Why Interviewing Putin is a Dangerous Mistake: Lessons from History!

#StandWithUkraine

Liubov Velychko

As a Ukrainian investigative journalist and researcher specializing in disinformation, I have witnessed firsthand the devastating impact of propaganda on truth, justice, and human dignity.

Recent discussions about granting Vladimir Putin a platform for an interview have raised critical concerns about the role of journalism in times of conflict and authoritarian aggression.

To those considering such a move, I urge you to reflect on history and the ethical responsibilities of journalism.

The Illusion of Insight from a Dictator

Interviewing a dictator like Putin might seem like an opportunity to gain insight into his motives, policies, or worldview. Some argue that understanding “the other side” is a vital journalistic pursuit. However, history demonstrates that engaging with autocrats in such a manner often achieves the opposite. Instead of shedding light on their true intentions, these interactions frequently serve as platforms for propaganda, enabling the spread of disinformation under the guise of diplomacy.

A stark historical parallel can be found in the 1930s when some Western journalists and politicians sought dialogue with Adolf Hitler. They hoped that through conversation, they might deter his aggression or uncover the reasoning behind his actions.

However, these interactions were masterfully manipulated by the Nazi regime, which used them to project an image of legitimacy, distort reality, and garner international sympathy. The narrative of Hitler as a misunderstood leader—crafted partly through interviews—allowed his regime to gain time and resources to pursue its catastrophic agenda.

Putin’s regime operates in a similarly calculated manner. Over the years, it has weaponized information to control narratives domestically and influence perceptions abroad. Interviews with Western media are not seen as opportunities for accountability; rather, they are treated as stages for crafting a distorted reality that serves the Kremlin’s interests.

A Platform for Propaganda

Granting Putin a platform is not a neutral act. The Kremlin is adept at using even the most pointed questions as opportunities to propagate its disinformation. Consider past interviews in which Putin has denied blatant war crimes, blamed his adversaries for his own aggression, and framed Russia as a victim of Western conspiracies. In these instances, his rhetoric was not aimed at revealing the truth but at sowing doubt and confusion among global audiences.

This strategy aligns with the principles of “firehose of falsehood” propaganda—overwhelming audiences with rapid, continuous, and contradictory streams of information. By the time journalists fact-check his claims, the damage is already done: seeds of doubt have been planted, and public discourse has been skewed. Interviewing Putin risks amplifying his narrative, no matter how critically the journalist frames their questions.

Lessons from Ukraine

As someone from Ukraine, I have seen how disinformation has been weaponized to justify war. Putin’s rhetoric, both within Russia and abroad, has portrayed the invasion of Ukraine as a defensive act against “Nazis” or an effort to “liberate” a supposedly oppressed population. These lies have fueled support for a war that has caused immense suffering and loss of life.

Journalists who uncritically provide a platform for such narratives inadvertently lend them credibility. Even if they challenge his claims during the interview, the very act of granting him airtime allows his propaganda to reach new audiences. This is particularly dangerous in a world where social media algorithms amplify sensational content, often outpacing efforts to provide context or debunk misinformation.

Why Objectivity is Not Neutrality

Some might argue that refusing to interview a figure like Putin contradicts the journalistic principle of objectivity. However, it is crucial to distinguish between objectivity and neutrality. Objectivity demands a commitment to truth, accountability, and justice—not a passive platforming of all perspectives, regardless of their validity.

Just as journalists would not have legitimized Hitler’s genocide with a friendly interview, they should not grant legitimacy to Putin’s war crimes. The role of journalism is to hold power to account, not to enable its abuses. Offering a dictator a stage without rigorous accountability undermines this principle and betrays the trust of audiences seeking the truth.

The Ethical Responsibility of Journalists

The ethical dilemma of interviewing a dictator lies in the potential harm it can cause. While journalists may believe they are providing valuable insights, the consequences of amplifying disinformation and legitimizing an autocrat outweigh any perceived benefits. Responsible journalism requires recognizing when an interview serves the public interest and when it merely serves the interviewee’s agenda.

Moreover, we must consider the voices that are silenced when dictators dominate the conversation. By prioritizing an interview with Putin, media outlets divert attention from the stories of his victims—those who have suffered under his regime’s oppression, both in Russia and abroad. True journalism amplifies the voices of the oppressed, not the oppressor.

Countering Disinformation

Instead of granting platforms to authoritarian leaders, journalists can play a more constructive role by exposing their lies and revealing the human cost of their actions. Investigative reporting on war crimes, corruption, and human rights abuses can provide audiences with a clearer understanding of the realities on the ground. Collaborations with fact-checkers and disinformation researchers can further dismantle the narratives propagated by regimes like Putin’s.

In an age where disinformation spreads rapidly, journalists must also educate audiences about the tactics used by authoritarian regimes to manipulate public opinion. By empowering readers to recognize and reject propaganda, media outlets can contribute to a more informed and resilient public.

A Call for Accountability

The world cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. Just as interviews with Hitler enabled his propaganda machine, interviews with Putin risk legitimizing his regime and amplifying his disinformation. Journalism has the power to shape public discourse, and with that power comes a profound responsibility to act in the public interest.

Instead of seeking dialogue with those who distort the truth, let us focus on amplifying the stories of those fighting for justice, freedom, and human dignity. The role of journalists is not to serve as conduits for propaganda but as guardians of truth and accountability. Only by upholding this principle can we fulfill our duty to the public and contribute to a more just and truthful world.

Liubov Velychko is the Correspondent of Ukraine, MAHABAHU

05-12-2024

Mahabahu.com is an Online Magazine with collection of premium Assamese and English articles and posts with cultural base and modern thinking.  You can send your articles to editor@mahabahu.com / editor@mahabahoo.com (For Assamese article, Unicode font is necessary) Images from different sources.