In an unprecedented move, Russian President Vladimir Putin has opted to reach out directly to the American public. The powerful Russian leader, forgoing traditional means of diplomacy, authored a column in the New York Times directly criticizing President Obama and America writ large regarding support for intervention in Syria.
The fascinating thing about this outlet is how direct of an approach it is. It reflects a change in politics that’s characteristic of our generation: Individuals no longer accept the evening news and whatever their senators or congressmen tell them as the truth. Instead, people find their information on the Internet, formulating opinions in an inherently social process that relies more and more on the reactions and conversations of an Internet-literate society than on interactions with a more immediate, physical community. There’s no more Edward Murrow to tell you how to feel about the Soviet Union.
That is, except for a select number of elite editors who manage the major online news sources in the United States. That includes the New York Times, whose circulation — online and in print — was 1,865,318 in April. Of that number, 676,000 are subscribers with only a digital plan .
Anyone with the power to influence that many individuals — and the countless others who read the online article for free — should be critical of what gets published and what gets withheld. Putin’s article is the perfect example.
Though on rare occasions there have been acting world leaders who have written op-eds, such as the piece on Libya authored by President Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron and former President of France Nicolas Sarkozy, world leaders usually let their interactions play out through political moves. What Putin has done — reach out to the American public — circumvents this process and instead tries to influence our politics and campaign for a particular action. In this case, it is avoiding action in Syria. Normally, newspapers would report on the campaign of a candidate, not let them write up campaign messages in print.
But first, did Putin even write the piece? According to a spokesman, the majority of the piece was, in fact, penned by Putin himself. The article, though, was delivered to the New York Times by the Western public relations firm Ketchum, which has worked to promote the interests of Russia in America and globally. Putin isn’t the only Russian leader to co-opt the Times as a platform for his political message. The New York Times took care not to dilute the message, and the editor, Andrew Rosenthal, noted that the article underwent almost no editing. Then again, the original piece was penned in Russian, so somewhere along the line an “amazingly good translation,” as Rosenthal called it, was performed.
Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev has written several op-ed pieces for the New York Times since 2000 and has commented on major policies in both countries, criticizing both the U.S. government and the Russian government, even taking specific jabs at Putin.
The New York Times does have a history, then, which would seem to support the editorial decision to include Putin’s piece in its op-ed section. If Gorbachev can write, why would Putin be any different? The answer, perhaps, lies in the fact that Gorbachev only began to write after his political role was relinquished, whereas Putin, of course, is still in power. That means that the articles have fundamentally different purposes. Gorbachev is reflecting on events and affairs from a position of little power, whereas Putin’s implicit threats are backed by a very real finger on a very real trigger.
Putin’s statement has an innate political purpose. The discourse isn’t academic in nature, but rather a calculated move meant to stir public opposition to Syrian intervention. With a power that Gorbachev or any ex-politician could never have, Putin has a slim but real chance of making an impact on American political opinion and perhaps on American political action. After all, American politicians can’t just put their opposition on trial for stealing timber — they have to win real votes and bow to the wishes of their constituents.
In a way, Putin’s article is propaganda, and the New York Times actively facilitated its distribution. It is a government message — even if it isn’t our government — meant to influence public attitude by presenting only a one-sided view of events. It is possible to argue that precisely because Putin was speaking to a technologically literate generation, a generation more likely than ever to read responses and reactions to Putin’s work, that his op-ed wasn’t truthfully one-sided. That is, perhaps Putin’s piece lacked power precisely because publishing it in a newspaper and in an accessible online format makes it, in a way, just one of thousands of articles that can be read on Syria. But this argument has limitations. Even if an individual did read reactions and responses and Putin’s piece, few individuals could write a piece with the power to truly refute Putin.
It makes sense for the New York Times to have published the piece. It created readership and controversy and was a unique opportunity for the publication. But this article is different from others. Giving a powerful world leader a private platform from which to speak directly to the public is a bold gift. Had the New York Times rejected the article, it could have been a chance for them to commit to their views on Syria and to demonstrate the unity of America rather than to accelerate fractionalization.
Lauren Sukin ’16 is a sophomore studying political science.
ADVERTISEMENT
