Masha Gessen’s New Yorker profile picture.
By August Hagemann
On Tuesday November 6th, 2018, Miami University’s Humanities Center, along with the Havighurst Center for Russian and Post-Soviet Studies and the department of Journalism, Film, and Media hosted journalist and activist Masha Gessen. The scope of Gessen’s previous work is wide, from LGBTQ rights, to history, to contemporary politics in Russia and the United States. In her lecture on Tuesday, Gessen focused on common observations from her time spent covering both Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, and how a journalist should approach writing stories about leaders like them. Gessen argued that both Trump and Putin assert their power by using language and stories to manipulate and destroy collective perceptions of reality, and that a journalist can only engage such ideas by being constantly aware of the danger of engaging with such false pictures of reality.
The primary weapon against reality used by both leaders, according to Gessen, is lies. However, rather than crafting lies to be believed, Gessen pointed out that most often, both Trump and Putin construct lies which are easily disproved — it is the outrageousness of the lie itself which is their focus. This “is the way bullies lie”, obviously denying reality simply as proof that they can say and do whatever they want. The goal of these lies is not for people to believe them, Gessen argues, but rather to force people to engage with the false information. Gessen highlighted how both leaders also have a tendency to suddenly and inexplicably reverse their lies for the same effect — after a year of denying that there were any Russian troops in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin suddenly acknowledged his country’s presence, and while Donald Trump at first denies that the probe into Russian election interference had anything to do with the firing of James Comey, he later cited it as a primary reason. This seemingly arbitrary reversal of official narratives is another way Gessen said these two men assert their power, as they tell whatever story of events they want with impunity. Just as they can lie as they please to control perceptions of reality through language, they are able to alter perceptions by suddenly changing or stopping the lie. Even the meaning of individual words is fluid when Putin and Trump use them. Gessen commented on how both often use words to mean the opposite of what they actually do; for example, the phrase “witch hunt”, commonly used to express figures in power persecuting some marginal group, is frequently used by Donald Trump to comment on any real or imagined opposition he faces. This, Gessen noted, simply cannot be true. The most powerful man in the world cannot be a marginal figure persecuted by someone with more power. Gessen also commented on how Trump is particularly adept at co-opting opposition phrases, and making them mean nothing at all. For instance, “fake news”, which once meant exaggerated or simply false stories reported as truth, has become little more than a joke.
In addition to language itself, Gessen also pointed out how both Trump and Putin also use distinctive styles of fabrication to structure the way their narratives are perceived. Trump often offers very long, confusing answers to questions, while Putin overwhelms his listeners with facts and figures in a confident tone — but these facts and figures are often fake. Both of these styles serve to create “mushiness” and confuse anyone trying to follow along. Gessen notes that journalists, as people who make their careers by telling cohesive narratives, are particularly susceptible to this, as they will fill in the gaps in these absurd answers in order to present a story that makes sense.
Among all this mushiness and confusion, however, lies one consistent theme present which Trump and Putin both return to time and time again — the presence of some ambiguous, outside enemy, which they (the leaders) are helping the people to fight. Gessen talked about an instance early in his first term when Putin met with the mothers and widows of sailors who had died in a submarine accident off the coast of Murmansk. In his talk with these grieving women, he constantly referenced some “they” who were undermining Russian naval and military power. Donald Trump constructs similarly vague enemies, especially in his campaign pledge to “drain the swamp” and reduce corruption in the US government. Though both men are vague about who exactly this enemy is, their actions make it clear that in both cases, they are fighting against the government itself. By doing so, Gessen argued they are able to solidify their own power, as they constantly push the narrative that they are the only person in their respective governments who is truly looking out for the interests of the people, and so the destruction of the rest of the government is justified. Through lying and intentionally obscuring their true stances, both Trump and Putin are able to obscure any narrative besides the one they are writing themselves — one in which they deserve as much power as they can get.
It is not enough, however, to simply counter these tactics by insisting upon factual reporting. Gessen was clear that the intent of such lying and obfuscating is to force people to engage with the false information. According to Gessen, journalists are trapped. By ignoring the falsehoods they allow these leaders to run rampant, telling whatever stories they please, while to engage with them is to play into their hand and strengthen their narratives about vague, threatening opposition forces. The key to this dilemma, Gessen says, is for journalists to be aware of this trap. Only by writing about the trap itself can the trap be disarmed, and the tactics of Trump and Putin made obvious. When the usually invisible underpinning of their false narratives becomes visible, their constructed perceptions of reality begin to fall apart. It is not enough simply to counter the false construction of reality — a journalist who wishes to tell the truth must counter the very notions that underlie such constructions.