A public dispute over “the stench of propaganda” at The Financial Times

My essay of yesterday devoted to vile anti-Russian propaganda in the The Financial Times was reposted on a Washington, D.C  based Listserve which has an eminent subscriber population with expertise in foreign affairs. There it elicited a vigorous public push-back by an FT journalist who was formerly their Washington bureau chief, Edward Luce.

Just a reminder, I was critiquing the FT’s coverage of the anti-Semitic riot at Makhachkala airport in Dagestan.

I quote Luce’s lightly veiled attempt to trash me and my essay:

My apologies, but your note is an unhinged diatribe that badly misrepresents what was written by my very highly regarded colleagues.  If you seriously believe Putin's rote citing of "external interference", then I will need to find a stronger word than gullible. 

Sorry but I can't let this kind of character assassination go unremarked. 

I will not upset the relative calm at the Listserv by returning fire there when I can get a far wider audience in the United States and in the world at large on these pages. Here is what I have written to friends:

 I take satisfaction in having finally gotten through their lofty indifference and wounded the professional pride of these propagandists.   Diatribe?  Possibly yes.  But certainly not "unhinged."  No, there was no misrepresentation in what I said about Seddon's article. And I did not take Putin's "rote" charges as my cue.  I based myself on the video interview with Ponomaryov which laid the whole plot bare.  Without any doubt, Seddon also had access to that interview but declined to mention it.

 I have been following Seddon's falsehoods written from Riga for some time, but my letters to the editor to complain never elicited an answer.  This time they winced.

Allow me to be perfectly clear.   My essay was personal, directed at the authors of “What anti-Semitic attacks in Dagestan say about Vladimir Putin’s Russia” for their prevarication, distortions and omission of the single most important bit of information bearing on the case, namely the video of Ilya Ponomaryev being interviewed in Kiev and claiming ‘credit’ for organizing the riot.  The personal dimension is a necessary condition of a “diatribe.” However, I held back a further relevant negative personal side to Mr. Seddon which I now share with readers: I believe he is not competent to hold the position he occupies as a lead member of the FT’s Russia team. I suspect that he lacks the language skills in Russian necessary to do the job. That is surely why nearly every article credited to him has a second author whose surname tells you that he/more often she is his seeing-eye dog. People with Russian surnames employed by Western media are by nad large Russia-haters.

I am today a subscriber to the FT and I justify the expense because they often do have reports on business related matters that you will not find elsewhere in mainstream. I also take pleasure in their Weekend edition and especially in the ‘Lunch with the FT’ feature articles. As for my professional interest in Russia matters, I must say that there are often surprises because some of their reporters are evidently not personally in agreement with the viciously anti-Russian, pro-Washington line of the editorial board and manage to insert somewhere in the middle of their articles valuable insights that contradict the titles of the articles assigned by the editors. In this respect, out of ignorance or whatever, even Mr. Seddon’s contributions are sometimes fair-minded. The very zig-zag in his interpretations of Russian events attests to his being out of his depth.

It was not always that way at The Financial Times. When I was living and working in Russia for eight years beginning in 1994, the copy of the FT that was on my desk each morning courtesy of our company  subscription was essential reading if I was to be prepared for lunchtime chitchat with other executives or diplomats. We were all globalists back then and the FT was then as it is today the standard-bearer of the NeoLiberal world order. But back then the FT had a very strong team of journalists on the ground in Moscow, possessing the language skills and personal interest in the country and its culture that is now totally lacking.

Curiously one of the most capable journalists on their team in the 1990s was Chrystia Freeland, for whom this must have been one of her first professional assignments. Yes, I am speaking about the same Freeland who is today deputy prime minister of the authoritarian, pro-Zelensky government in Canada. Back then very few people knew or cared about her family’s scandalous participation in the Nazi collaborationist wing of Ukrainian nationalism during WWII.  In this sense alone can I give credit to Mr. Seddon for being today a clueless collaborator in the ‘cancel Russia’ claque of his newspaper. If he holds onto his job long enough, maybe the FT will move him to another subject area where he can cause less harm to international relations, as was done with John Thornhill, an FT journalist who learned his craft in Russia in the 1990s and now writes about technology.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2023