MSM Signaling a change in the Russia-Ukraine Narrative?

Kit Knightly

Two major incidents in the last week suggest we might be about to see a change in the narrative surrounding the Russian war in Ukraine.

First we saw Piers Morgan interviewing economist and former US diplomat Prof. Jeffrey Sachs.

Sachs is noted for his eloquent and historically literate takes on the history of NATO and Russia and his persistent warning on the danger of World War III, all of which he repeated during an interview where Morgan’s essentially just let Sachs talk:

Why? The people who run Morgan’s show know exactly what Sachs was going to say – not least because he said it all in an 3 hour interview with Tucker Carlson last month – so why did they invite him on?

Guests on high profile programs like that are vetted to the max, and if they might say something the producers don’t want their audience to hear they don’t get invited on.

Taboo opinions are simply never given a platform, it is the first and most effective form of censorship.

People like Peter Hitchens have praised the interview, claiming Morgan was “reduced to goggling silence” by the facts:

But anybody who has watched 10 minutes of Morgan knows he’s never reduced to goggling silence by anything, least of all facts.

Controlling the narrative is interviewer 101. If your guest starts saying something you don’t want them to say you interrupt them, you change the subject, you redirect the conversation or you bluster and engage in ad hom attacks.

It’s a basic interview technique, one that Morgan especially is known for – Hitchens even points out “For once [Morgan] doesn’t try to shout down his interviewee.” And he’s right, he didn’t

…Why?

If a guest persists in saying things they’re not supposed to say, you simply cut their feed and claim technical difficulties.

None of that happened. So clearly the people in charge were happy to air Sachs’ views.

The second such incident happened yesterday, when Reform Party leader Nigel Farage went on the BBC and claimed NATO was partially responsible for the war in Ukraine by provoking Russia.

Naturally, every establishment tool has come out against this position, with frequent reference to appeasement and being paid in rubies and the like. But, again, why was it aired?

Agenda-shilling fake alternatives Media Lens claim it’s impossible to discuss this issue…

…but it’s been discussed on Britain’s top two tv channels twice in two days.

In 2014, during the original (real) Ukraine crisis, it was really impossible to talk about the Russian POV. Not only was nobody who shared a pro Russia POV allowed anywhere near a mainstream platform, but comment sections were moderated and censored to such an extent we literally had to start our own website just get our views published.

When the Covid “pandemic” kicked off, how many dissenting experts were ever given a mainstream platform? These were well regarded researchers and doctors, with facts at their fingertips, who couldn’t get even a second of air time.

Media Lens know this, because they took part in it.

That’s what it’s like when it’s impossible to discuss something – it’s impossible to discuss it.

So, we can conclude, at this point in time it is viewed as acceptable – even preferable – that the Russian POV gets at least some air time.

As to why, and what it could mean moving forward, you’re welcome to speculate.