As we entered the twenties--that is the 2000 and twenties, the term Fake News became a watchword both in political contests and of all places in the very media being accused of perpetuating falsehood. It's a cunning bit of manipulation--hard to disprove by definition and once the well is poisoned, human beings being what we are, lingering doubt perpetuates the damage long after the initial aspersion.
Unfortunately, what makes that particular bit of rhetorical cant viable is the fact that there is indeed a lot of news that is intentionally or otherwise misrepresented, slanted, or an outright invention, and the advent of artificial intelligence powered tools that facilitate manipulation of images, photographs, audio, and video compound and cloud matters to an unprecedented degree. We cannot trust our senses--or at least we have been told we cannot and that makes discernment quite difficult.
There are, however, litmus tests we can apply to help us wend our way through the thickets of disinformation. Perhaps you have your own, but mine begin with a question: who stands to gain from convincing me of an untruth? I was reminded of this the other evening while watching a series on television produced and paid for by the good folks in Russia that purports to tell the history of Catherine The Great. To be clear it isn't the first time her story has been told and as with any history--even one that is a mere few hundred years in our past, some details are shall we say fuzzy.
Now I am pretty sure every sharp eyed historian and everyday citizens alike might suggest that a fictionalized telling of the rise of Vladimir Putin might, just possibly be propaganda. Well I say that but I am astounded nearly every day by folks--seemingly educated, supposedly of sound mind who believe the earth is flat, we never went to the moon and the Holocaust never happened. So there is that. But putting aside those cases, spotting overt attempts to manipulate public opinion would seem relatively obvious.
In the case of the TV series Ekaterina, the motives seem transparent, a celebration of a noble, and by all accounts benign sovereign who ruled Russia for nearly 35 years and introduced many reforms in the tradition of her predecessor, Peter the Great, the much revered Emperor who brought Russia out of its self imposed darkness into the light of European enlightenment.
I have no quarrel with the production--it is well made and not nearly as flashy and overdone as it might have been in the hands of a Hollywood studio. But what got my attention early in the series was a single line of dialog--one that I doubt was given full consideration beyond its narrative purpose. To set the scene, the Prussian born Frederika--soon to become the wife of the presumptive heir to the Russian throne is quickly caught up in the first of what will become a constant series of political intrigues. She is spied on by the secret police from the moment she arrives in St Petersburg and quickly becomes educated as to the plots and counterplots of the various players, not least the reigning Empress, Ana Ivanova.
As she tries to separate fact from fiction, our heroine asks if she should believe a particular representation to which her correspondent replies: " This is Russia, everything is a lie". Now if someone had said precisely that at any point in the past 100 years of Russian history --much less during Catherine's time, I believe I can say without fear of repudiation, they would be spot on. But knowing this and proving it are two very different kettles of fish. In Russia, and in our own country, history is a feathery thing--and rarely do the books account for what likely occurred. The truth, such as it may be, may or may not come to light--unless or until those who stand to gain or lose are long gone, which brings us right back to where I began. Who stands to gain?
Comments