by Yannic Bellino
It is a familiar phenomenon: Something – a crisis, a catastrophe, a war – surfaces in the news and then for days, weeks, months on end it seems to be the only “hot” topic there is. It is all over all sorts of media. But then something else happens – a crisis, a catastrophe, a war – and all of a sudden the previous hot topic turns “cold”.
In the last months, we could definitely observe that: Syria, Ukraine, Greece, the Mediterranean Sea, the EU’s Eastern borders, Syria again. A rapid succession of places and the topics connected to them turning hot to the detriment of the previously hottest topic. I want to focus on Ukraine and how it has receded into the background in the face of the Syrian war and the refugee crisis.
Why has mainstream media attention shifted away from Ukraine?
I believe that there are at least two plausible narratives for Ukraine turning cold in the eyes of the media. One is connected to information as a marketed good and media outlets catering to consumer preferences, the other is rooted in geopolitical strategy, security concerns and Putin’s media-savviness.
Let’s start with the information market. Firstly, it is important to realize that media do not precisely depict reality and events, but rather filter it and shape meaning. Secondly, different media outlets compete with one another for consumers. From these two assumptions it makes sense to assume that media will depict reality and shape meanings in a way that appeals to a number of consumers as big as possible in order to maximize profits. So, what do consumers demand? What do we as society value when engaging with media? We do not want to be bored.
The relatively quick succession of dramatic events certainly is a good recipe against boredom. Media outlets know that. So they present this picture of reality. The catastrophe that is currently ‘en vogue’ is the refugee crisis. To some extent, we also hear more again about the war in Syria, mainly due to its connection with the crisis. Does that mean that the Greek crisis is solved? Certainly not. Does that mean things are back to normal in Ukraine? No. But in our fast paced world these topics are old and boring. Nobody – or hardly anybody – has the nerve to constantly hear about one and the same protracted problem for which no feasible solution seems to be nearing.
Another explanation is offered by geopolitics. This narrative departs from the vantage point of the media taking on a more noble role, namely that of a less self-interested messenger. Geopolitical considerations have shifted world leaders’ attention elsewhere – not least to Putin’s clever instrumentalization of the fight against ISIS – and, hence, media attention has also shifted.
A political director at Ukraine’s foreign ministry is quoted in a recent Politico article, claiming that “Russia tries to influence and bind countries to Russia by spreading instability all around: creating frozen conflicts — Transnistria Abkhazia, Donbas — as a way to stop those countries developing on their own”. This would mean that fading media interest in the Ukraine crisis is perfectly in line with Putin’s geopolitical goals. More evidence to this end is offered by the fact that at his UN General Assembly speech earlier this week, Putin chose to focus on everything but Ukraine. He thereby managed to deflect the attempt of multiple speakers, most notably Petro Poroshenko, to put Ukraine at the top of the agenda again.
Instead, he put emphasis on Syria and the fight against ISIS. He has a significant geopolitical interest in stabilizing the Assad regime, his ally. The interests are military and economic (Russian oil and gas companies are active in the region). Moreover, Russian Muslims joining ISIS and then returning at a later point pose an internal security threat, especially in the Caucasus where the situation is already uneasy.
From a geopolitical point of view Ukraine is not a priority for Russia anymore and Putin manages quite well to focus international attention elsewhere. The West – despite the different rhetoric – has for a while now de facto tolerated the annexation of Crimea and Russian military involvement in Eastern Ukraine. Putin knows how to play the geopolitical game. He goes back and forth just enough to keep the international community in a state of relative inertia. He is ruthless. He is charismatic. He is clever. He is good with the media. He is definitely not boring. People like that. So, his voice will be heard.
You be the judge on which narrative is more plausible. I myself believe that – as so often with complex issues – the truth lies somewhere in the middle. In any case, the fact remains that the Ukrainian crisis is not solved (except for Putin maybe, if he indeed seeks a frozen conflict).
The media and – not least – the people need to overcome the one-issue-at-a-time approach. A focus on one hot topic does not do justice to globalized, complexly interdependent world politics.
There are talks held today in Paris between Putin, Poroshenko, Merkel & Co. Did you know that? It is doubtful whether much will be achieved. Putin knows he has to offer his pinky finger every once in a while in order to appease the international community. Yet, expansion remains expansion, annexation remains annexation, and violence remains violence.
The UNHCR is worried about the situation in Ukraine. In 2014, they counted over 800 000 internally displaced persons. Last week their staff was expelled from the Lugansk region. If the conflict flares up again more strongly, with all its adverse effects on the (Eastern) Ukrainian population, mass migration to the EU could follow. Maybe mainstream media will pay more attention to Ukraine again then … if refugees are still a hot topic that is.
In any case, I believe it to be dangerous to slowly but surely accept the new status quo. Anders Fogh Rassmussen and Barack Obama have in recent days warned that accepting Russia’s expansion will erode the (supposedly) established respect for sovereignty in the post-world-war era. But maybe that is just too boring.
Picture by Sasha Maksymenko, taken from flickr
In my opinion the second explanation is a bit too simple. There are always different interests colliding, in this case Western and Russian interests. I think Western media does not let itself be influenced by Russian propaganda techniques that easy. Especially the Ukrainian war is a fight between the West and Russia on the back of the Ukrainian people, caused by geopolitical interests of both sides! Maybe the West wanted to pull Ukrainia into the EU and thought it is easier because they understated Russian interests and influence in this region. Therefore it does not report too much about this topic anymore because an open war against Russia fought in Europe would be just too stupid. So it is not necessary to mobilise the Western population anymore by reporting in a special way about this topic in order to make people here accepting sending soldiers into this region. Maybe Russia just wanted to prevent Ukrania to move to the EU by itself without any influence exerted by the West because the geopolitical and economic meaning this country is just too big for Russia. The Russian economy is not in good shape at the moment because of the low prices of oil. We do not know, we can just make assumptions. But just looking at this topic from one side is a bit too simple for me.
Hi Timm!
Thanks for your comment!
I deliberately chose the word “narratives” for the two explanations I offer. Of course, they are simplifications of reality.
Concerning the rest of your comment, I am not quite sure I understand the point you are trying to make. I just feel like Russian unlawful expansion is now being accepted – slowly but surely – by media, the people and world leaders. And I think that this could send a dangerous precedent.
It is hard in today’s world to not lose track of the multitude of crucial “hot spots” that need to be addressed. But Ukraine is one that I simply feel we should not turn away from.
Interesting read, but imho your approach is a bit too simplistic:
one has to differentiate between headline, “hot topic”, news, coverage, report and so on – almost by definition, a certain topic can’t be “hot”, a headline, all the time. Coverage shifts from breaking news to daily updates and live reports to (background) reports to an article in the Politics section.
Mass media exploits and works with people’s short attention spans. And as you rightly pointed out, Putin is a master at handling the media just the way he wants. But the fault lies with the media, not with Putin.
Of course the crisis in Ukraine deserves the same amount of attention than the war in Syria or the current refugee crisis – but so does the still lingering conflict (war?) in Afghanistan or the unresolved atrocities commited by Boko Haram in Nigeria or….or…..what I’m trying to say here is: where do you draw the line? Which topic has to stay “hot”? All of them? How is that going to work? I fear it will be close to impossible to find a truly satisfying answer to these questions.