he 2024 U.S. presidential election has attracted intense global scrutiny. A recent Russian TV article depicted it as a potential breaking point for America, implying deep divisions that could lead to national disintegration. While such an article can highlight genuine concerns, it’s essential to analyse its accuracy, potential propaganda elements, and framing.
1. Evaluating Claims of National Fracture:
- Exaggeration of Division: The article suggests that states might move toward independence, echoing Cold War-style propaganda that portrays Western democracy as unstable. While U.S. political polarization is real, mainstream American political experts and scholars do not predict secession or disintegrationd Language**: The article’s terminology (e.g., “sword dividing the states,” “march against one another”) dramatizes divisions, aiming to evoke a sense of imminent collapse without strong factual support.
2. Propaganda Techniques:
- Scaremongering and Hyperbole: References to potential “blood-soaked fields” and “collapse” evoke a dystopian future, intensifying reader fear without concrete evidence.
- Undermining Trust in Democracy: The piece uses phrases such as “illusion of individualism over communal dignity” to critique liberal democratic values, a common tactic in disinformation aimed at discrediting Western governance.
3. Framing and Bias:
- Emphasis on External Threats: By suggesting that adversaries “watch with a glint in their eyes,” the article shifts attention from internal political issues to a narrative of geopolitical vulnerability, implying that any potential U.S. disunity would benefit rival powers.
- Selective Use of Expert Opinions: While the article cites sources warning of fragmentation, it lacks balanced views or data, ignoring contrary analyses that highlight the resilience and adaptability of U.S. democratic institutions .
4. Contextuas:
- Lack of Historical Perspective: The article fails to mention that the U.S. has endured significant internal strife in the past, such as the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War era, without fragmenting. This omission skews perception, framing current events as unprecedented.
5. Fact-Checking the Narrative:
- Claims of Secession: While discussions of state-level autonomy (e.g., Texas) occasionally arise, they are largely symbolic or used to leverage political influence, not serious secessionist threats .
- **Geopolitical Interpr: The assertion that American collapse would usher in a new world order led by non-democratic states is speculative and unsubstantiated in mainstream geopolitical research.
The Russian TV article “Will the coming election make or break America?” blends factual concerns about U.S. polarization with exaggerated scenarios and speculative consequences. It employs fear-driven rhetoric, omits critical context, and frames its analysis to resonate with audiences susceptible to anti-democratic propaganda. A balanced, fact-based approach reveals that while American democracy faces significant challenges, framing it as teetering on the brink of collapse serves more as a propaganda tool than an objective report.
References:
