I’ve been scouring the Internet for details of the proposed ‘minerals deal’ between the US and Ukraine. I simply cannot find any concrete information about what this deal contains. The closest I have got is a few quotes from the US negotiators and Trump which seem to have made their way into the media. One of the negotiators talked about an investment fund. Marco Rubio talked about a “win-win” deal. Worryingly, I came across a quote from Trump in which he says that in return for signing the deal the Ukrainians will get “weapons and the right to continue fighting”. It is difficult to piece it all together. It looks like some kind of venture capitalist deal with the US putting in some investment to develop extractive industries in Ukraine on the basis of some kind of exclusive license, in return for a percentage of the revenues, with the ‘sweetener’ that Ukraine can use their share of the revenues to buy arms from the US. If this is a way of putting the US arming of Ukraine onto a commercial basis it does not bode well for peace, given that demilitarisation of Ukraine is one of Russia’s key demands. If Kiev sees this as a way to continue the war, that would be a “win-win” for the US, who will get revenue twice, once from the percentage and again from the sale of weapons, and a “lose-lose” for Ukraine. On the other hand, if the supposed funds were to be used for reconstruction in Ukraine then that would be more positive. The prospect of riches to be made from rare earth extraction might distract Ukraine’s elites from war.
What strikes me is just how bad the media reporting on this is. I have been looking at the Guardian, Al-Jazeera, the Daily Mail and the New York Times. None of them seem to know what is in the deal. But this doesn’t stop them putting headlines on stories and writing stories. The headlines talk about the 500 billion USD (now dropped apparently) which Ukraine will ‘pay’ to the US, about Zelensky’s going to or not going to sign the deal, and so on. But details, none. I notice it because it is a really egregious example of how the media does not exist to inform. If the media’s central purpose was to inform they would write these stories completely differently. They would, for a start, admit that there is a lack of details on the plan. (Update; one recent story in the NYT vaguely mentions that they lack details but then proceeds with the story as if they didn’t). The stories would be much shorter. Gone would be the catchy headlines about 50% since they don’t actually know what 50% means in this context. This shows us how the media is just about producing headlines and stories, regardless of informational content. The editors just don’t care if there is informational content or not; we can see that clearly in this case. They are just driven, presumably, by a commercial imperative to appear to be covering the news and to fill up pages so that they can sell space to advertisers. While this is a particularly egregious example, it simply highlights the underlying dynamic of the ‘independent’ press in the West. The purpose is not about informing. It is about filling pages, presumably so they can sell the advertising space, at any cost. Editorial is driven by revenue.
Do you agree? Is the Western media largely driven by the exigencies of earning revenue from advertisers? Can you think of any other examples? Can you think of examples which show the opposite, the media prioritising editorial ‘integrity’ over revenue?