Vladimir Putin staged an elaborate charade—so why did some western media outlets play along?
There was no election in Russia last weekend. There was no campaign. There were no debates, which was unsurprising, because no issues could be debated. Above all, there were no real candidates, bar one: the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, the man who has just started his fifth, unconstitutional term in office.
Russians did line up at polling stations, but these were not actually polling stations. They were props in an elaborate piece of political theater, a months-long exercise in the projection of power and brutality. While that exercise unfolded, Putin’s only significant political opponent, Alexei Navalny, died under mysterious circumstances in a prison north of the Arctic Circle. Two Russian presidential candidates collected the requisite number of signatures to stand, both said they opposed the war in Ukraine, and both were removed from the ballot. Three practically unknown people were allowed to remain on the ballot, but they did not criticize Putin and did not oppose him in any way. One of them declared that he hoped Putin would win. In Russian-occupied Ukraine, men in balaclavas forced people to vote at gunpoint.
Some Western media nevertheless covered this orchestrated drama as if it really were an election. Reporters interviewed voters, cited “exit polls,” even commented on the “results,” as if these things mean anything in a country whose leadership lies openly about everything: economic statistics, war casualties, Russian history. Reuters ran a headline declaring Putin had won “in a landslide.” The earnest coverage was exactly what Putin hoped he would get.
The news isn’t so much Putin’s foregone “reelection”, it’s how many news agencies in the west just go along with the charade.
No news agencies in the west believe this was an election that I am aware of.
Here’s the alert I got from Reuters Sunday afternoon:
This is phrased as if there was an actual election. You’re right that if I delve deeper into their coverage I will see mention of how Vlad had all significant opponents barred from running or reference to ballot stuffing and other obvious manipulation, but most people I know just take headlines at face value and move on. I don’t want despots to be able to farce their way into legitimacy.
Fair. It’s just been known that they aren’t actual elections.
I do get your point that we are too polite in even calling it that, but it’s no secret that it’s a sham democracy.
Many people believe the propaganda, reputable media outlets shouldn’t parrot the talking points, it helps support the lie.
The Dutch news agency NOS published it something to the likes of “Putin wins ‘election’”. Not sensationalised and not “follow for more” stuff, and a shitton of factual criticism.
Pretty good reporting, given that they’ll still somewhat lean in to the charade just as they’re calling Putin a president, whilst he’s a dictator.
I don’t know, me personally from that title I inferred the “election” part of it because what democratic election, even actual landslides, win nearly 90% of the fucking votes lmao???