
Putin’s Media Struggle to Deal with HBO’s Chernobyl - okket
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/06/04/putins-media-struggle-to-deal-with-hbos-chernobyl-a65866
======
OskarS
One thing I found really eye-opening about this show is that it really showed
both the bad side as well as the good side of Soviet culture.

It is unquestionably the case that Soviet authoritarianism and disregard for
safety is to blame for what happened. But one thing that is often forgotten,
but I think the show highlights, is how well the aftermath was handled.

Yes, Pripyat should have been evacuated earlier, and yes, they should probably
have notified the rest of the world sooner. But think of this: the Soviet
Union mobilized 500,000-750,000 people to clean up the enormous exclusion
zone. They got thousands of men to don full lead suits (that could only be
used once) to run out on a roof for 90 seconds each to throw off radioactive
rocks one at a time. They built the enormous containment structure in just a
few months, arguably the greatest feat of civil engineering in history. One of
my favorite scenes in the show is when Legasov says he immediately needs 5,000
tons of sand and boron to cover the core, and Scherbina basically just walks
off and gets it for him (along with a full fleet of helicopters to drop it).

All of this was necessary, and they did all of it, no matter the cost. This
was unquestionably a real strength of the Soviet Union. Can you imagine that
the US would have been able to respond like this? Either today or in the 80s?
I can't. With the exception of wartime mobilization, I can think of almost
nothing else that even compares. There are few (if any) societies in history
that could have done what the Soviet Union did in response to Chernobyl. In a
way, the world is lucky it happened there and not somewhere else.

~~~
egao1980
USSR in 1986 was not autharitarian as depicted in the series.

There were no inspections at gunpoint - people went to certain death to save
lives of others. Knowingly. This is Cold War's 80s, even schoolchildren knew
dangers of radiation, including symptoms of radiation sickness etc.

Evacuation started as soon as disaster recovery team got evidence of dangerous
levels of radiation, there were sanitary norms and pre-planned measures for
any kind of problem at the station.

~~~
brianwawok
So by comment history, there is a pretty good chance this is someone working
for the famed "Russian troll farms". Should we allow this kind of poster on
HN?

~~~
zaroth
I just read the comment history. Clearly a patriotic Russian, but I wouldn’t
feel comfortable making this accusation.

I find it more fascinating to presume the comments are made by someone in good
faith, who simply may be misinformed on some topics due to persistent exposure
to their State’s propaganda.

I particularly liked the comment about not needing permission to protest. No,
no, in Russia you do not need permission, but if your chosen time and place is
not _available_ the State will kindly select a suitable alternative for you!

Reminds me of some college campuses.

~~~
brianwawok
Hang around reddit enough and you see the pattern.

Comments only ever on one side of the issue. Lots of magical upvotes for any
post. Any dissenting posts gets mass reported to the mods.

------
chucksmash
I came across this yesterday but wasn't sure what to make of it.

I have no prior for themoscowtimes.com. When I googled for corroboration (as a
non-Russian speaker) all I found was blogspam citing this article.

It gives me pause because, as reported, it seems almost comically reactionary.
"We're going to make our own Chernobyl show but with CIA saboteurs because
some historians don't say it didn't happen." From the article:

> Still, an attempt will be made to put an entirely different spin on those
> events. Russia’s NTV channel has already announced that it is shooting its
> own “Chernobyl” series based on the premise that the CIA sent an agent to
> the Chernobyl zone to carry out acts of sabotage.

Can someone with access to Russian media corroborate this or provide insight?

~~~
pp19dd
While it doesn't look like anyone else interviewed Alexei Muradov, number of
reputable western publications (not blogspam) seem to have taken this source
seriously and are citing it. Washington Post did verify by way of Hollywood
Reporter that it seems to be happening.

"The series was commissioned by NTV, a top free-to-air network, owned by
Gazprom Media, the media arm of the natural gas giant Gazprom. It was
partially financed by the culture ministry, which provided 30 million rubles
($460,000). The total budget has not been made public."

That number is not something the Moscow Times reported on, so it looks like
corroboration: [https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/russia-making-own-
tv-...](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/russia-making-own-tv-series-
chernobyl-nuclear-disaster-1216383)

Additionally, this claim makes it seem they hurried to catch up - "Principal
photography was done last year in neighboring Belarus and the series is
currently in postproduction."

~~~
e40
_number of reputable western publications (not blogspam) seem to have taken
this source seriously and are citing it_

These days, I don't think that's enough of a guarantee.

~~~
topspin
Indeed. We can't tell if this is genuine because while it is sadly plausible
it might also be a troll, and we don't have a media competent enough to detect
the difference or credible enough to believe either way.

Thankfully it doesn't matter; if there really is going to be a Russian version
of Chernobyl it will be awful and everyone except the inveterate whataboutists
will point and laugh. That is a metaphysical certitude.

------
evgeniysharapov
How ironic. The main theme of the Chernobyl mini-series is that lies do not
only not make things better, they exacerbate them. Now, in order to fix PR
"fallout" there's another "lie" emanating from almost the same source -
Kremlin and surroundings. As the lessons of history teach us - this does not
work. This "blockbuster" will obviously not be seen at a level comparable to
HBO's mini-series. But even those who might see, will most likely see it for
what it is - attempt to cover-up and put up a good facade in front of a
disaster. It is almost unbelievable that Craig Mazin captured this essence -
"the nation that is scared of humiliation will humiliate itself".

I know that it's most likely a PR stunt, and there's probably not going to be
any movie made, and the money grant from the government will be gone and not
accounted for, and yet. And yet. How ironic that in attempt to whitewash the
national disaster portrayed in this mini-series, Russia is doing what has been
presented in this show as a main cause of the Chernobyl incident.

------
awrence
I loved the show but in case you missed it this was a very eye opening take
that seems genuine.

[https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-hbos-
cher...](https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-hbos-chernobyl-
got-right-and-what-it-got-terribly-wrong)

~~~
loyukfai
Just read this a few hours ago, is there any other published information for
corroboration?

From what I gather from the New Yorker piece, this mini-series is ok as long
as one takes into consideration that it's a historical drama, not documentary?

~~~
stevenwoo
There is a long series of photos and text after the final episode that
explains most of the fictionalized parts of the series and the real life
outcome for most of the major players. IMHO the New Yorker piece has the
perspective of a Soviet history expert who is extremely unhappy that their
version of what is important to be shown was not shown or not accurately
portrayed, watch Chernobyl for entertainment and a little enlightenment, but
not for 100% fidelity to history. I can give a small example of what people
complained about (spoiler like New Yorker piece). A helicopter crash in the TV
series for which one can also view the historical footage - the historical
footage is inexplicable - there's no obvious reason for it to happen but the
TV show changes it so it has visible, plausible reasons to the viewer.

~~~
homonculus1
In each case the helicopter crashes when a rotor blade strikes a heavy crane
cable.

~~~
stevenwoo
Yes, but an attempt at brevity in my post and to not spoil too much - the
history shows the copter in clear skies and strikes, to an outside observer
ignorant of all the facts, easily avoidable (crane with ) cable, where the
show introduces a smoke cloud and talks about the radiation danger and has the
comm equipment start to fail as the copter gets closer to the smoke, telling a
slightly different but more complete story than just viewing the historical
footage.

------
gdubs
I thought the show was brilliant. Nightmarish, and hard to stop thinking
about. One of my first jobs was working on presentation materials for a book
on Chernobyl. This was quite some time ago, but the photos and the story have
always stuck with me. What I didn’t really grasp until watching the show was
how strong a case could be made that (despite the common narratives) Chernobyl
was the real catalyst for the fall of the USSR. Epic, expensive, embarrassing,
disaster only a short time before the fall.

I was fine with the creative liberties the show takes. You have to. Otherwise
you should just have people read five books on the subject. But books don’t
reach as many people and television is a strong medium in its own right. A lot
of the criticism feels like “the book was better than the movie” arguments.
For the most well rounded impression of actual events, do both! Read the
books, and watch the drama.

But keep in mind that humans are driven by stories and narrative. The
“official” events are a narrative, as is the reporting, the opinion columns,
and yes, the show too.

~~~
agumonkey
I watched episode 1 out of curiosity. The first minutes tapped into my half
life nostalgia so I was happy. But then I couldn't bear the fact that this is
no novel, people did have to deal with these events for real.

~~~
a-nikolaev
Yeah right. I think, it also has an atmosphere of the Alien movie. Yet, it is
a depiction of real events, and that reality is so overwhelming.. I think, I
wish they make a similar movie about people in World War II.

------
golergka
One thing that surprised me as I watched the show, is that it really didn't
have a single antagonist, or a consciously evil act by anyone depicted - the
evil that lead to the accident was always in the design of the system itself,
not in any particular person. Everyone making decisions, even the worst ones,
was working with information he had on hand, with assumptions and logic he was
taught as gospel from very young age.

It's very unusual to see a western show that would so truthfully depict a
societal story, instead of slipping to the usual level of character-driven
drama.

~~~
pennaMan
>It's very unusual to see a western show that would so truthfully depict a
societal story

You will love The Wire

~~~
golergka
I did. As first seasons of Game of Thrones. But usually the hollywood
screenwriters put too much emphasis on the characters.

------
kumarharsh
The point is well made in the article, and I feel the same would happen with
stories connected with India. Indian TV is such a clusteref __k of bad content
and lazy work that when the west would inevitably make a season on any of the
countless things which happened in India, it 'll be heads and shoulders above
anything we could ever make today. And then the same "Oh, this is not the
correct story" propoganda will be touted by people, gloriously oblivious to
the great opportunity which they wasted by making mediocre me-too drama.

Also, Chernobyl is a great show!

------
nimbius
this might be unrelated, but i drew a number of comparisons between the
kremlin and the Fukushima incident in terms of intractable bureaucracy. The
sheer number of mistakes made at Daiichi really struck me as impossible. I
guess it didnt hit home for me until the 12 mile exclusion zone was imposed
and irradiated garbage began showing up on US and Canadian coasts.

It was nowhere near as dire or blatant as Chernobyl, but some issues were
definitely things I felt like we had learned about these types of disaster by
2011.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Poor_communication_and_delays)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigations_into_the_Fukush...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigations_into_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster)

~~~
bitL
I noticed some parallels when Daiichi meltdowns were ongoing and "everything
was fine" \- I guess it's the initial shock that unthinkable has happened and
paralyzing disbelief leading to lies and cover ups. I even remember how
shocked Japanese PM looked like on TV after the first real info came out of
TEPCO, not mentioning strange movements of US army ships likely detecting
meltdown right away.

------
bArray
Regardless of the actual truth, I think it's important for people everywhere
to be skeptical and to probe their governments. I'm glad this has the Russian
people asking questions and discussing the undeniable tragedy at Chernobyl,
this is how we prevent ourselves from repeating history. I hope the people of
Russia can shake the authority's trees enough that the truth falls out.

It's also important to remember that the rest of the world is one unfortunate
incident away from nuclear disaster, you only need to look at Japan's
Fukushima [1]. There was also the plutonium rods picture near disaster [2]. We
_all_ need to learn from these lessons.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster)

[2] [https://apps.publicintegrity.org/nuclear-negligence/near-
dis...](https://apps.publicintegrity.org/nuclear-negligence/near-disaster/)

------
scottlocklin
Funny, I didn't realize there was an HBO TV show, but that article sure reads
like some stereotypical Soviet propaganda, albeit from "our" side.

------
shinkarom
Wow. The article's author has no Russian accent whatsoever. (Unless it was
translated by an English speaker). Wish I had the same command of English.
Somehow I doubt multilingual Ukranian newspapers are that much unaccented in
their English. I had no temptation to open the Russian version of the article
because the English text was not awkward to read.

~~~
cpursley
It's intended for an English speaking audience.

~~~
shinkarom
Yes, but it was certainly written by a Russian and possibly even written in
Russian and translated after the fact. Not every journalist from around here I
know can write articles in such flawless English that has no traces of a
Russian accent. It's a thing I can only envy.

~~~
cpursley
As a native English speaker who's learning Russian, I can certainly relate
(Russian is quite difficult for me).

------
pessimizer
I don't feel I understand why Putin would have anything to deal with here.
It's not like he's some huge USSR booster or hater. That Russia didn't produce
a prestige TV program about it before the west is not exactly a pressing
issue, and Russia isn't particularly known for its prestige TV exports.

All criticism or compliment about anyone Russian, dead or alive, doesn't have
to be contextualized into a salvo of a propaganda war that imperils or
emboldens Putin. Or maybe it does, for clicks.

~~~
a-nikolaev
I think, according to the official Russian government position, USA is the
enemy, and is responsible for anything bad that happens. Russian propaganda is
very unambiguous about its message: Russia is doing the right thing for the
world, our Soviet history was great, and, by the way, look, we have new uber-
weapons against possible American interventions.

The fact that HBO was able to create such a believable depiction of the Soviet
reality, shatters the simplistic propaganda message of "We are good, they are
bad". It shows that UK and US people can tell a story that hits so close to
home for every Russian person, and no official historical Russian movie of
recent time was able to do anything remotely close. People who are tired of
the propaganda message, seek the truth, and the contrast between Chernobyl and
propaganda movies is striking.

It is hard to demonize the West, if the West tells you such a realistic story
of your own past.

~~~
Muha_
You can believe that if the Russians make a film about the segregation of
blacks in America, you too will be mad and say that Americans have never been
so evil and stupid (and it will be true partly).

~~~
a-nikolaev
Do you imply that I should be also mad at the depiction of heroic Soviet
firefighters in Chernobyl? I think, to the contrary, they are like the most
brave and heroic Soviet characters I've ever seen in a western movie.

My point is that the West was able to make a more humane and relatable movie
about USSR than what all modern Russian propaganda tried and failed to do.
This series is shattering the "us vs them" mentality the Russian media tries
to instill.

~~~
Muha_
Film is fine. I say that someone else's view of your problems always not fair
in some sense. This is the reason why the film annoys many Russians. My two
uncles worked at Chernoble. One died after. The second one said us without a
doubt that he would also go to the active zone if ordered. No soldiers with
guns took part in it or ever existed. My aunt lived at Pripyat and she was
pregnant. She lived in our flat in Minsk temporary after evacuation. She's
daugther fine today because of the timely evacuation of the city. Ect..

------
johnnycab
Radiation Dose Chart.

[https://xkcd.com/radiation/](https://xkcd.com/radiation/)

------
bleh123
Personally, i found the series on HBO to have been poorly researched and even
more poorly delivered in execution.

A whole part of dealing with Russians as well as a large part of how their
policies are shaped can be understood through culture. The characteristic bent
in mannerisms that value "honor", "masculinity", less emphasis on the exact
and more on "estimates" while working through problems etc. Most people who've
dealt with the Russians will agree, that this series came across as British
propaganda, badly inserting their societal structures to communicate the
events flowing in another, completely different structure. The main character
looked like a poor Austin Powers impersonator playing a Russian.

As an example, the Female Scientist, Ulana . . i have no problem with the
producers exercising creative freedom to designate her character as the
substitute for the hundreds of other scientists who worked on the project, but
in doing so, wildly misrepresented the role of women in Russian society during
those times.

The choice of English as a language itself . . fine. What the producers can't
seem to grasp is the delivery of Russian is aggressive. You don't make
statements in tense situations with the British smooth tongue. That does not
serve the understanding of the situations during those times very well.

I could go on about the sheer lack of patriotism displayed by any of the main
characters to the point where it felt as though it was forbidden when in
reality, anyone who's lived through those times and interacted informally with
these people knows the opposite is true, but i repeat myself.

~~~
notdang
You keep repeating "Russian". It happened in USSR. Chernobyl is in Ukraine.
USSR was not only Russia, but 14 more republics that are more or less
independent countries now.

~~~
Mikeb85
Ukrainian culture and Russian culture are mostly the same (at least anywhere
east of Galicia and west of Siberia), so it's not as if his points are
suddenly moot.

This is splitting hairs, especially considering Ukraine still wasn't a country
yet.

~~~
mantas
Do you need a country to be a different culture? I guess Tibet has no
different culture than Han Chinese since they don't have their own country,
eh?

~~~
Mikeb85
Except the cultures are almost identical. Same religion, same food, same
social norms and customs, same naming conventions, the two languages are
mutually intelligible, most Ukrainians also speak Russian, hell even
genetically they're almost the same (like I said, east of Galicia and west of
Siberia).

I grew up in a Ukrainian-Canadian family, there was no animosity towards
Russians whatsoever until the Orange Revolution and the fallout from that...
They literally went to the same churches, did all the same things, it was
objectively speaking the same culture.

