A Response to Julia Ioffe's 'Bears in a Honey Trap'
29 Apr 2010
Mr. Yashin Goes to the General Prosecutor
Yesterday in Foreign Policy, Julia Ioffe published the most in-depth English-language article to-date on the hidden-camera scandals in Russia. She interviews Solidarnost’s Ilya Yashin, Nashi’s Robert Schlegel, and the center of the fiasco himself: Viktor Shenderovich.
It is a weird article.
Yashin compares infidelity and mattress-humping to defecation; Shenderovich says that his wife “reacted completely wonderfully” to the whole thing (finding the time for a joke about stealing shampoo from hotels); and Schlegel rants wildly about the normality of snorting cocaine.
Let’s have a look at just a few snippets of the piece:
The cultural difference between Shenderovich and his American counterparts is striking. Caught in embarrassing moments, American public figures prostrate themselves before the public, and before their families — in public. Russians, however, lack what they see as this deeply Puritanical impulse, so they swagger and mock, or yawn.
Indeed they yawn. “When a person who’s dedicated more than a few kilobytes denouncing others like he was some kind of general prosecutor suddenly turns up in a similarly compromising situation, and then chickens out [from self-criticism] — well, that’s understandable. It’s simple cowardice,” says Maxim Kononenko, columnist for Взгляд and one of the RuNet’s most popular bloggers.
Ioffe deploys the “Russia is not Puritanical” trope to argue that the Shenderovich tape isn’t scandalous, since Russians are unbothered by sex and even infidelity. What this seems to miss, however, is that infidelity can be quite attention-grabbing even if you aren’t particularly disturbed by the private adventures of other people’s privates. For someone like Shenderovich — or for a person like Jon Stewart, let’s say, since the media seems to be fond of this comparison (they both tell jokes about the government, right?) — cheating on your wife and then showing no remorse whatsoever is rather hypocritical, given the fact that, as Kononenko explains it, public figures like him earn their bread on Mount Moral Highground. (Jon Stewart, for example, is generally a very modest guy, frequently joking about his failures to effectively hammer certain guests, like in his infamous interview with John Yoo a few months ago.) “Lies” and “liars” are the invectives Shenderovich hurls at the Kremlin in his own LiveJournal response to the sex tape, and yet he never once acknowledges that he violated his own marriage — presumably behavior we could call “deceitful.”
I understand that he is accusing Vladimir Putin of mass murder, and Shenderovich himself is only guilty of cheating on his spouse and bizarrely humping a bed mattress, but his refusal to offer even a tiny mea culpa has most Russians “yawning” and “mocking” indeed. (Speaking of all the things Shenderovich didn’t do, here’s the one thing he did do: he closed his LiveJournal account two days after the scandal began, blaming the public backlash — a “shitstorm” of negativity.)
Moreover, Russians have always loved womanizers. It is central to the concept of muzhik, the manly salt-of-the-earth man. […]In typical muzhik fashion, Shenderovich and the two other opposition figures caught on the tape blew the whole thing off with a bravado that seemed to hold only a bit of defensiveness.
Yes, I suppose that is one way to look at it. Shenderovich’s really quite repulsive “bravado” (“for a girl with a reputation like hers, life is no longer worth living”) was probably not the thing even his critics most noted in their reactions. But there is an element of hypocrisy here, too, that Ms. Ioffe seems to miss (not surprisingly, I’d add, since the point of her article seems to be to highlight all the ways that Russia is culturally Martian to American observers). Russia’s liberals are notorious Westernizers. “You want it to be like it is in America?” Kononenko asks. “Well, then things will turn out for you like they do in America.” The liberals, many Russians have noticed, devote their careers to promoting Western values, but play the Russian exceptionalism card the moment events demand a little humility. Yawn (I know, right?).
On Monday, Yashin filed a complaint with the State Prosecutor’s office for invasion of privacy and distribution of pornography, citing Vladislav Surkov, the Kremlin’s Karl Rove, and Vasily Yakimenko, a federal official who curates all things youth-related and who was once in charge of Nashi. […] As expected, the authorities have yet to launch a real investigation, although the tenacious Yashin has gone on the offensive: With the help of some local journalists, he discovered Katya’s now empty apartment (you can rent it for $1,200 a month) and her ex-boyfriend.
Goodness gracious: he “discovered” Katya’s apartment! Can someone explain to me why this kind of detective-language is necessary? My inner novelist is telling me that this Yashin character, who “goes on the offensive” and “files complaints,” must be some kind of daring protagonist! Have a look, though, at the actual text of the complaint, and you’ll realize that 90% of it is pure nonsense. While Yashin does have the right to bring to the authorities’ attention the fact that someone appears to have impersonated police officers and solicited bribes from him, he has no standing at all to weigh in on the video-taping of Oreshkin, Fishman, Shenderovich, Limonov, or Potkin. (His blogged-about rendezvous with Katya and Nastya is, until the tape turns up, still just a rumor.) Indeed, Yashin doesn’t even highlight the crime of impersonating a cop — instead his “announcement” to the police cites criminal codes against disseminating an individual’s private information without his consent and laws against pornography. In this regard, YouTube is the guiltiest of all for allowing the bribery hidden-camera video to be watched over 100,000 times.
Yet, instead of asking the Russian government to immediately contact Google, he demands that Surkov and Yakemenko be “interrogated” and “checked,” to investigate their “possible” involvement. “Why?” you might ask. Well, Mr. Yashin doesn’t say — but he did find the time for a nice little photo op (pictured above) outside the steps of the General Prosecutor. “Russia,” we’re meant to believe, “strange land where men cheat on their wives, and the government ignores all complaints from honest citizens!” Of course, as an American, I’m sure there would be an immediate grand jury assembled, were I to write a letter to our Attorney General indicting American Government officials in the orchestration of some crime.
Incidentally, nobody but Yashin has bothered to speak to the police. Shenderovich has of course criticized the authorities for being helpless, but that’s a rather easy accusation to make, when he never filed any charges. Maybe he’s waiting for the sequel before he picks up his pen again?
Apr 29, 2010 @ 16:44:04
I too read Ioffe’s article and I too was puzzled. As you noted, it was pretty strange.
I know Russian culture is different from American culture, but there are limits to this. Russian culture, like all cultures, is a pretty complicated thing, full of all sorts of odd contradictions. Boiling it all down to the crudest “muzhik” stereotype is just silly. Yes Russian men are notoroisly sexist womanizers, and yes Russian attitudes towards marital fidelity aren’t identical to American ones. But Russian society is also, in some ways, deeply culturally conservative: Soviet prudery regarding sexuality was legendary, and given that inheretance I’d be awfully shocked if, say, an auto mechanic in Nizhny Novgorod was as totally indifferent to Shenderovich’s mattress humping as was Ilya Yashin.
Ioffe is a good writer but I’m often puzzled by her work. She clearly understands Russia (hell she probably understands it better than me) but she seems to spend 90% of her articles laying out a good fact-based description of what’s happening, and then suddenly go off in left field with a laundry list of the most banal and predictable Western criticisms of Russia.
I’ll also admit I’m a bit surprised she didn’t slap either Shenderovich or Yashin for their frat-boy (“Hah, I totally rocked that chick bro!”) attitude. Julia doesn’t seem like someone who suffers fools, and listening to a guy who doesn’t even PRETEND TO REGRET cheating on his wife wax eloquent about his own moral uprightness must have been quite a chore. Perils of being a journalist in Moscow, I suppose.
Apr 29, 2010 @ 17:37:33
Mark, absolutely agreed that Ioffe knows her shit and writes like a pro. I don’t know if she’s a victim of being a journalist in Moscow (every Westerner begins to want to rage against all things powerful in Russia, after suffering a few weeks in the Motherland), or if she’s just playing the character she’s set out to be.
The other week, she had a semi-autobiographical piece out in the Washington Post, explaining how her anti-Kremlin, anti-власть, etc. editorial line was the product of some kind of residual Russian patriotism left in her since emigrating as a child.
Is that how she actually feels? Sure, why not. Or maybe she’s smart enough to have realized that Susan Glasser at Foreign Policy and her former co-workers at the Washington Post are always in the market for Moscow-bashing journalists — doubly so when they’re authentic Russians with the kind of wicked access Ioffe obviously has (to the opposition, anyway).
Of the three of us, though, she’s the only one collecting a paycheck for all this Russia talk. So, who’s the real fool, amirite.
Apr 29, 2010 @ 17:07:28
You missed a delicious bit of irony regarding Yashin’s complaint about invasion of privacy.
In a blog post last Friday he disclosed personal information (name, picture, occupation) of Katya’s DJ “boyfriend” (Yashin at that point didn’t know that this was an “ex”). This seems to me about as clear cut invasion of privacy as any of his own beef with parties who taped him.
(The fact that the man turned out to be a an ex prompted a later apology in the blog. I’ll venture a guess that no apology would be forthcoming if Katya and the DJ were still an item.)
Apr 29, 2010 @ 17:40:33
Hell hath no fury like a Yashin scorned.
Apr 30, 2010 @ 02:38:01
I have similar love/hate frustrations with Ioffe.
I’m not totally convinced that Russians would brush off such behavior. Russian society is very conservative when it comes to sex, and their definition of “deviant sex” is rather narrow. So I’m not sure Ioffe’s “muzhik” would be all that dismissive. In fact it would only prove to the “muzhik” that Russian politicians/intelligentsia are decadent, morally corrupt creeps that they have been for three centuries.
The real reason why these scandals won’t produce any public “outcry” or effect people like Yashin, Shenderovich, et al is because, well, no average Russian knows who they are and has no reason to care because they are nobodys. There is no comparison with Clinton or Spitzer or any American politician/celebrity whose been caught in a round of pussygate. Those two guys actually have positions that mattered. Yashin, Shenderovich et al do not.
Instead of trolling the Internet or quoting the usual suspects, I wish Ioffe would have approached a few people on the street to get their thoughts. Maybe she did. I’m sure that her respondents wouldn’t have known what she’s talking about.
If an American comparison could be made, this Russian sex scandal is about as much public interest as if Ralph Nader was caught screwing the American equivalent of Katya. The only people who give two shits about these videos are Russian “oppositionists” and they Western journos who actually give them relevance (oh and scandal mongers like myself who love a good laugh).
What I think is missing from all the discussion about these videos–the comedy of them. Comedy on two fronts. 1) somebody actually thinks these people are threatening enough to set them up; 2) that the victims’ outrage is so pathetic–Yashin in particular. In my view, whoever made these videos gave Yashin a shovel to dig is own hole. He’s what like 10 feet deep right about now? Hilarious.
Apr 30, 2010 @ 04:35:12
Here a different meaning for “muzhik” is used, not “muzhik” as a peasant, but “muzhik” as a man, a player.
I think Ralph Nader is much more relevant to American politics than this specific bunch of clowns to Russian. Ioffe is not right when she compares Shenderovich to Jon Stewart; the more accurate would be parallel to Azhar Usman in the American context.
There are several outright lies (those are not honest mistakes but lies for the Western audience) in her piece: one is claim that Yeltsin’s ratings ever spiked on rumors of his infidelity. Also no one in his right mind ever said that Shenderovich was a “muzhik” (man). On the contrary, the overwhelming reaction to his tirade about “lack of enjoyment” was that the jerk is anything but “muzhik” (man).
Commenters at inosmi.ru seem to do buy into story of Ioffe’s residual patriotism:
http://www.inosmi.ru/social/20100426/159555542.html
http://forum.inosmi.ru/showthread.php?t=67790
must be her habitual lying, like her mentioning people leaving Russia in droves while conveniently failing to mention that Russia is second in the world immigration destination.
Apr 30, 2010 @ 05:59:07
Hello, all. Ioffe here. I am not sure that the piece absolves the opposition of this nonsense, as that is not what it set out to do — nor what it says. The bravado and the quotes, I think, are pretty damning and mind-boggling, and this is why I included them. In fact, agoodtreaty, you’re being rather selective in your citations. I did grill Shender on this: if you are the voice of conscience, where is your conscience? That’s in the piece because it’s key; the mattress-humping isn’t because it isn’t. I had the same reaction as you guys — that this behavior is scandalous and discrediting — which is why I did speak to Russians about this. And none of them, even the ones who know Shender cared. The ones who hate him, hated him more. The ones who loved him, loved him more. It changed no one’s mind. The point is, like you say, it’s a weird reaction.
That said, it’s easy to blame “Western journalists” and even engage in conspiracy theories that — shock, shock, horror — we would be paid for our work, but it’s also easy to sit in an American armchair and read only the things that reinforce the preconceptions you also have about Russia. The fact of the matter is, when you’re here, and talking to Russians, even Russians who are very high up, you see a lot of “anti-vlast’” because it’s not so easy to justify a lot of this stuff if you have to live it. And it’s not so easy to write convoluted apologia when you’re actually here to see it.
That said, I enjoy the criticism and learn from it as a writer and a reporter. Adomanis and agoodtreaty, you’ve given me lots to think about of late, so please keep it up. Don’t pull your punches!
May 01, 2010 @ 04:10:51
There is also a third category – those who barely knew who those guys were before and now start giggling uncontrollably every time they hear their names.
May 13, 2010 @ 09:54:32
Speaking personally, if I were Ilya Yashin or any of the others caught in so called “honey traps”, I’d send Russian intelligence a thank-you note for a a damned fine time. This type of activity is common in Russia, China, even the U.S.A at corporate and government levels. If the morality of the whole thing bothers those caught out in these situations, and if those same people feel they have to grovel for forgiveness from supporters and public they should’ve thought before diving in. So to speak.
May 13, 2010 @ 10:39:55
Society is becoming more numbed by such episodes to the point that the intent to embarrass has less of an impact.
The extended amount of coverage given to this story relative to some “hard” news stories (perhaps better put, hard news stories not involving sex acts) explains the decline in media quality.
May 13, 2010 @ 10:43:56
Journalists and bloggers can’t be blamed for the public’s tastes, for which, incidentally, there’s no accounting.
I refer you to the massive spike in visits to this blog, when I tagged a post with “Katya Gerasimova.” The people will find what they want, and then people will write more about that.
May 13, 2010 @ 11:37:09
Some journalists/mass media news outlets can be “blamed” (criticized) for sloppy coverage of the non-sex/hard news stories versus a more in depth approach to the sex theme stories getting the greater hits.
It’s perfectly understandable to have the latter stories covered in depth if it attracts greater ratings and revenue. At the same time, one would ideally hope for quality coverage of the non-sex hard news stories.
The above comments refer to mass media.
In comparison, it’s generally understood that bloggers can cover whatever interests them.