One online outlet, Meduza, even reported: "Alexey Navalny is in a coma and doctors aren't sure why."
Aren't sure why?
The fact is that doctors in Siberia medically induced the coma to protect Navalny from the effects of the poison. He didn't slip into a coma from a poisoning. It was artificially induced.
I confirmed that with the hospital in Berlin. An official there verified that "the patient is in an intensive care unit and is still in an artificial coma."
So what's the big deal whether Navalny "fell into a coma" or was put into an "artificially induced coma"? The fact is that only one is true. "Falling into a coma" vastly inflates the drama. That leads to wondering why someone is doing that. What's their agenda?
Some reports liken the Navalny poisoning to that of reputed former spy Alexander Litvinenko in 2006. It was one of the biggest news stories of the time. A prevailing theme was that Putin was behind the hit job. And that's the allegation today in the case of the Navalny poisoning.
I know quite a lot about the Litvinenko case. In 2007 the International Federation of Journalists commissioned me to investigate the related news coverage. What I found is that the basic Putin-did-it story was a hoax, a fabrication by a political enemy of Putin's.
Frankly, I don't know if Putin was involved or not. What I did learn, though, is that those who fabricated the story didn't know either. It was just a smear job. I wrote two books to document the progression of that case: The Phony Litvinenko Murder, and Litvinenko Murder Case Solved.
Now the Washington Post is likening the Navalny poisoning to that of Litvinenko's. Its August 21 headline reads, "Why Poison is the Weapon of Choice in Putin's Russia." The story explains that "a British inquiry concluded that Russian agents were behind his death, and that Putin had likely approved the hit.
The Guardian commissioned me to evaluate the official inquiry report. It became obvious to me that the "inquiry" was not the trial that many thought it to be. There were no legitimate standards of evidence. The accused had no right to confront the accusers. The judge that chaired the inquiry lacked a basic qualification for the job. In the end it all determined nothing for sure. It was just another smear job.
The Guardian published my report with the headline, "Six Reasons You Can't Take the Litvinenko Report Seriously." The newspaper itself added, "Inquiry points the finger at Vladimir Putin and the Russian state, but its findings are biased, flawed, and inconsistent."
The Navalny story is still in its beginning stage. But already it's starting to show some signs of fraudulence that are similar to the Litvinenko affair. Many of the falsehoods seem to have come from Navalny's people. The majority of media outlets covering the story seem to be either unwittingly or deliberately complicit. They could have and should have known better.
Some did. For instance. on August 20, the Independent reported, "Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny has been put in a medically induced coma after suffering from what aides described as symptoms of poisoning." They played it straight, and so did a few others.
The incendiary version is the story that went mainstream, though. The thrust appears to be toward pinning blame on Putin sans facts. I don't know whether Putin had a hand in this poisoning. My focus is just on the media coverage. Their use of fabrication and innuendo to advance the allegation against Putin lacks integrity. And that's exactly what's suspicious here.
(Article changed on August 26, 2020 at 21:28)
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
