The Russian President identified possible traitors and even won the freedom to use the exceptional powers of martial law

Pepe Escobar, Putin and Zelenskyy

247 International correspondent Pepe Escobar believes that Russian President Vladimir Putin emerged as a big winner from the failed insurgency by the Wagner Group, a mercenary group led by Yevgeny Prigozhin, against his government. According to Pepe, Putin has exposed the poor quality of western media analysis, mobilized forces to end the war in Ukraine faster, identified potential traitors and even gained the freedom to use the extraordinary powers of martial law.

The attempted mutiny took place between Friday 23 June and Saturday 24 June and ended after negotiations. According to Escobar, the attempted insurgency was completely crushed, resulting in a victory for Putin that was significant in every respect. He stressed that this situation had once again ridiculed the Western media and highlighted the tendency of their reporting to exaggerate and sensationalize. At the same time, the Russian President managed to mobilize people to contribute to a faster and more effective end to the conflict.

Another important point Escobar highlights is Putin’s compilation of a list of traitors and agents in the fifth and sixth columns. This suggests that the incident served as an opportunity to identify and combat internal elements that threaten the country’s stability. This approach underscores Putin’s determination to protect Russian interests.

In addition, Escobar mentioned the freedom Putin was granted to exercise the powers of martial law. This suggests that the President has greater maneuvering room to take the necessary measures to counter terrorism and ensure national security.

PROCEED TO RECOMMENDATIONS

A major forest fire is raging in the municipality of Opitciwan, threatening some cottages in the area.

• Also read: Part of Senneterre was evacuated

• Also read: New evacuation for areas near Normetal

• Also read: Historic fires: Citizens of Mistissini forced to evacuate

A firefighter, along with our reporter Kevin Crane-Desmarais, tells how the fire spread.

“At 5 p.m. the fire started to break out quite violently […] We’ve had people who were watering, but those who had pickup trucks we told them to get out […] There were five of us, six of us staying to watch the chalets so they didn’t catch fire,” said Dave Pitikwi.

The impressive pictures show citizens of the 3,000-strong community panicking at the rapid spread of the flames.

VAT News

The man asks the SOPFEU teams for help, but also for better quality equipment.

“We water […] We would need help especially with equipment, pumps, but above all more powerful pumps and [tuyaux d’arrosage]’ he asks.

VAT News

The municipality of Opitciwan is 300 km north of La Tuque.

*See the pictures in the video above*

When the Paris Review asked Carlos Fuentes if it was possible to write a history of the influence of publishers on the literature of the Hispanic world, as was possible in the literature of England and the United States, the Mexican writer sarcastically replied: “Impossible. .. If you tried to edit someone’s text in Latin America, even if it was a hack, I would immediately resign and accuse you of censorship or libel.

I was reminded of those words following the death of legendary American publisher Robert Gottlieb last week. The Associated Press obituary listed some of Gottlieb’s accomplishments, including changing the title of Joseph Heller’s novel from “Catch 18” to “Catch 22” and dropping nearly 300,000 words from what was already over a million words, “The Power Broker ‘, the extraordinary Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of New York construction titan Robert Moses, making his 1,200-page tome an instant classic.

Such feats would be unimaginable in Latin America, where many authors still regard their words as sacred and their opinions as sacred, impeding a more productive collaboration between editors and authors, of which readers should be the primary beneficiaries. I know this because I’ve seen it many times in my years as Opinion Director for the New York Times en Español. And since then I’ve been convinced that resistance to editing is one of the factors that most influence the poor quality of opinions published by our media. This is all the more true in the field of opinion journalism.

Opinion journalism is still firmly anchored in the 20th century in its editorial approaches and practices. Part of the responsibility lies with the authors. The media will have to take care of the rest.

I declare. Most recently, as a Fellow at the Wilson Center and with the support of Luminate, I led research on “The State of Opinion Journalism in Latin America” to explore why gender continues to take a backseat while Latin American news journalism has experienced a great creative explosion. One of the main results was that Latin American opinion columns lack an independent editorial line with their own interests and topics. There are exceptions, but it’s a common fact among the 207 media outlets and 552 articles from 12 countries I analyzed. Opinion journalism based on impressions or speculation rather than verifiable information and data also predominates. Many opinion pieces remain tied to the signatures of authors too accustomed to publishing without prior editorial dialogue to fill in gaps or counter-arguments. Added to this is a lack of editorial vision that limits the publication of perspectives that are at odds with the editorial line of the medium.

Another worrying pattern that narrows and impoverishes spheres of opinion is that authors across Latin America are overwhelmingly male. The ratio ranges from 68% at best to 90% at worst. This raises the question of whether issues particularly relevant to women, such as domestic and sexual violence, equal pay in the workplace and reproductive rights, are adequately addressed.

All of this has historical reasons. Spheres of opinion in Latin America are reactive: they were created in male-dominated media as appendages of newsrooms to respond to political dynamics and economic shocks. Their application often ends with articles with polarizing partisan views and weakly reasoned arguments. In many countries, editorial opinion is also a sounding board for the political position of media owners.

In contrast, your own editorial vision should be the result of a conversation that guides the opinion section to explore reality through a range of issues and perspectives, and provides guidance on how to counter it.

Is it possible to abandon the emotional and anachronistic perspective cited by Fuentes and close the great gap that separates it from the most current and innovative news journalism?

To keep opinion from this mediocre drift, the media needs to think about what their approach to opinion should be and strategize it based on the thematic agendas they want to present to readers. This inevitably implies the publication of better opinion articles, that is, articles with original and fully reasoned arguments, since readers need these elements for reflection. These opinions must be supported by evidence and verifiable information and conform to current standards that guarantee the quality and accuracy of an argument. None of the above is incompatible with opinions expressing their own voice or an original, authoritarian point of view.

But none of this is accomplished without bold professional editors and knowledgeable and experienced writers working together to back opinion pieces with intelligent and provocative ideas.

American newspapers realized a few years ago that opinion journalism was losing readers because it had become conventional and predictable. He had distanced himself from his readers. Some publishers opted for vigorous renewal with good results. Something similar is happening with the Latin American opinion press: it sins for lack of imagination to satisfy the curiosity of increasingly cosmopolitan and informed readers. And that’s not just limited to the thematic approach. Many Latin American media also do not use the enormous potential that digitization offers for opinion-forming.

While each country faces unique challenges in developing strong and solid opinion groups – starting no doubt with the diversity of authors and viewpoints – it is important to renew them across the region, especially at a time when our democracies are being challenged by the Threatened are Bukele, the Maduro, the Kast and the Milei on duty.

One way to strengthen public discourse is to develop opinion journalism that is reader-centric, not the politico-economic establishment or the harassment of polarization.

In an environment intoxicated by fake news and misinformation, it is equally important to adopt editorial verification and referencing practices that enhance and strengthen the quality of articles. At the same time, opinion sections should use digital tools to improve the reader experience.

There is no perfect antidote to misinformation, toxic language, and the scourge of authoritarian populism, but providing readers with more creative, diverse, and pluralistic opinion journalism will not only help bridge the gap between two essential journalism genres, but also the Freedom of journalism to strengthen expression and independent critical thinking. To achieve this, we must also reestablish our editorial tradition and enable what Carlos Fuentes thought was unattainable. This reflection invites you to do so. It is not too late yet.

Boris Munoz (@borismunoz) is a freelance chronicler and editor. He was a member of the Nieman Foundation and the Wilson Center. He founded and ran the Spanish opinion section of The New York Times.

Subscribe to continue reading

Read without limits

The leader of the paramilitary group Wagner Evguéni Prigojine vowed on Saturday to go “to the end” to topple the Russian military command, which he accuses of bombing its men. Prosecutors, for their part, announced an investigation into “army mutiny”.

• Also read: Prigozhin’s seditious statements: the FSB calls for the arrest of the head of the Wagner group

• Also read: A Russian general addresses a grave warning to the Wagner group

• Also read: Wagner boss declares “war” on Russian Defense Ministry.

“We continue, we will go to the end,” Evguéni Prigojine said in an audio message on Telegram. “We will destroy everything that gets in our way,” he added.

He announced that his forces, previously stationed in Ukraine, had “crossed the Russian state border” and entered Rostov in the south of the country. He did not provide any evidence to support these claims and AFP could not confirm the truthfulness of these statements.

Footage is reportedly circulating of Wagner vehicles driving south on the M4 towards Rostov. The traffic corresponds to the current traffic data reports from Google. pic.twitter.com/3kAhpaawjz

—OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) June 24, 2023

In Moscow, security measures around sensitive locations have been “tightened,” according to a police officer quoted by TASS. The FSB (security forces) called on Wagner’s fighters to arrest their leader.

Russian Prosecutor General Igor Krasnov has informed President Vladimir Putin “about the initiation of criminal investigations in connection with an attempt to organize an armed mutiny,” said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov. The head of state is “continuously informed” by the security services, he added.

The Wagner boss had previously claimed that the Russian attacks had claimed “a great many victims” in the ranks of his group.

“They carried out attacks, rocket attacks, on our rear camps. “A very large number of our fighters were killed,” he said in an audio message, accusing Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu of ordering the attacks.

These allegations of “alleged” attacks by the Russian Defense Ministry on rear bases of the paramilitary group Wagner “do not correspond to reality and constitute a provocation,” the Russian Defense Ministry replied in a press release.

An influential Russian general, Sergei Surovikin, urged Wagner’s fighters to return to their barracks. “I (you) ask to stop (…) Before it’s too late, we must obey the will and order of the President-elect of Russia,” he said in a video on Telegram.

This open war reveals the deep tensions within the Russian armed forces involved in the Ukraine conflict.

“The Wagner Group leadership committee has decided that those who have military responsibility for the country must be stopped,” Wagner’s boss said in an audio message, not calling for “resistance” to his troops.

He summed it up by claiming there were “25,000” fighters and urging the Russians to “join” them.

“We are 25,000 and we will find out why there is chaos in the country (…) Our strategic reserves are the entire army and the whole country,” Evguéni Prigojine explained in an audio message, demanding “to put an end to the disorder”. .

Rival Russian factions began “devouring each other for power and money,” said Kyrylo Budanov, head of Ukraine’s military intelligence.

“We are monitoring the situation and will be discussing these developments with our allies and partners,” said Adam Hodge, spokesman for the White House National Security Council.

The Russian army is retreating in several sectors of southern and eastern Ukraine, Wagner’s chief said on Friday, contradicting the Kremlin’s claims that the counteroffensive in Kiev had failed.

“The (Russian) army retreats to the Zaporizhia and Kherson (south) regions, Ukrainian forces are pushing,” Yevgeny Prigozhin said in a video interview published on Telegram.

“The same thing is happening in Bachmout, the enemy will keep penetrating our defenses,” the businessman added, referring to an eastern town that the Russians are said to have captured but where the Ukrainians say they are making advances on the flanks have done in the last few weeks.

“There is no control, there is no military success” from Moscow, again slamming Mr. Prigoyine and reiterating that Russian soldiers are “washing themselves with their blood”, thereby claiming that they are suffering heavy casualties.

Unverifiable from an independent source, the words of Wagner’s boss contradict those of Vladimir Putin and Sergei Shoigu, according to which the Russian army “fends off” all Ukrainian attacks.

However, after the Wagner chief’s statements, the Russian Defense Ministry warned that Ukraine was preparing an attack on Bachmout’s side, “using Prigozhin’s provocation to destabilize the situation.”

In recent days, Mr Putin reiterated that the Ukrainian counter-offensive had failed and that the Kiev forces had suffered near “catastrophic” casualties.

Mr. Prigoyine called Moscow’s declarations of victory a “profound deception” and accused the General Staff of “hiding” Russian difficulties and casualties on the ground.

While many opponents and anonymous Russians are in prison for criticizing the Ukraine conflict, the Wagner boss is openly questioning the reasons for the military intervention.

“The war was necessary to promote a group of bastards,” he lashed out, also blaming “the Russian oligarchs” who “needed the war,” while he said Kiev was “ready for anything.” What agreement?