The Los Angeles Times under the title "Year later, Russia's victory over Georgia cuts both ways" can be a good example of that. On the one hand, the author of the article tries to prove, that Russia has found itself in isolation. "Last August, fresh off a swift, decisive military victory over U.S.-backed Georgia, the Kremlin basked in newfound international power and domestic prestige ... One year later, the euphoria has evaporated. The war is still discussed in tones of righteousness, but the military victory left Russia isolated made formerly compliant neighbors reluctant to do Moscow's bidding," the newspaper wrote.

Read more

Ladies and Gentlemen, it has started! The international media onslaught against South Africa has begun a full two weeks ahead of the FIFA World Cup 2010. Britain's Daily Mail leads with a story about how the Columbian national team was robbed ahead of the World Cup, while SKY News is poking around looking for dirt.

It has started. Sickeningly predictably, it is bang on cue two weeks before the World Cup kicks off, Africa's first. They just could not let an African nation host a World Championship, in a spirit of friendship, with a climate of competence and in an ambience of goodwill.

Read more

The recent meeting of the United Nations Department of Public Information (DPI) in Lisbon, Portugal was focused on a new role for women and the media in solving problems in facilitating dialogue and breaking down social barriers, such as hate-fuelled stereotypes as a first step towards meaningful dialogue with practical results.

UN Security Council Resolution 1325 taken one decade ago this month stressed the urgent need for women to be given equal participation and full involvement in matters of peace and security, due to the fact that women and children are frequently the victims of conflict and because of "the important role of women in the prevention and resolution of conflicts and in peace-building".

Read more