{"id":1002,"date":"2014-03-26T16:16:21","date_gmt":"2014-03-26T14:16:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.jonathan-cook.net\/blog\/?p=1002"},"modified":"2014-03-26T16:16:21","modified_gmt":"2014-03-26T14:16:21","slug":"my-reply-to-guardians-shaun-walker","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.jonathan-cook.net\/blog\/2014-03-26\/my-reply-to-guardians-shaun-walker\/","title":{"rendered":"My reply to Guardian’s Shaun Walker"},"content":{"rendered":"

Dear Shaun,<\/p>\n

I wanted to bring my readers\u2019 attention to your response to my critique<\/a> of your recent article in the Guardian headlined \u201cUkraine and Crimea: what is Putin thinking?\u201d. Given that you commented late, and only on Facebook, most of those who read the critique probably never saw your reply. I am therefore posting it in full at the bottom of this page.<\/p>\n

First, let me say how much I appreciate your taking the time to respond. I know most journalists avoid engaging with critics, especially if the criticism is directed at the practice of journalism itself. This is ground few journalists seem to feel comfortable on \u2013 a revealing commentary in itself on how rarely we as journalists think about what we do or why we do it.<\/p>\n

It is also for that reason that I understand your reluctance to hang around for another round \u2013 or as you put it, you \u201cdon\u2019t intend to get into a polemic\u201d.<\/p>\n

But I do want to address the points you raise in your response because they seem to be fairly standard ones when journalists are confronted with criticism. And more importantly, I want to highlight the criticisms you failed to address. Evasion is one useful tactic for those on weak ground.<\/p>\n

Your first point is that you think you do not need to explain or clarify what Putin was referring to when he said:<\/p>\n

\u201cThey [the west] say we are violating norms of international law \u2026 It\u2019s a good thing that they at least remember that there exists such a thing as international law \u2013 better late than never. They have come to believe in their exclusivity and exceptionalism, that they can decide the destinies of the world, that only they can ever be right.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I criticised you for not making it clear that Putin was making a valid, if self-serving argument that the west had no right lecture Russia about international law after its illegal invasions of and interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.<\/p>\n

This is your argument:<\/p>\n

Are you seriously suggesting that the average even moderately informed reader (which I assume the majority of my readers to be) would not read the line about the west breaking international law all the time over the past decade and not understand that this is about the cases you mention? This is an article about Crimea, not a PhD thesis.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Well, let\u2019s put aside all the basics of journalism, in which it was drilled into us that we should never make assumptions about our readers\u2019 knowledge and that it is our job to make explicit things that are only implicit in the text, especially in quotes.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s also set aside the issue of whether the Guardian employs you only to write for a small coterie of what you describe elsewhere as \u201cGuardian readers\u201d. Presumably, you think the Guardian has no interest in winning over new and young readers whose knowledge of international affairs may only be beginning.<\/p>\n

Even ignoring these considerations, Putin\u2019s specific meaning is not so clear as not to need clarification. He\u2019s talking about western hypocrisy regarding international law, and we need to have some decisive examples to help us understand how he thinks that hypocrisy is manifested.<\/p>\n

More importantly, your readers\u2019 chance of understanding his meaning has been clouded by your analytical intervention. Strangely, you allow yourself space to expand on his motives but not on his meaning. Unfortunately, in quoting me you cut short my next criticism, where I noted:<\/p>\n

Instead, Putin\u2019s argument is presented as a \u201cgrievance\u201d, \u201copen contempt for the current international order\u201d, \u201cdiscontent\u201d, and a \u201cpetulant riposte to the west\u201d. Putin\u2019s own words are twisted through the distracting context Walker places around them, which is designed to suggest Putin\u2019s megalomania and his deluded worldview.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So how are your Guardian readers supposed to make sense of Putin\u2019s point if you are apparently incapable of doing so yourself? Putin\u2019s riposte, if it relates to Iraq, for example, is far from \u201cpetulant\u201d. And how, if he is pointing out western hypocrisy, is he showing \u201copen contempt for the current international order\u201d \u2013 unless by that you mean an order in which the US gets to dictate terms to everyone else?<\/p>\n

In short, I am not expecting a PhD, but I am expecting you to follow the job description you are supposed to believe in of being fair and balanced, and to provide an answer to the question posed in the article\u2019s headline: \u201cWhat is Putin thinking?\u201d.<\/p>\n

The other criticism I made is that you ignored quite possibly the biggest concern Moscow has, which is that it is being boxed in by Nato military bases on all sides. Whether or not the paranoia that development elicits in Moscow is justified, it is clearly part of \u201cwhat Putin is thinking\u201d.<\/p>\n

Sadly, your response to this second point is a non-response. You state:<\/p>\n

It\u2019s extraordinary that you think your own views on the causes are more valid than the views of the numerous people close to the Kremlin I spoke to. The anger about Sochi was huge and significant and I believe played a large part in the \u201cstraw that broke the camel\u2019s back\u201d effect here.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I think you\u2019ll find most people will think your argument here is extraordinary. You really want to sell us the idea that Russia\u2019s actions in Crimea are more about the fact that Putin was snubbed at Sochi than Moscow\u2019s geo-strategic concerns about Nato!<\/p>\n

Also, your mock indignation does you no credit. I am sure you spoke to many people in preparing the story; but I\u2019m afraid I\u2019ve been in this game a long time too and that kind of wool-pulling doesn\u2019t work with me. The question is not how many people you spoke to but whom you selected for your interviews and which parts of what they told you selected to report. If you want to argue that no one in the Kremlin is concerned about Nato expansion, please state that baldly. Then we can assess how credible a Moscow correspondent you really are.<\/p>\n

Thirdly, you set up a strawman, claiming that I objected to your quoting Michael McFaul, the US ambassador to Russia until last month. No, I did not. I simply pointed out that as we read through your piece we came to a series of opportunities you had to raise the issue of Russian fears about Nato expansion. Instead all those opportunities were missed.<\/p>\n

Remember it was you who was commissioned to write a piece entitled \u201cWhat is Putin thinking?\u201d I, like many others, wanted an answer. McFaul was never likely to be someone who would provide it.<\/p>\n

Finally, you repeat the exercise with \u201cEurasianism\u201d, again missing my point that it is not about the unsavoury ideology of some ex-KGB thugs, fringe or not, but about your repeated efforts to raise any issue but probably the most pertinent one to the Kremlin: fears about Nato expansionism.<\/p>\n

In my view, this is the<\/em> most important concern driving Putin\u2019s thinking. But I am quite ready to concede I may be wrong. What I cannot concede is that in a long article promising an answer to the question \u201cWhat is Putin thinking?\u201d there is no mention at all<\/em> of Nato expansionist policies.<\/p>\n

Your failure to address that very clear point in my critique is probably the most eloquent answer I am likely to get.<\/p>\n

Again, many thanks for taking the time to reply. I hope you will do so again. If you do, I will again publish your response in full.<\/p>\n

Best wishes, Jonathan<\/p>\n

Shaun Walker’s response:<\/h4>\n

I have no desire to get into a long polemic, but it does seem you have wilfully misinterpreted the article. A few remarks:<\/p>\n

1. [quoting me] See how Walker did that. Putin is making the self-serving but entirely valid point that the west has no right to get on a high\u00a0horse about Crimea after its various illegal attacks on and interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and elsewhere. But of course Walker does not mention those examples, which would have allowed the reader to understand Putin\u2019s point.<\/em><\/p>\n

– Are you seriously suggesting that the average even moderately informed reader (which I assume the majority of my readers to be) would not read the line about the west breaking international law all the time over the past decade and not understand that this is about the cases you mention? This is an article about Crimea, not a PhD thesis, I would assume that for the average reader of the Guardian, it\u2019s adequate to (repeatedly) mention the feeling that the west breaks international law and assume people would know what you\u2019re referring to (and, given that they’re guardian readers, quite possibly sympathise).<\/p>\n

2. [quoting me] Is Walker going to mention Nato expansionism? No, this is his introduction to Putin\u2019s petty fury at being snubbed by the west over his Olympics venture at Sochi.<\/em><\/p>\n

– It\u2019s extraordinary that you think your own views on the causes are more valid than the views of the numerous people close to the Kremlin I spoke to. The anger about Sochi was huge and significant and I believe played a large part in the \u201cstraw that broke the camel\u2019s back\u201d effect here.<\/p>\n

3. [quoting me] But now he brings in \u201cMichael McFaul, who was US ambassador to Russia until last month\u201d \u2013 that is, a paid propagandist for the US state department<\/em><\/p>\n

– Yes, and who is clearly labelled as such, and is one voice of western policy making balanced against four voices of people Kremlin-linked or dealing with the Russian position.<\/p>\n

4. [quoting me] That view is described as an \u201cideology\u201d, known menacingly as \u201cEurasianism\u201d, and obviously a devious one because it was developed by the \u201cson of a KGB officer\u201d who also happens to be a \u201cwide-eyed prophet\u201d and has a lot of influence on Russian MPs\u2019 \u201cimaginations.\u201d<\/em>
So the problem here is not that Russia is getting boxed in by an aggressive Nato policy on its doorstep; no, according to Walker, it is that Putin and a coterie of former KGB thugs want an expansionist Russia to take over Europe, using Ukraine as the launchpad.<\/em><\/p>\n

– Well it is a fringe ideology developed by some fairly unusual and unsavoury people, yes. And, as is clearly mentioned, it\u2019s not about \u201cputin and a coterie of KGB thugs\u201d coming up with the ideology, it\u2019s about \u2013 as is clearly labelled \u2013 exigencies bringing the Kremlin decision makers closer to an ideology that was previously considered fringe in Russia.\u00a0

I\u2019m very open to critique of my pieces and unfortunately the exigencies of daily writing mean sometimes things get left out \u2013 reading back, there really ought to have been a reference to Kosovo, which is a key reason for things unfolding as they did. And I\u2019m sure there\u2019s lots of other ways the piece could be improved. But I find your critique to be merely an attempt to deliberately misinterpret or twist the gist of the piece.<\/p>\n

As I say, don\u2019t intend to get into a polemic so shall sign off here, but just wanted to respond to a few points. Cheers.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Dear Shaun, I wanted to bring my readers\u2019 attention to your response to my critique of your recent article in the Guardian headlined \u201cUkraine and Crimea: what is Putin thinking?\u201d. Given that you commented late, and only on Facebook, most of those who read the critique probably never saw your reply. I am therefore posting […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[18,6],"class_list":{"0":"post-1002","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-uncategorized","7":"tag-guardian","8":"tag-media-criticism"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jonathan-cook.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1002","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jonathan-cook.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jonathan-cook.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jonathan-cook.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jonathan-cook.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1002"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.jonathan-cook.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1002\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jonathan-cook.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1002"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jonathan-cook.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1002"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jonathan-cook.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1002"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}