MediaWatch: June 1990
Table of Contents:
The Soviet Spokesman Sensation
Mikhail Gorbachev's policy of glasnost has given American reporters a chance to explore the tremendous dissent lurking behind the fading happy face of the Soviet revolution. But the new Soviet Union's comparative openness has also given the American media the temptation to become overly generous in its assessment of Soviet "journalism," too eager to make earnest noises about a newly independent press in a country where criticism of Gorbachev is newly illegal.
Reporting during the May Washington summit, NBC's Robert Hager asserted: "Tonight's Soviet news was evidence of the new journalistic relaxation: a generally factual account, heavy on reporting, light on commentary, and frank in dealing with Soviet problems." As a perfect example of excessive generosity, Hager extended this to "Vladimir Posner, the most popular Soviet commentator," whose "nightly summit broadcasts have included straightforward looks at issues like the effect of peace on the U.S. defense industry."
Hager was not alone. To discover the way Posner was described by other media, MediaWatch analysts used Nexis to study all Posner mentions in six print sources (Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and The Washington Post) since Gorbachev's March 1985 ascension. Posner was described most often in unofficial terms. The most popular was "commentator" (43 times). Other unofficial terms included "journalist" (13 times), as well as "reporter," "broadcaster," "correspondent," "talk show host," and "TV personality." The most generous and mysterious label came from Bruce Weber of The New York Times, who called the New York-raised Posner a "Soviet- educated journalist and commentator on East-West relations."
By contrast, reporters identified Posner with the official term "spokesman" 21 times, as an "official" three times and otherwise identified him explicitly as a Soviet government bureaucrat five times. Only one out of 157 stories used the word "communist." The toughest label came from New York Times TV critic Walter Goodman, who called Posner "a Soviet official who specializes in shaping Soviet propaganda to American tastes." Thus, Posner was described by unofficial terms, which leave the impression of an independent analyst, twice as often as he was described by official terms, which make it clear that he hews to the government line.
The same pattern applied when American journalists depended on Soviet officials for "independent analysis." In January, CBS News hired Sergei Plekhanov to advise the network and appear on the air as a CBS News consultant. Plekhanov's second banana to long- standing Soviet spokesman Georgi Arbatov as Deputy Director of the Soviet government's Institute on the USA and Canada. MediaWatch analysts watched every Plekhanov appearance from the beginning of 1990. Although every utterance toed the Gorbachev line, CBS has repeatedly failed to properly identify Plekhanov as an official of the Soviet government.
In his first appearance, on CBS This Morning January 15, he was identified as Deputy Director of the USA and Canada Institute, but the screen read "Soviet Expert." When Dan Rather interviewed him right after Bush's State of the Union address on January 31, the screen read "Institute on the USA." The average viewer had no reason to believe the Institute was anything other than a typical private think tank. CBS never noted it is an arm of the Soviet government. In Plekhanov's seven appearances on the CBS Evening News since his appointment as a consultant, CBS identified him once as a "Soviet political scientist" and six times as a "Soviet foreign affairs analyst." CBS did not once explicitly identify Plekhanov as a government official until the June 4 Nightwatch, when host Charlie Rose introduced Plekhanov as a "Soviet expert on the United States," but his on-screen label read "Soviet Government Adviser."
How ironic it is that the same media establishment that vows daily not to be gulled by American government spokesmen rom Marlin Fitzwater on down is so indulgent and unchallenging to Soviet government spokesmen. While no one would or should portray Fitzwater's comments as the independent opinions of an American journalist, Soviet spokesmen like Posner are often solicited for their "personal views" and described as "journalists" and "commentators."
The attitude expressed by Boston Globe reporter Jonathan Kaufman on June 3 demonstrated the Posner media mystique: "Unlike old Soviet television shows on America that harped relentlessly on poverty and discrimination against blacks, Posner's shows on this summit have been positive, even glowing."
Kaufman must not have seen the six minutes Ted Koppel gave Posner to air a Soviet TV report on the May 30 Nightline. Their favorite Soviet "journalist" went looking for Washington blacks willing to attack American society as racist, and when a few didn't oblige, he found others that were "much more forthcoming." One black woman told Posner what he wanted to hear: "Racism is more overt ...I think before the Reagan years there was somewhat of a tolerance as a result of what happened during the Johnson Administration and what happened during the Kennedy years...The new leadership threw everything out of the window. Every civil rights movement, every step we made forward, we've made ten back."
Posner went on: "Washington is at the top of the city murder rate list, and most of those murders are drug-related and occur in black neighborhoods. Why?" The woman replied: "Historically, when you put a group of people together that are oppressed, they will destroy one another, and it has been systematically done. It has not happened by accident." Posner ended: "Nearly 130 years ago, President Lincoln fought a civil war to save America. The issue was slavery: whether it was to survive or were black Americans to enjoy equality. Today, 130 years later, if I could, I would turn to Lincoln and ask: Mr. President, will that equality ever arrive?"
American journalists need to apply at least the same amount of skepticism to Soviet "journalists" and "news consultants" that they apply to American government spokesmen. Until they do, Americans will be hard pressed to realize the difference between propaganda of those in power and truly independent ideas.
