In times of conflict between countries, the natural subjectivity of journalism generates fury between the parties.
An erroneous note can be pointed out, by the affected party, as an instrument of manipulation of the counterparty.
In El Economista, the ambassadors of Russia and Ukraine have been given a voice; an attempt has been made to balance the information, despite the fact that the information agencies with which the international section is fed are Western.
It is evident that the existence of risk of bias is clear. One of the jobs of an editor is to read, study and get informed in a wide range of media, to break the monopoly of ideology.
To balance the biases of Western agencies, El Economista has sought out prestigious researchers who distance themselves from Western lines.
It is important to nurture pluralism in content to distance oneself from biases, no matter how much one walks and chooses ideological passages.
Despite the above, both parties have shown disagreement with what was published.
When looking at social networks, disputes are part of something that seems to be the anarchy of opinions. It’s easier to read references to the Nazis than a flashy aphorism. Social networks help to know the brains of the masses. They are scans of knowledge or, if you prefer, of irrationality.
For some, President Biden is the leader to follow. He is never wrong. His intelligence dazzles. For others, it is best to take refuge in what President Putin thinks. Russian leader and strategist.
There are no intermediate points.
From the analysis it is relatively easy to locate errors that both characters have made in recent weeks. Biden suddenly rose to the top of the demands and threats of sanctions against the Russian president. She failed to understand that Europe has different interactions with Russia than the United States.
Germany has different interests than the Americans. The same France or Italy. The United States, as a power, has China as its main rival. Among the 27 countries of the European Union there are 27 different angles on the relationship with China.
Yesterday, among the members of the G7 there were differences on the application of sanctions to Russia. Particularly with the measure that would supposedly cripple the Russian financial system, the system called SWIFT. Biden acknowledged yesterday that there was no consensus.
Another symptom was revealed yesterday by President Zelenski when he said that he had been left alone. “Who is ready to fight with us? I don’t see anyone. Who is ready to give Ukraine a guarantee of NATO membership? Everyone is afraid,” the president lamented.
The answer is simple: no European country wants to participate in a war event because it would trigger a major war.
For his part, the Russian president has also made mistakes. Ukraine cannot join NATO in the short or medium term due to the situation in the eastern part of the country. That is, in the pro-Russian region of Lugansk and Donetsk.
To rearrange the borders according to the past is to believe that time is reversible. The environment of the 21st century does not look like that of 100 years ago.
The only thing that is not a matter of discussion is putting the civilian population at risk. It never was and never will be. Despite the tragedies that have existed. Two world wars as examples.
That is why the UN and the Security Council exist. Settle differences in a civilized manner is the rationally acceptable path.
Consultant, academic, editor
He was a research professor in the Department of International Studies at ITAM, published the book Referendum Twitter and was an editor and collaborator in various newspapers such as 24 Horas, El Universal, Milenio. He has published in magazines such as Foreign Affairs, Le Monde Diplomatique, Life & Style, Chilango and Revuelta. He is currently an editor and columnist at El Economista.