Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Additional comments on Russia & the Western Media.

I hope that I did not create the impression previously that I am some sort of naïve apologist for Vladimir Putin or his regime. I am aware that Putin is ex-KGB, trained under the very regime which Bl. John Paul II fought to destroy. I am myself a man of Lithuanian blood, a son of the nation which was the first to declare its independence from the USSR. While I respect the achievements of the Russians in classical music and so forth, I have no love for Russia; I consider them a sad victim of their imperialist, Communist, and, lately, fascist, tendencies. You will find that my sympathies lie with the Holy See, the United States, Lithuania, Ireland, Poland, South Korea, Italy, Israel, Ethiopia, and all other children of Jerusalem. (I guess I'm not keeping my cards very close to my chest anymore.)

One does not, however, need to be a Putin fanboy in order to express distaste at the treatment of Russia in the Western media. My purpose here is not to create an atmosphere of sympathy for Putin, who is indeed an amoral gangster, but to simply learn what is actually going on in Russia. Let's take this Guardian article on recent elections in Moscow.

HeadlinePutin's nose bloodied by Russia's rival mayoral candidates. Putin was not in the running in any of these elections. Putin, whatever your opinion of him, is not a mayor and is not in the running for any mayoral election. This article has nothing to do with him.

Sub-headlineOpposition's Alexei Navalny officially achieves 27.3% of Moscow vote, with Yekaterinburg's Yevgeny Roizman in even closer race. Is 27.3% a nose-bloodying? I wouldn't think so, but apparently the Guardian does.

Paragraph 1Russia's opposition movement recorded its most telling electoral result in 13 years of Vladimir Putin's rule on Sunday when candidates for mayor in two of the country's largest cities pulled off impressive results against incumbents. "Telling" and "impressive" are subjective opinions. Newspapers ought to stick to objective facts and leave their interpretation to readers.

Paragraph 2Opposition leader and anti-corruption activist Alexei Navalny won 27.24% of the vote for the Moscow mayoralty, but he immediately disputed the result, saying it was marred by "many serious violations". It seems we've lost 0.06 of a percentage, moving from 27.3% (the headline) to 27.24%. Normal mathematical rounding would display 27.24 as 27.2, not as 27.3.

In addition, we have the dog-whistle word "activist," which is intended to arouse sympathy with the Western left. I hope my reader will recognize that "activist" simply means "politician." The simplest pupil of politics is aware that every politician claims to be some variety of "anti-corruption activist." I hope I do not bore my reader by pointing out the obvious fact that this always means "corruption of the opposition" and not his own corruption. As for "many serious violations," this is a point we'll address below.

Paragraph 3He said in a statement: "We consider the official election results to be deliberately falsified." I'm sure that that is something someone would say upon losing an election. No evidence, however, is provided.

Paragraphs 4 and 5: Official results on Monday morning gave Kremlin ally Sergei Sobyanin, the acting mayor, 51.37%, enough to clear the 50% threshold needed to avoid a second-round runoff.

The Alliance of Observers, however, counted 49.7% for Sobyanin and 28.3% for Navalny.

Who are the "Alliance of Observers?" Some England-based activism group? You'll never find out from reading the Guardian. Moreover, we do have a clear victory here, no? even according to this mystery group "Alliance of Observers," 49.7 is quite a bit more than 28.3, isn't it?

The fake controversy, the difference between the "official" results and those of the Alliance whatever, is 1.67 percentage points. That is to say, almost nothing, basically a margin of error that changes rather little about the election.

Paragraph 6Navalny's result – achieved with none of the financial, administrative and media advantages that incumbents enjoy – was interpreted as a clear sign of disaffection with the ruling elite. Interpreted by who? The Guardian, itself? Doesn't the endorsement of the Guardian grant a certain "media advantage?" Clearly the sign wasn't interpreted as such by the 49.7% who, even according to the mysterious Alliance, voted for Sobyanin, was it?

Paragraph 7In Russia's "third capital" of Yekaterinburg, anti-drug activist Yevgeny Roizman appeared to have beaten his opponent from the ruling United Russia party in the mayoral race. Another "activist" -- i.e. someone the Guardian likes. This one's an anti-drug "activist." "Appeared to have" -- according to who? The Guardian won't divulge such details, apparently.

Paragraph 8The head of the Yekaterinburg electoral commission said on Monday morning Roizman had won by a margin of more than 3%, but that this result was still being finalised. Several exit polls on Sunday showed Roizman had won by a slim margin. Such a result would also be an embarrassment for the Kremlin. So there is some possibility that Roizman won, but even the Guardian admits the difference was less than 5%, i.e. a normal margin of error.

Paragraph 9In the lead-up to the Moscow election, many experts had said 20% would be an impressive result for Navalny, whose rating was in single figures when the early mayoral vote was called in June. Who are the "experts?" I suppose this is intended to convince us that 28.3% (the Alliance's number) is impressive. It would seem to me, however, ignoramus that I am, that getting less than 30% of the vote is a pretty clear indication you lost the election. Sure, you might have had some reasonable points, you're probably a fine human being and all that, but let's face it: you lost.

Paragraph 10"The old political system is dead," said liberal political figure Leonid Gozman on the opposition-leaning TV channel Dozhd. "What happened in Moscow and Yekaterinburg … is related to people who are not associated with any party" in the Kremlin-controlled political system. Gozman is some atheist psychology professor.

Paragraph 11As the vote counting dragged on, both cities appeared poised for a tense couple of days. One picture circulating on Twitter showed riot police deployed outside the seat of the Yekaterinburg government. "Dragged on" seems to suggest that the vote counting was done in a time-consuming manner. Time-consuming would seem to suggest accuracy and honesty -- if one were to be fraudulent, that would be quicker than being correct, wouldn't it? Riot police could be deployed for a number of reasons: we don't discover which one from reading this article -- the relationship to the preceding sentence is unclear. Allow me to bore my astute readers by suggesting that the Guardian seems to believe that Yekaterinburg votes are being manipulated, but does not actually say so for fear of falsification.

Paragraphs 12-15: The Moscow Electoral Commission had promised a final result by midnight thanks to newly installed electronic voting machines, but late on Sunday night delayed the announcement of the final result until 10am on Monday.

Speaking to journalists, Navalny said the delays in announcing official results were an indication of the "clear falsification" of votes. He said Sobyanin's results remained above 50% only due to ballot-stuffing outside polling stations, such as when counting votes cast from home. "We demand a second round. We ask Muscovites to come out to the streets if Sobyanin violates their right to vote," he said.

On Sunday afternoon, the Navalny campaign was already planning a protest rally for Monday night.

In July, Navalny was given a five-year prison sentence for extortion in a highly politicised trial. If his appeal against the verdict is unsuccessful, he will be ineligible to hold office in Russia.

Dude, you only got 28.3%, even according to the Guardian's Alliance of Whatever. Not trying to be a jerk here, but I'm not sure people really want you as a mayor. I don't even have the effort to untangle what the Guardian means by "highly politicised trial." (I'd hazard a guess that it has to do with laws they, Englishmen, dislike, but were approved by large margins of democratically elected Russians.)

Paragraph 16Opposition candidate and former MP Gennady Gudkov fared less well in the Moscow region gubernatorial race, where the United Russia candidate Andrei Vorobyov reportedly won with over 70% of the vote. I guess the Guardian can't muster journalistic resources sufficient to determine whether Vorobyov really won or just "reportedly" (by who?) won. But Putin's nose was bloodied. There're definitely like 100-150 people who really don't like Putin. Just stay focused on that.

Paragraph 17Election observers in Moscow reported numerous minor violations. In the runup to the election, analysts predicted that falsifying votes cast from home (citizens can request electoral workers to make home visits) would be the most likely method of cheating, but the percentage of such votes was reportedly small. We're back in Moscow now. You'll recall from para. 2 that the "anti-corruption activist" disputed the results. No counter-point was raised then, but here we learn that the voting violations were "minor." This is supported by the liberal Moscow Times. A cynic might interpret "minor" in the Guardian as "nonexistent" in reality, but I am certainly not a cynic.

Pressing on...

Paragraphs 18 & 19: Yelena Maliyeva, an electoral observer who said she supported Navalny, said she had discovered no irregularities at her polling station in south-central Moscow. However, she said she was prepared to stay all night to prevent violations, as she did during last year's presidential vote.

"In the presidential election, all the dishonest stuff happened after the polling place was closed. Then there were attempts to falsify votes," she said. That's all well and good. It is, though, a bit of a non-story, though, isn't it? Navalny's guys didn't find anything. They might though -- you never know!, is, I suppose, the point of these paragraphs.

Paragraphs 20 - 22: Voter turnout was, as expected, low across the country (besides the Moscow mayoral election, seven gubernatorial elections and 16 regional legislative elections were held on Sunday). In Moscow, it was reportedly under 30%.

Many saw the Moscow vote as a referendum on competitive elections. Alexander Lebedev, the Russian banker who owns the Independent and the Evening Standard, tweeted that he would vote for the first time in years: "I'm headed to the polling station. I have to, there's an actual choice."

Even Maria, an election observer and Sobyanin supporter who declined to give her last name, admitted that Navalny had made the election interesting. "That's his one plus," she said.

"Many saw ..." such as an undoubtedly interested financier, Lebedev. Is that statement accurate? What is the definition of "many?" The Guardian suggests that it is something of a widespread opinion, but provides no evidence that it is actually true. (I know, I know, such a hilarious joke!) I will point out to my highly astute readers that the Guardian itself may be interested (in the legal sense) and that the lack of real evidence provided would seem to provide the answer as to whether this was some kind of innovation in "competitive elections," or whether it just didn't elect the Guardian's choice.

Paragraph 23Sobyanin had ordered ruling party municipal deputies to give Navalny the signatures necessary to enter the race in what many saw as an attempt to lend his victory legitimacy and improve his political status. But the strong result for the opposition candidate calls into question Sobyanin's political rise, which some had speculated could go as far as the prime minister's chair.

There is only one actual factual statement here, that Sobyanin, in an apparently magnanimous gesture, had ordered that his opposition be allowed into the race. This one fact speaks in favor of Sobyanin. Nevertheless the Guardian asserts that "many" (who are they?) believe otherwise. You'll have to go elsewhere to find that out.

"Strong result for the opposition" -- an amusing joke on the part of the Guardian for those who have read the first half of the article. Please do scroll up either to the sub-headline or to para. 2 -- the "strong result" is either 27.3% or 27.24%, depending on which part of the article you read.

Paragraphs 24 & 25: Several officials, including Sobyanin's campaign manager, praised the fairness and competitiveness of the elections in an apparent shift in rhetoric. "Do I understand correctly that the official statement about the 'most fair elections' is an admission that the rest were 'not the most fair'?" tweeted socialite and television host Ksenia Sobchak.

Speaking at a United Russia meeting, prime minister Dmitry Medvedev said United Russia's victory in the majority of regional elections showed it "is able to work under in conditions of competitive elections."

The Guardian admits that the elections were, if not 100% accurate, very closely representative of the opinion of the people. So this article really has no point except to say who actually won.

No comments:

Post a Comment