For the Love of Russia

For the love of Russia (for that matter, be it for the love of democracy), it is appalling that the seasoned men's magazine, GQ, has deliberately halted print abroad of a September-edition article by a veteran correspondant investigating ten-year-old terrorist attacks in Russia. Scott Anderson compiled a report on the various inaccuracies and questions pertaining to the decade-old Moscow terrorist attack- a very prominent and somber attack in recent Russian history- that will only see the light of day in the United States.

As NPR's Morning Edition feature explains, GQ's owner Conde Nast (who also owns Vanity Fair and publishes both magazines in the States and abroad, including in a Russian language version) decided to pull the article from the Russian GQ version due to its sensitive investigative nature. While NPR and other reports were unable to obtain interviews with GQ and/or Nast, they were able to discover that the piece was pulled through no fault of its author or his journalism standards. To the contrary, reports suggest that Anderson took great pains with the sensitive issue he was investigating and was able to find at least one insider (a former KGB agent who was involved in the Chechen terrorist investigations and later imprisoned rather unexpectedly) who was forthcoming with information. That information suggests a link between the Russian government, then led by Putin, and the atrocious terrorist attacks which were said to be from Chechen terrorists. Obviously, this rather unorthodox and contrary view of the terrorist attacks has given rise to a plethora of conspiracy theories, of which I'm not here to debate about.

It is speculated that GQ decided against publishing the article in Russia for fear of financial retribution from the Russia government if not worse. Perhaps more telling of their fear is that the American edition itself has been all but shelved (it is not featured on its cover, nor has it marketed it in a typical fashion, preferring instead to hide it between the pages). If a Western magazine is able to quietly shelve investigative material for fear of retribution (financial or otherwise) what then, may we ask, is the state of journalism in this country let alone in Russia?

While much of the blogosphere and forum talk on the article includes rants and raves about the corruptions of modern-day Russia, I suggest we look further. There have been many quick-witted types who understand what this says about the state of journalism in our country, but I have yet to see anyone suggest what this says about America's perception of Russians and how that will impact our relations with them. I am speaking of real Russians, not Putin or those in government, but everyday citizens of the Russian Federation. Do we believe that they are not worthy of reading alternative viewpoints and investigative journalism on topics that directly relate to their country let alone the world? Are we questioning their ability to decipher truth? Are we silently encouraging the dillution of the fledgling Russian democracy through a discouragement of freedom of the press out of fear, thus acknowledging the supreme power of heavy-handed politics and the recent killings of Russian journalists? We acknowledge our failures to many Russian neighbors as we hastily made amends with Stalin for victory in WWII, yet we never came to terms with Russians themselves. Unlike the Poles, the Balts or the Finns, we viewed the Russians as a contentedly dominated people played like puppets by a maniacal dictator. All of these years later, do we see them in much the same light?

While it is true that those in power (*government and otherwise) will be directly responsible for what is censored or squelched, ultimately it may be in our hands alone to provide the information. It is imperative that we recognize the age of immediate dissemination of information in which we live and the intricate democratic web in which we must play a great role. In truth, then, the failure of GQ to publish this article abroad speaks more to our willingness to accept Russia as a neo-USSR rather than keep open dialogue, debate and conversations going. In not risking ourselves (ie. GQ, media money, etc) in the circulation of investigation, we take away from Russians one fundamental avenue for democracy that might be the only thing we have to give them.