Moscovites Debates
A few weeks ago Yes Club members gathered in the “First of
September” Publishing House near Studencheskaya metro station to debate the motion:
“Can we trust journalists?” As special guests, Yes Club was delighted to host Alyona
Gromushkina, Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper English and Artyom Soloveychik
the Chief of First of September Publishing House, both of whom were able to offer useful
insights into journalism at the end of the debate. Also present were Ekaterina
Timokhina, a media analyst from the PBN company who acted as the Club’s in-house
expert and adjudicator, Lyubov Gribanova who acted as master of ceremonies, and me,
Sean Doyle, a random foreigner who sat and pretended he knew what he was
talking about (and almost got away with it).
Club members came from a diversity of backgrounds; in attendance were
students, salesmen, PR reps, writers of children’s books and more besides. In the
opening session everyone spent a bit of time getting to know each other, talking about
their interests, who they are, etc. Attendees were then divided into two groups, one
supporting the proposal that journalists were trustworthy and the other opposing it. Each
team spent some time discussing ideas and preparing an arguement with help from the
Club’s guests and adjudicators. Three people were chosen to speak on behalf of each
group. All other members of the team acted as backbenchers, presenting points of
information, and questioning opposing speakers.
Happily, the debate was anything but tame, coming in the aftermath of
Anna Politkovskaya’s assassination and on the day that Transparency International’s
Freedom of the Press world rankings was published, the motion was highly topical. Both
sides threw themselves into defending and supporting their stances with gusto. As
mentioned, the question on the table was whether or not journalists could be trusted.
Although given a relatively short amount of time to prepare, both sides came up with
nuanced and well thought out arguments (particularly impressive when one considers that
none of the contestants were speaking in their native language).
 It was good to see that even people with relatively weak levels of English
were willing and able to involve themselves in the debate, whether as a speaker or a
member of the backbenches (which were rabid in their criticism of the opposing teams).
The opposition argued that all journalism was subjective, that
newspapers and television rarely if ever present the public with pure facts, but rather a
particular journalist’s opinion, or the opinion of their employers. As such, we can’t
trust information taken from the media.
The government team asserted that journalism is by its very nature
subjective. If journalists only presented lists of facts and figures then they would have
no power to act as a medium for public debate. Writing an opinionated account of events
encourages open public discussion and this, it was argued, is journalism’s true role in
society. A number of opposition backbenchers quickly (and loudly) expressed their
disagreement with the government line, suggesting that journalists were often not free to
publish honest opinions, whether because they are pressurised by their employers, or due
to genuine fear for their safety (there are enough examples from both Russia and Western
Europe of journalists being assassinated, threatened, attacked, etc). This was deftly, if
a bit cynically, countered by the proposition’s assertion that if journalists weren’t
discussing issues frankly, then nobody would be trying to silence them, and “what is
truth anyway?”
In the end the proposition finished by stating that while of course not
all journalists are trustworthy (in the same way that not all people are trustworthy,
regardless of profession), they more often than not do their job of informing the public
of scandals, corruption and social problems that affect them. They also suggested that
people had to take responsibility for the way in which they approached news sources and
should make use of a wide range of information outlets (such as the internet and
newspapers) and not just one or two television stations.
It was a tough decision for the judges, as both sides had genuinely
spoken well and argued clearly. However, the proposition won the day, skilfully defending
a difficult motion (it’s both much easier and more fun to denigrate journalists than
acknowledge their good work) and the judges voted unanimously in their favour.
As a visitor to Moscow I found the debate highly interesting. Over the
last two months I’ve witnessed a number of Muscovites arguing in the street, but I was
yet to see Russians formally debate an issue. I was delighted to see that while Yes Club
members argued energetically, taking no prisoners, there was none of the personalised
venom or boring attempts at technical point-scoring that can be seen in debates elsewhere.
It was also heartening to see people on the backbenches taking an active part in the
event.
After the debate the “First of September” Publishing House kindly
presented Yes Club with a book by Noam Chomsky “Media Control: the Spectacular
Achievements of Propaganda Publishing.” People then filtered off in different
directions. Some went home, others went for a drink and a chat closer to the centre of
town. All seemed to have enjoyed the evening.
By Sean Doyle,
Editor Jones Lang LaSalle
Useful Links –
(Transparency International) www.transparency.org
(British-based media watchdog) www.spinwatch.org
(Reporters Without Borders) www.rsf.org
|
