During the Euromaidan protests, journalists routinely described Ukraine’s prosecution and imprisonment of Yulia Tymoshenko as “politically motivated.” The phrasing always struck me as odd. If she were innocent, you’d expect journalists to call the charges “trumped-up” or “false.” And this “politically motivated” meme is still going strong.* Which raises a general question: When people dismiss charges as “politically motivated,” what do they actually mean?
As far as I can tell, the “politically motivated” label means: “Yeah, the accusations are probably true. But so what? Either (a) the laws are stupid, or (b) they’re so broad that practically everyone is guilty, or (c) practically everyone in power is just as bad or worse than the accused.”
Now notice: If true, all three of these claims are far more noteworthy than any specific set of accusations. Imagine these headlines on the front page of the Wall Street Journal:
“Ukraine Has Tons of Stupid Laws”
“Ukraine’s Draconian Laws Turn Practically Everyone into a Criminal”
“Ukraine’s Leaders Are a Pack of Crooks”
Most journalists would no doubt be horrified to see these ugly generalizations published as news. But when you casually dismiss accusations as “politically motivated,” you’re implicitly doing precisely that. The only difference: When you openly declare, “Ukraine has tons of stupid laws,” you’re expected to provide evidence and arguments. You’re expected to look for counter-evidence. And you’re expected to choose between similar yet conflicting versions of your story.
The upshot: It is the status quo that should horrify journalists, not my hypothetical. Journalists already present ugly generalizations as fact. But instead of sticking their necks out and responsibly defending these generalizations, they do so via vague innuendo and imprecise insinuation.
* According to Google’s Ngram, the “politically motivated” meme has sharply declined since its peak in 1998, but remains at historically very high levels.
READER COMMENTS
Garrett
Nov 11 2020 at 12:14pm
I think there’s an option D, where the laws exist for legitimate reasons, however a “politically motivated” party could produce “evidence” that would lead to a guilty verdict in court.
Philo
Nov 11 2020 at 12:33pm
That would fall under (c); if the accused is really innocent, practically everyone in power is no better than the accused.
Floccina
Nov 11 2020 at 12:17pm
Doesn’t it mean: Only prosecuted against people against the political opposition, ignored when anyone else does it?
Joel Pollen
Nov 11 2020 at 3:18pm
Yes, that would also fall under either option B or C that Bryan described. If everyone in the government is guilty of a crime, something is seriously wrong with government officials or with the laws themselves,
Francisco
Nov 11 2020 at 4:21pm
I always interpreted the “politically motivated” meme either as “the charges are totally bogus” or “under some overly convoluted and arbitrary interpretation of the law, the charges hold water, and there is no way that this would be prosecuted if there wasn’t some political gain to be made.” In the first case, although the person is innocent, I imagine the media avoids claiming the charges are bogus because they can’t prove it. In the second case, the law need not be stupid nor draconian. In both cases, it is implicit that there is some crookedness, but the lack of clear evidence prevents them from making this explicit.
Phil H
Nov 11 2020 at 7:43pm
“It is the status quo that should horrify journalists…”
Yes! This is all correct, Bryan, but hardly new. Chomsky, anyone?
This is a known fact about the news media: it tends to focus on the new and the ephemeral. In the process of presenting the latest information, the news media often leaves unexamined a raft of assumptions, and the devil often resides therein. Examining these problems has traditionally been the province of the left wing, and we’re awesome at it! Overcome your bias, read some Chomsky, and even if you disagree with his opinions, you can gain greater insight into how this process works.
If you can’t overcome your bias, there are probably some conservative writers who do the same, but I don’t know their names. Can anyone fill in the blanks?
Matthias
Nov 11 2020 at 9:11pm
Most countries seem to have tons of stupid laws. Saying so would hardly be news.
Fortunately, some of them are seldom applied.
Thomas Hutcheson
Nov 12 2020 at 7:42am
I take it that assumptions 1-3 are widely held and not worth re-iterating, per se, It is their instantiation that is newsworthy.
mark
Nov 12 2020 at 9:22am
Me: Got a flat in Ukraine, had shares in Ukranian company, did … long story short: Ukraine HAS TONS of stupid laws – and a huge bureaucracy that is not up to it. But producing new laws all the time. (Took me 9 months to finally sell those shares, as rules kept changing – in 2018/19. For a pittance. Bought 20 years before. )
Timoshenko broke many rules and laws, enriching herself massively. As all in her position did before and – I guess – still do or will do when the chance arises. So, yeah, pretty much “all guilty”, but prosecuted you get at a certain level only if it is seen as politically feasible. So – I have not much issue with the wording and I do not expect a book when I open a newspaper-page (or a small part of that page). I hope people got the part of “actually, she probably is guilty” in the phrase.
Journalists should write more about those that are – politically motivated – NOT prosecuted. And why they should be. – Takes more energy and guts, I guess.
Roman
Nov 13 2020 at 9:23pm
Though all (a), (b) and (c) are true, the media actually implied that the charges were bogus (signing a bad contract for a state-owned company).
You are overthinking the media. They don’t seek the truth, they don’t need a coherent story.The goal is to change public opinion by creating emotionally manipulative narrative which sound like a plausible explanation.
Greetings from Ukraine! Love your blog and videos!
Comments are closed.