Disclaimer: The blogster's history of swearing dates back to well before this post. The new part is the "how I learned to stop worrying" portion of the title. One of the things that sets off swearing is propaganda, be it Russian, German, or the insidious claim by the cat known as The Princess that the blogster is yet again starving her and her fellow domestic pocket tigers.
A recent short post showed an example of German propaganda in an opinion piece of the "liberal" German Zeit Online, [Update] Journalist of German Die Zeit loses it: "Yes, we journalists have treated Russia unfairly".
Today, it* wants to show you a stellar item from conservative daily Die Welt, Fact checking Russian NATO myths.** The page starts with a separate item showing the German defense secretary calling on Russia to not use its aircraft carrier for missions in Syria.
The section on the "myths" is almost a verbatim copy of this NATO paper. For your convenience, the blogster provides the text of the first myth from the NATO paper as well as from the article at the bottom of the post.
Quoting the actual "myth" verbatim is justified. After all, that's the basis of the discussion. But creating the rebuttal merely through reshuffling the text of the NATO paper is a dubious practice for any piece of writing that purports to be about fact checking.
The NATO paper calls itself a "Fact Sheet" but uses "myths" in the title instead of more neutral options, such as "claims" or "assertions".
The blogster won't parse the NATO paper in detail but does find it rather light on facts. There is, in fact, not much that would refute the claim NATO has outlived its purpose if we look at the purpose that was stated in its founding document and over the subsequent fifty years. In fact, the number of wars and the number of casualties is at a historic low. Getting around this with the simple "NATO's mission has evolved" does not - in the eyes of the blogster - merit the designation as "fact sheet".
The rendition of the paper by Die Welt even goes beyond the original in some areas. Take, for example, "Myth" number two: "This myth ignores geography."
Die Welt has this as "Dieser Mythos sei bereits durch einfache Geographie widerlegbar", turning "ignores" into "refutable" and "by simple geography". Adding "simple" to geography makes this condescending and implies the argument is so basic that it shouldn't even be brought up.
On "myth" number 3, the NATO-Russia founding Act, Die Welt matches "NATO has respected its commitments faithfully. Russia has not." with "Russland habe die Vereinbarungen verletzt, die Nato sich daran gehalten."
Let's agree with NATO that Russia has not been "faithful". Why would Die Welt not read the Founding Act to perform a fact check? To avoid calling out NATO countries on the act's goal of "conversion of defence industries"?
One sentence of the Welt piece, not found in that NATO paper, sticks out like a sore thumb: "We do not want a new nuclear war" [our translation of "Wir wollen keinen neuen Atomkrieg“].
Time for an F-Bomb: What the Fuck?
Despite the use of two nuclear weapons at the end of World War II, WWII is not considered a "nuclear war".
All in all, an article any good intern would not wish to be tied to his or her name for the rest of a journalism career.
So, to sum it up:
1) It is not a fact check when you use only one source (outside of fields of hard science).
2) Regurgitating that source is not a fact check either.
3) What the dumb fuck!
* Gender neutral, also to tick off EU Commissioner Oettinger and any conservative Russians.
** Our translation of: Faktencheck Diese Mythen verbreitet Russland über die Nato
*** Myth 1: NATO outlived its purpose after the Cold War.
For decades, NATO has helped to preserve and create stability in Europe. The end of the Cold War marked a new period of optimism
and hope in Europe. The Soviet Union collapsed, former adversaries joined NATO and the EU, and Russia became a partner.
NATO’s mission evolved. The Alliance maintained its collective defence, but also stepped up to manage conflicts beyond our territory,
with missions in the Balkans and, following 9/11, in Afghanistan.
Today, the world is more dangerous than it has been for many decades. To the east, we see an assertive Russia, violating sovereign
borders. To the south, we see turmoil across the Middle East and North Africa. NATO Allies also face other threats, including acts of
terrorism in our own streets. NATO’s commitment to defend each Ally is as important today as ever before. The challenges we face
are such that no nation can tackle them alone. For many partners, that’s a reason to seek NATO membership. For sixty-seven years,
NATO has bound the U.S., Canada, and European Allies together, an anchor for world security and the ultimate insurance policy.
Top 1: Die Nato hat ihren Zweck nach dem Kalten Krieg erfüllt. Die Welt heute sei gefährlicher als in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten, heißt es in dem Papier. „Im Osten sehen wir ein durchsetzungsfähiges Russland, das souveräne Grenzen gefährdet.“ Im Süden, dem Nahen Osten und Nordafrika gäbe es Unruhen. Zudem seien die Nato-Partner anderen Bedrohungen, etwa Terrorismus, ausgesetzt. „Die Verpflichtung der Nato, jedes einzelne Mitgliedsland zu verteidigen, ist so wichtig wie nie zuvor“, steht in dem Papier. Die Herausforderungen der heutigen Zeit seien alleine nicht zu meistern. Die Rede ist von Konflikten auf dem Balkan und dem Engagement nach 9/11 in Afghanistan. Zudem sei die Nato seit 67 Jahren ein „Anker“ für die weltweite Sicherheit und die „beste Versicherung“.
[Update 11/14/2016] The author of this post is an "Honorary Lifetime Member" of the 3rd of the 36th Infantry.
No comments:
Post a Comment