Comment by Georgi Lozanov:
From the first day of the attack on Ukraine, until Putin stubbornly claimed that he would never attack it, it became clear that the outcome of the war would be decided not only on the front, but also in the media. And this made the death of more than a million people, thrown into the military meat grinder by Putin, even more cruel in its senselessness. For which he will be brought before a tribunal voted by 23 EU countries (excluding Bulgaria, of course).
Why is there political pressure on the media
The decisive role that the media can play stems from the fact that they can not only cover events, but also participate in them, make history. Therefore, political pressure on the media (what to report and what not) burdens the professional - that is, independent - exercise of journalism with risks that elevate it to a kind of new heroics (the last "heroically fallen" from the airwaves was Maria Tsantsarova).
The battle for the media is for human rights! Information, in addition to a commodity, is also a right - the right to information, which includes the right to opinion. Journalism should inform you about everything important in society, but in such a way that you can form your own opinion. Unlike propaganda, which instills an opinion in you for the benefit of a tacit interest, misleading you to the point that it is journalism. The outcome of the war in Ukraine also depends on whether propaganda will defeat journalism. At first, such a prospect seemed out of the question, but unfortunately not four years later. How and why did it happen?
After Russia's invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, everyone knew who the aggressor was and who the victim was. The Ukrainians provoked the purely human solidarity of the entire democratic world, and the Russians - its anger because of their inhuman act. But after a while, Russian propaganda intervened, taking advantage of the fact that when something is not in front of people's eyes, you can deny even the obvious. And suddenly it turned out that Russia had the right to attack Ukraine for historical reasons - it was theirs after all. Then it even turned out that Russia did not attack it, but was defending itself from it, because otherwise it would have been attacked itself. In order to ultimately promote the version that Ukraine is only a hot front in a war that the "collective West" is waging against Russia, which was actually attacked.
Conspiracy theories and lies
In a year or two, Russian propaganda managed to come up with a conspiracy theory with which to make Russia not an aggressor, but a victim. Occam's razor, according to which the most true is the most obvious, is turned on its blunt side, and the more incredible a theory the propaganda pushes, the more it catches the intellectually unprotected part of society. This is because this part of society is not willing to rationally explain the processes, which is why it seems to them that they are driven by unknown and therefore hostile forces. And it just waits for someone, waving excitedly from the screen, to point at them, so that it can start hating them.
The second tool of propaganda is precisely hatred, which is the easiest collective emotion to incite, because it is also the most primitive, close to tribal aggressiveness (as opposed to love, which is a sublime feeling, close to faith and heaven). And Russian propaganda has also provided an object for hatred - this is the – – "collective West" and more specifically the EU, which it tirelessly blasphemes to suggest that democracy in Europe has historically ended and the time of the dictator from the Kremlin is coming. So he doesn't even need to be praised - it is enough for his propaganda to do its job. And, of course, it helps with periodic threats itself. By the way, the whole – – – – – in Ukraine is a strategy of threat to the West.
The replicated fallacy
Fear is the third "strike tool" of Russian propaganda - it intensifies it so that Putin can achieve his demands, threatening with a nuclear strike, for which the West seems to be to blame again. The blunt side of the razor leaves ever deeper scars on the minds of many.
The mastered territory of Russian propaganda is social networks (fed with conspiracy theories and through podcasts), because they have established themselves as media, although they lack the most important condition that they should have - editorial responsibility. Without it, any collective emotions can easily sweep away the facts, and arguments can be replaced by fabricated, replicated and liked opinions. So, if the propaganda has not convinced someone, let them say to themselves: since so many people think differently from me, am I the smartest not to think like them? And let them surrender to the orchestrated delusion themselves.
However, this was not enough for the communication "officers" of Russian propaganda, and they set about securing access to traditional media, because only there can they gain, in addition to an audience, authority. And Putinists, legendary as journalists, like Volgin, achieved it by making a hypocritical howl that pluralism of viewpoints is not respected, and that Russian viewpoints are not on an equal footing with Ukrainian ones. A hypocritical howl, because pluralism is an unknown word in Russia, but with it the Russian propagandists here not only "bloomed" on the screens of national televisions and on the national radio, but also pushed a symmetry between the aggressor and the aggressor in Ukraine, thereby automatically taking the side of the aggressor.
This is a pure case of "exonerating cruelty and violence", which is not only a violation of the ethical standards of journalism, but is also a violation of Art. 17, para. 2 of the Radio and Television Act and a form of verbal complicity in Putin's war crimes. But the CEM never reacted, because its previous chairwoman - Sonya Momchilova - did not notice the Russian propaganda, and after her - with the exception of rare personal gestures - a change in the regulator's position never occurred.
When propaganda defeats journalism
What does it mean for propaganda to defeat journalism - i.e. facts and arguments? It means that its supports enter the thinking of the people, from there with their vote - into the language of politicians, and with their power - into the behavior of the state. Just as it seems to have happened in our country with the victory of Rumen Radev. And before that in the USA with the victory of Donald Trump, who initially proclaimed the war criminal Putin as a partner. Something similar could happen in France if Marine Le Pen wins or in Germany if "Alternative for Germany" wins. Then Russian propaganda will be able to report that it ensured Putin's victory in the war by misleading Western countries, unaware that they are next in his "holy war" with the "satanized West", as the so-called Russian patriarch puts it.
This vicious media-political circle in the thinking of some people can only be broken if the educated and competent manage to show them what the hidden interest is that propaganda forces them to serve, turning them into tools of evil. For this reason, its spokesmen and their mentors hate intellectuals, free journalists and civil activists the most, who are not bothered by conspiracy theories and see it as their public duty to fight them. That's why the entire pro-Russian propaganda army jumped in as one to defend Karbovski from the revealing criticism that he had reached public television to pour a sack of old Russian props on the heads of Bulgarians, supposedly lamenting their fate.