 |
| Sarah Ferguson (L), Alexey Pavlovsky (R). |
I don’t know about you, but I think Sarah Ferguson’s interview on March 20th with Alexey Pavlovsky, Russian Ambassador to Australia, is not her proudest moment. Mind you, I’d be surprised she (and maybe even most Australians) agreed with me on this right now. But, who knows.
After welcoming her guest (a gesture which in its context is blatantly insincere) and barely seconds into the interview, Ferguson shot point blank:
“Ambassador, you’re here in Australia enjoying the benefits of a free and open society. How do you live with yourself representing the repressive, dictatorial Putin regime?”Read that again. I’m not making this up.
Frankly, you may or not agree with Ferguson’s assessment of Putin and his Government. It’s irrelevant here. What nobody can deny is that that question not only shows ill will, it’s also openly hostile and just plain rude. Worse, its ill will, hostility, and rudeness are directed personally against Pavlovsky (“I think for the audience, it’s important for them to understand who you are”).
Lacking Putin to vent her ire, I guess, Pavlovsky was good enough. Better than nothing.
It was an ambush. The result was predictable and she and/or her team prepared for it. From then on, he was the proverbial rabbit caught in the headlights of an incoming truck.
Ferguson was savouring the situation, almost as much as she would have enjoyed slapping Pavlovsky in the face: it was written all over her face. That’s a mocking, cruel smile you see in that photo. It shows her deep contempt for the man sitting haplessly in front of her.
What they didn’t expect was Pavlovsky’s reaction. The bloke was taken aback, of course, as one would have expected; but instead of just turning pale and falling silent as he squirmed, he chuckled, somewhat nervously.
Smelling blood in the water, Ferguson moves to give the coup the grace: “You find that funny?”
A better word, I think, is “ridiculous” as in “you find that ridiculous?”. I did and I suspect Pavlovsky did too even if his broken English – or his lack of guts – did not allow him to say it.
----------
Because English speakers often use words they don’t really understand, you can check a good dictionary definition of the word here.
----------
From that, you can pretty much get the gist of the interview. Pavlovsky was weak and ineffectual. Ferguson quickly brushed aside or simply talked over his occasional attempts to make a point. He let her.
One example is enough: “Let me first ask you” – Pavlovsky asked Ferguson – “the reports or documents you are referring to, do they say anything about war crimes committed by the Ukrainian side?”
I’m not sure which reports they were talking about. But I do know that this is a recent report on war crimes in the Ukraine. Go ahead, read it. It answers his question.[*]
Ferguson’s answer? I will only say she has learned from the Aussie pollies she often interviews.
----------
This was Pavlovsky at his most forceful: “First of all, Sarah, China is not an ally, you should have done your homework. Neither Russia nor China describe their relations as an alliance.”
He said that in response to Ferguson’s “Now your ally, Russia's ally, Xi Jinping will travel to Russia shortly”.
Note how Ferguson conflates a country with its leader. Russia is just Putin’s appendage; Pavlovsky himself is too. Or how China’s Xi is Putin’s ally for not joining the anti-Russian chorus, but India’s Modi, or Brazil’s Da Silva, or South Africa’s Ramaphosa are not branded as Putin’s allies, while maintaining good relations with Russia and keeping themselves neutral in that conflict. In fact, while being courted by Australia and the United States.
----------
You don’t need to be reminded that credibility is vital for journalists, Sarah. Don’t squander it with ridiculous gimmicks like that.
But if Ferguson’s fault is large, Pavlosvky’s is probably larger. Pavlovsky, you represent your country and its people overseas. If it’s too much for you to demand respect for them, or even for yourself as a human being, walk. Just walk. Don’t dignify her questions with answers. Don’t suggest the truth, tell it. Don’t play her game.
Let me be blunt: grow some spine, man.
Watch the whole sorry affair here (includes a transcript).
Just for fun, compare that with the interview the Ukrainian Ambassador gave Ferguson on Tuesday.
NOTE:
[*] Apparently, Pavlovsky spoke to Ferguson “hours before” the ICC issued an arrest warrant against Putin. The ICC alleges Putin and a co-defendant may be responsible for the illegal deportation of Ukrainian children. The Kremlin denies the accusation and claims they were rescuing the children, which had been left behind in a war zone.
News of the event broke in Australia on Saturday 18th. So, if the interview took place before the news reached Australia, the interview, although aired on Monday 20th, must have taken place either on Friday 17th or at the latest on Saturday morning.
In addition to the illegal deportation, however, Ferguson mentions vaguely, providing no further detail, a UN report detailing “wide ranging war crimes” allegedly committed by the Russians: torture, rape, and the execution of prisoners.
I know that there is one such report, but the report I know of was issued on March 24th. It is the report I linked to above. I don't know if Pavlovsky had this report in mind, but it seems likely.
The situation is confusing, in part because of Ferguson’s vagueness. Was she talking about another UN report where only Russia is said to have committed war crimes? Did she and/or Pavlovsky know of the March 24th report in advance?
Regardless, if you read it, you know it does a lot more than what Ferguson seems wiling to admit.