What a Typical Pro-Russian Analysis of the Ukrainian Crisis Looks Like
Pro-Russian analysis of the current political and economic crisis in Ukraine influences a surprising number of U.S. analysts - or maybe it shouldn't be so surprising. While journalists writing fluff and propaganda ought not to be news to anyone who tries to cull the truth from media outlets, serious analysts should bear a little more of the weight of our scrutiny. The good ones do. But many others really don't. I was first tipped off to Russian-skewed interpretations of the events in the Maidan in Kiev when I read a recent column by Pat Buchanan. I had once thought that his analysis of current events in the political sphere was credible, whether or not I agreed with him, but his pro-Putin comments and sophomoric characterizations of the protestors in the Maidan have altered that assessment. And just today, I came across another disappointing analysis, this time from Paul Craig Roberts. Again, I don't always agree with him, but he always struck me as at least serious. However, this particular column belies that impression.
If you care to read the column (Click HERE), you'll find that Roberts takes a stance that clearly leans toward the Russian view of events. But whether you care to read through what I consider to be a weak, even fallacious, analysis, do look at the references he includes at the end of the article. Most of his sources are from "RT" - a Russian media outlet. Hmmm...could it be that these sources might slant the facts in a certain direction? How is it possible that someone of Roberts stature - a former Assistant U.S.. Treasury Secretary and one who has done a decent job uncovering the twisted machinations of the Fed and the U.S. government when it comes to their disastrous monetary and fiscal policies - bases his analysis on such obviously prejudiced sources here? Is the man on the Russian government's payroll?
(Interestingly, I had wondered the same when I read Buchanan's column, but he didn't cite his sources, so I didn't pursue the matter - although now Roberts' piece has me questioning Buchanan as well.)
What should we learn from all this? First, consider how critical it is to make a sincere effort to ascertain the truth, as best you can. I don't know what sort of effort Buchanan made to ascertain the truth, but in the case of Roberts, checking Russian sources clearly does not demonstrate any sort of sincere effort to get to the truth.
And in a more general sense, it's important that we remain vigilant when we read such analyses by always questioning what we read: Know the background of the author. When references and sources of information are presented, look at them with a critical eye and ask yourself whether the effort has been made to find some objective footing for the opinions expressed. And, of course, use your reason and common sense to assess what you've read.
The habit of doing so will serve you well in life, perhaps even more so in 2014, which may turn out to be a year where the ability to assess facts and find the truth will be one of your greatest assets.
If you care to read the column (Click HERE), you'll find that Roberts takes a stance that clearly leans toward the Russian view of events. But whether you care to read through what I consider to be a weak, even fallacious, analysis, do look at the references he includes at the end of the article. Most of his sources are from "RT" - a Russian media outlet. Hmmm...could it be that these sources might slant the facts in a certain direction? How is it possible that someone of Roberts stature - a former Assistant U.S.. Treasury Secretary and one who has done a decent job uncovering the twisted machinations of the Fed and the U.S. government when it comes to their disastrous monetary and fiscal policies - bases his analysis on such obviously prejudiced sources here? Is the man on the Russian government's payroll?
(Interestingly, I had wondered the same when I read Buchanan's column, but he didn't cite his sources, so I didn't pursue the matter - although now Roberts' piece has me questioning Buchanan as well.)
What should we learn from all this? First, consider how critical it is to make a sincere effort to ascertain the truth, as best you can. I don't know what sort of effort Buchanan made to ascertain the truth, but in the case of Roberts, checking Russian sources clearly does not demonstrate any sort of sincere effort to get to the truth.
And in a more general sense, it's important that we remain vigilant when we read such analyses by always questioning what we read: Know the background of the author. When references and sources of information are presented, look at them with a critical eye and ask yourself whether the effort has been made to find some objective footing for the opinions expressed. And, of course, use your reason and common sense to assess what you've read.
The habit of doing so will serve you well in life, perhaps even more so in 2014, which may turn out to be a year where the ability to assess facts and find the truth will be one of your greatest assets.
Comments