What would Kim Jong Un look like if he lost weight? Wonder no more, for social media has the answer.
RT just caught them passing off footage of Russian bombing raids as NATO film stock.
You may remember this guy:
In fact, he isn’t a real reporter losing his shit on tv (though there’s a good chance that the viral content aggregation site where you originally saw the video told you that he was). In fact, he’s a comedian called Tom Walker.
After this clip went viral, he subsequently made a whole lot more on a similar theme. Russia Today was involved in some capacity, whether they actually helped produce the original skit or merely commissioned him to produce more after the first one succeeded.
We’ve covered Russia Today’s cheerfully anarchic promotion of any and all alternative (and “alternative”) viewpoints before, and this series of sketches isn’t that new, so what gives?
Well it’s suddenly become relevant because RT’s French channel just began a series of reports featuring Philippe Verdier giving his own views on the COP21 climate conference. If you’ve never heard of Verdier before (and if you’re not French then there’s no reason why you should) he used to present the weather on France 2, until he was fired for publishing a book expressing mildly sceptical views regarding the environmentalist lobby.
You can watch the first in the series here.
Quick and dirty translation:
Hello. I’m very happy to be here speaking to you freely every day about the COP21 summit on RT France. So… the family photo of around 140 world leaders standing side by side with François Hollande… The French President has been waiting for this for a long time, it’s a rare moment, an historical moment; we’ve never seen such participation on the part of global VIPs in a conference on climate change. It even feels like there’s a climate emergency happening right now. That’s not necessarily true, however. This conference happens every year at the same time. This is the 21st – that’s why it’s called COP21. If there’s any emergency, it’s more to do with foreign relations and politics. There was no follow-up on the Kyoto Protocol that was decided upon at the end of the 1990s, and if there’s nothing to follow on from that then it’s not the ice shelves that are going to collapse, but rather climate change diplomacy. We’re here at the Eiffel Tower next to the Peace Wall because I would like to remind you of something. In 2007 the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Al Gore and the IPCC – the group of climate change experts that was incorporated into the UN. They said this: “If we don’t deal with climate change, if the Earth continues to warm up, there’ll be a greater risk of wars.” However, other observers have pointed out that the past 20 years have been some of the hottest on record, but also a reduction in the number of wars and the number of victims of warfare. It’s a reasonable question to ask during the COP21 summit: were they right or not? The French people haven’t been taken in by the COP21: a recent survey showed that around three quarters of people think that if an agreement is reached following the COP21 summit, it will simply be a greenwash, and that it is mostly being driven by electoral considerations. We know that President Hollande ws elected with the help of the green vote; he needed their help and invited them to join his first cabinet, before getting rid of them. Now, with the Presidential elections of 2017 approaching, he needs to win back the green vote, particularly in light of the declining inluence of the Green Party. What’s more, the climate change issue also gives him a chance to finish the year on a high note, allowing him to avoid discussion of vexatious subjects like unemployment – where the numbers are looking extremely bad. See you tomorrow.
RT, of course, has never had a particular editorial line on climate change (it enthuses over heartwarming pro-environment stories just as happily as it reports climate sceptic conspiracy theories). It doesn’t really have an editorial line on anything that doesn’t affect Russian foreign interests, but it will happily jump on other people’s anti-authority narratives wherever it finds them (it takes a similar approach to the Palestinians).
That’s not the interesting part, however. The interesting part is that it’s applying the exact same strategy using a helpful comedian and a genuine-if-disaffected reporter, and apparently achieving a broadly similar effect in both cases. Verdier’s piece has not had the same viral coverage as Walker’s skits, but he has had a certain amount of support (and a few criticisms) on Twitter:
(The message reads “Thank you @RTenfrancais for letting me cover my 4th COP summit freely and with no weasel words”.)
And on Facebook:
(The comment above reads “Dissidence has found a political asylum.”)
These people are geniuses. I’m deadly serious: RT, if you have any jobs going, message me. I want in on this. No money required; to sit at your feet and absorb your brilliance will suffice.
Here’s an odd little tale. Just recently this story has popped up in the Russian media:
Early in the morning , I heard an intriguing piece of news on Russian state TV: America loves Putin even more than Russians do themselves! He enjoys an 88 percent approval rating in Russia, but the figure is higher in the United States, the report on Rossia 24 television said.
“A lot has already been said about the incumbent [U.S.] president’s low ratings, a night news anchor said. “He has just been dealt a new below-the-belt blow. An opinion poll by the popular New York Daily News shows that U.S. citizens liked Vladimir Putin’s speech at the General Assembly session better than [Barack] Obama’s speech. Ninety-six percent voted for the Russian president and, accordingly, only 4 percent voted for the American president.”
Link. (I’m not entirely sure why it’s suddenly gained in popularity now, since the original poll and the initial reports on it came out over a month ago.)
If you want the RIA Novosti version, you can find it here.
The story has been picked up by various US right wingers:
Though some sites both in the US and Russia have been more cynical, speculating that the win may have been the result of voting by Russian 50 cent parties or even that the whole thing was a fabrication. Meanwhile, the armchair generals of Reddit have congratulated themselves soundly on seeing through the propaganda.
This is intriguing for a couple of reasons:
Firstly, it’s interesting to see the different spin put on the information by the different media outlets, largely because it reflects the way in which Russia’s PR guys take care to modify their message based on the kind of audience they’re targeting. For instance, while domestic and foreign media use similar techniques and have a similar ethos behind them, the aesthetics and the tone is entirely different. Domestic PR appears ridiculously unsubtle to foreign eyes but in fact plays relatively well to the sort of domestic audiences on whom the sly nudge-nudge-wink-wink tone of something like Russia Today would be largely lost.
If what the blogger says is correct, Rossiya 24 was reporting this as a straight-down-the-line popularity poll, which it obviously isn’t. They can get away with it, however, because they know that 99.99% of their audience isn’t going to go online and check. By contrast, Ria Novosti – which tends to target a more serious, grown-up audience – has given one of the more restrained versions of the story, sticking to the facts without trying to make it sound more than it is. Nevertheless, it has reported it – something that you wouldn’t necessarily expect a serious, grown-up news agency to do for every tinpot little online survey. Perversely, RIA Novosti manages to give the tale more credibility by the mere fact of covering it, even while Rossiya 24 is doing the exact opposite.
Secondly, its an excellent example of how Russia’s soft power strategies have developed under Putin. (Soft power is an over-used term;Russia’s media strategy in recent years is one of the few phenomena that merits it.)
Usually, when you are running a PR campaign you decide on a message you want to put across and then look for the best way to do so. The Russians have not taken this path. Instead they provide us with dozens of different possible messages, theories, conspiracies and hints and allow us to pick the one we like best, while nevertheless leaving us uncertain as to whether or not we have picked correctly.
Even the green-black-and-silver aestehtics of the RT site are borrowed straight from The Matrix, something which its intended audience will definitely register at least on a subconscious level, purely because it is such a familiar part of the demographic’s visual vernacular.
As a strategic response to the widespread perception that the “Washington Consensus” has imposed a single narrative on the world, it is a stroke of genius – like something made up by Umberto Eco (or, more probably, by Vladislav Surkov). They’re just providing alternatives: who could possibly object to that? Their slogan is “question more” because they want us to do just that: ask questions, not come up with answers.
The other side of the coin, obviously, is that when all truths are possible, no possibility is definitively true. The cat is both dead and alive at the same time. In other words, the same strategy works equally well to legitimise alternative narratives as to sew confusion.
Moreover, this is approach to mass communications is not simply a sort of invisibility cloak to conceal whatever is really going on inside the Russian state. It is what is going on inside the Russian state. The maintenance of perpetual uncertainty is central to the current government’s management strategies.
To pick one example: the rumour that Putin funds his own opposition has been doing the rounds for ages. It could be entirely true (it’s what I’d do if I was an autocrat, and if I’ve thought of it then he certainly has), or it could be made up to induce paranoia at a relatively low cost.
I’ve even heard from people who should know that Putin’s PR team has, in the past, pressured polling organisations to reduce his popularity scores to make the numbers more democratically plausible. It could well be true, or they could be putting the rumour about purely in the hope that incorrigible gossips like me will repeat it as widely as possible. Either way: mission accoplished.
Watch this video with the sound on. It’s worth it.
It’s difficult to overstate how much I, as a connoisseur of fine PR, enjoy RT’s work.
I assume that this guy genuinely is a spy of some variety. Not just because he has the too-clean look of a secret policeman (he also looks like he’s openly wearing an earpiece, so he’s probably someone‘s security guy to start with, just going the extra mile with the aid of a retro manbag full of directional microphones), but also because I’m not convinced that RT would decide to out a complete stranger just for the hell of it – for all they know he could well turn out to be a Russian spook collecting audio of a supposedly off-the-record meeting.
Also let’s face it, most of the people in that shot look pretty shady to begin with. You could add the Pink Panther soundtrack to footage of any one of them and end up with something almost as hilarious. If they’re picking on this one individual, we can only assume it’s because they know who he is and want to fuck with his employers.
This looks and sounds insane to anyone who isn’t North Korean, but it’s worth noticing that:
So while the participants in this scene probably aren’t really as ecstatic as they appear, it’s equally unlikely that they’re secretly dying a little inside at the indignity of it all. Another day, another won…
There’s a passage in a British political autobiography (I think it’s Julian Critchley’s A Bag of Boiled Sweets, but I couldn’t swear to it) in which an old stager warns a younger colleague on the campaign trail that one should never tell voters that crime is falling, even if it is, because you won’t be believed: “that’s just not what crime does.”
Similarly with these US tales of Russian airstrikes in Syria hitting some hospitals. There’s every possibility that they’re entirely true; the Russians have certainly never shown or laid claim to any great passion for pinpoint accuracy in their military operations. Nevertheless, coming immediately after US strikes did verifiably hit a hospital, the announcement becomes unconvincing ex officio.
Suppose you toss a coin five times. The first four times it comes up heads. Of course, the chance of it coming up heads the fifth time you do it is still 50:50, but even knowing that your mind rebels and tells you that the probability of getting heads a fifth time must be massively reduced.
Similarly in this case. The probability of Russian airstrikes hitting a Syrian hospital has not changed, but the story nevertheless looks far less believable coming immediately after the US really did bomb a hospital.
Look at the comments from the video above:
Granted, people who follow CCTV on Facebook are unlikely to constitute the most pro-US audience out there, so let’s try an alternative source. Reddit is an always-reliable furnisher of
lowest common denominators opinions that tend to be pretty evenly spread across the spectrum:
So here’s a handy hint for the State Department: whether it’s true or not, next time just say it was a fucking orphanage or something. It’s not as though the Russians are going to come forward spluttering and saying “I think you’ll find it was actually a hospital…”
That is – I am not kidding – the most frequent North Korea related question I get. So now you know.
(Real answer: these are actually “field guidance” sessions. The people on the ground are supposed to listen and take note of the Leader’s advice, before putting it into practice in their work. The tradition was inherited from Kim Il Sung and is not always the most efficient way to make policy.)
No, not him. Him:
Ma Won Chun, the architect that Kim Jong Un supposedly had executed back in November of last year because he didn’t like his latest airport design. In fact, he’s alive and well and, according to KCNA, wandering round Rason in KJU’s entourage.
This is the latest in a long line of miraculous North Korean resurrections, and the reasons for the phenomenon are various.
a) The reports are based on sketchy rumours coming out of North Korea, and thus not super-reliable. Another story had Ma dying of a heart attack upon being summoned to visit the dear leader. Other tales merely suggested that he had been purged. Which leads us to a second point:
b) A lot of people – even within the media and among Asia specialists – tend to see the word “purged”, but read the word “executed”. I assume that this is a hangover from the Moscow trials. In fact, the two are not the same thing. Kim Jong Un is, in fact, unusual in that he does execute a reasonable proportion of the people he purges. Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il, by contrast, tended to use purges more as a political naughty step. After a few months in the wilderness and a self-criticism session or two, you’d generally be let back into the party. (Rumour has it that Margaret Thatcher used the post of Northern Ireland Secretary in much the same way.)
c) North Korean rumours are picked up and embellished by South Korean tabloids (this means you, Chosun Ilbo). The Western media then gets them from the Chosun Ilbo website, and reprints them as gospel truth.