The recent uprising by Russian Wanger militia leader Yevgeny Prigozhin against the Russian Defense Minister has caught many by surprise. Prigozhin has been voicing his criticisms on the ministry's inadequate logistical support for the past month. However, this particular development does not greatly concern me at the moment, as the intelligence and military battle continues to unfold with no immediate resolution in sight.
One notable aspect is the emergence of reports, during the coverage of the coup attempt, that exaggerated the power of the Wagner Group and their purported advance towards Moscow, to overthrow the ruling regime, including President Putin. The reports, mostly from Western news agencies, were biased and naive, leading global public opinion to believe the impending collapse of the Russian capital. The anticipation of Moscow's downfall became widely accepted as an almost inevitable outcome.
With a force of 25,000 armed fighters, the Wagner Group lacks the capability to exert a substantial influence on the ground in a country that boasts the world's second-largest army. Undoubtedly, the media plays a pivotal role in military warfare, as it has the power to shape a biased narrative of the conflicting parties and present it to the public. While it is acknowledged that complete neutrality in the media is unattainable, it is crucial to maintain a certain level of professionalism and credibility, irrespective of underlying motives.
Within hours, headlines and Western news agencies dominated the news about the Wagner Group commander, portraying him as a superhuman figure advancing towards the Russian capital to overthrow it. By the end of the day, reports from Belarus revealed that it had mediated for Prigozhin with the Kremlin to secure his exile after his withdrawal from the battlefield in Ukraine, and the narrative of the alleged advance appeared theatrical and disconnected from reality. Regardless of the political background of what happened, were we following accurate news?
50 years ago, Ahmed Said of "Sawt al-Arab" radio in Cairo and Mohamed Hassanein Heikal of "Al-Ahram” newspaper played a significant role in shaping the Arab public opinion. Their influence was such that the Arab citizens were deceived and fed with falsehoods regarding the outcome of the 1967 defeat, which was falsely claimed to have never happened. The ordinary citizens, relying on the radio, were held captive as they eagerly awaited the truth, that which is devoid of wishes or fabrication. Eventually, the truth was exposed as lies have a limited lifespan. However, by then, the media establishment had already formed their molds to serve their own objectives.
Since then, and until today, communication and information transfer methods have evolved, ranging from email and satellites to social media, smart technology, drones, and artificial intelligence. However, these advancements primarily serve the purpose of efficiency and convenience, and they do not inherently impact the neutrality or credibility of the news, unless the institution itself upholds these principles as fundamental values.
While it is understandable that the United States and European countries have interest in supporting Ukraine against Russia and maintaining robust internal intelligence agencies. However, how can the audience trust the information provided by their media about the events on the battlefield and which party committed crimes against humanity or initiated attacks on residential areas, bridges, schools, and other news?
The evident bias displayed by the Western media, which serves as the primary source of information regarding the Ukrainian conflict, raises doubts about the accuracy of the news being delivered.
Trust forms the bedrock of the people's connection with the media. Once this trust is shaken, the media's voice, be it through "Sawt al-Arab" radio or the screens of "CNN" - will fall on deaf ears!
