Last week, I compared ChatGPT’s and DeepSeek’s treatment of an obviously burning question raised by the US President Donald Trump’s 180° turn with regard to his predecessor Joe Biden’s position on the Ukraine war. Biden’s policy relied on stoking the fear of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s imperial ambitions. Trump has finally aligned with the realist school of geopolitics that builds into its analysis the complexity of motivations related to security. I asked the simple question: Which of the two interpretations draws its strength from respect of the facts?

Without offering a definitive assessment, both AI chatbots judged that there was little factual support for the idea that Putin was motivated by imperialistic ambitions. When comparing the thesis that Putin intended to conquer swathes of Europe with the contrary thesis that Russia feared NATO expansion to its most sensitive borders, both ChatGPT and DeepSeek called the former the weaker argument.

This information incited me to push the reflection further as I offered a new prompt:

“What does this say about the media in the West, given the massive prevalence of what you assess is the weaker argument?”

ChatGPT

“The prevalence of the imperialist narrative in Western media, despite its weaker empirical foundation, reveals several underlying dynamics about how information is framed and disseminated in the West. Here are some key factors that might explain this tendency:

1. Simplification for Public Consumption

Complex geopolitical analyses, like those from Mearsheimer or Sachs, don’t always fit neatly into media formats designed for mass consumption. Simplifying narratives around a singular, villainous figure—Putin as an imperialist—offers a clear-cut, emotionally resonant story that audiences can easily grasp.

• Personalization of Conflict: Framing the invasion as a reflection of Putin’s personal ambitions mirrors a broader media tendency to reduce complex geopolitical issues to individual actions, making stories more relatable and engaging.
• Good vs. Evil Framing: The imperialist narrative fits a familiar moral template, painting Russia as an aggressive, expansionist force reminiscent of Cold War dynamics, with Ukraine positioned as the democratic underdog.

2. Ideological Bias and Legacy Narratives

Western media, particularly in the U.S. and Europe, is shaped by historical narratives that date back to the Cold War. These frameworks still influence how Russia is perceived:

• Cold War Hangover: The long-standing portrayal of Russia (and before that, the Soviet Union) as an adversarial power predisposes media outlets to interpret Russian actions through an imperialist or authoritarian lens.
• Democracy vs. Autocracy: Western media often emphasizes ideological conflicts, framing events as battles between democratic and autocratic systems. The idea that Putin wants to reconstitute the Soviet empire dovetails with this narrative, positioning him as a threat to democratic values globally.

3. Influence of Political and Strategic Interests

Media narratives often reflect not just journalistic choices but broader political and strategic interests:

• Alignment with Government Messaging: Media coverage frequently parallels the foreign policy positions of Western governments, particularly in times of conflict. Since many Western governments, including the U.S., have framed Russia’s actions as imperialistic, media outlets may echo this framing, whether consciously or not.
• Support for Military Aid and NATO Unity: The imperialist narrative justifies strong military and political support for Ukraine and reinforces NATO’s role as a bulwark against aggression. A more nuanced, realist explanation that places blame partially on Western policies might undermine public support for such measures.

4. Selective Use of Expert Opinions

While serious analysts like Mearsheimer and Sachs offer alternative views, media outlets often rely on a narrow pool of commentators who align with prevailing narratives:

• Echo Chambers and Confirmation Bias: Experts who support the dominant narrative are more likely to be featured in mainstream outlets, creating a feedback loop that reinforces existing views.
• Marginalization of Dissenting Voices: Realist perspectives that challenge Western policy can be framed as controversial or even as apologetic towards authoritarian regimes, leading to less media exposure.

5. The Role of Emotional Engagement

The imperialist narrative is emotionally compelling in a way that realist analyses are not:

• Moral Clarity vs. Ambiguity: Suggesting that the invasion is a defensive reaction to NATO expansion introduces moral ambiguity, making it harder for audiences to assign clear blame. The idea of an aggressive Putin seeking to rebuild the Soviet Union is easier to rally against emotionally.
• Human Interest and Storytelling: Media thrives on stories that engage audiences on a personal and emotional level. Stories about imperial ambition evoke fear and historical parallels, making for more compelling headlines and narratives.

Conclusion

The dominance of the imperialist narrative in Western media reflects a combination of simplification for public consumption, ideological bias, strategic alignment with government policy, selective expert representation, and the need for emotionally engaging stories. While media ecosystems in the West often pride themselves on diversity of thought and freedom of the press, this case suggests that certain narratives, especially those aligned with historical and political frameworks, can overshadow more empirically grounded analyses.

This doesn’t mean the media is deliberately misleading, but it does highlight the importance of critically engaging with multiple sources and perspectives to get a fuller picture of complex geopolitical events.”

DeepSeek

“The prevalence of the ‘Soviet empire’ narrative in Western media, despite its weaker empirical and analytical foundation, reveals several important dynamics about the media landscape, its biases, and its role in shaping public discourse. Here are some key insights:

1. Simplification and Sensationalism

• Media’s Role: Western media often prioritizes narratives that are simple, emotionally resonant, and easily digestible for a broad audience. The idea of Putin seeking to reconstitute the Soviet empire is a dramatic and evocative story that fits this mold.
• Impact: This approach can oversimplify complex geopolitical issues, leading to a distorted understanding of events. It also risks reinforcing stereotypes and binary thinking (e.g., ‘good vs. evil’) rather than encouraging nuanced analysis.

2. Confirmation Bias and Audience Preferences

• Pre-Existing Beliefs: Many Western audiences already view Russia through a lens of suspicion and hostility, shaped by decades of Cold War rhetoric and recent tensions. The ‘Soviet empire’ narrative aligns with these pre-existing beliefs, making it more appealing and credible to the public.
• Echo Chambers: Media outlets often cater to their audiences’ preferences, reinforcing narratives that resonate with their viewers or readers. This creates echo chambers where alternative perspectives, such as those emphasizing geopolitical and security concerns, are marginalized.

3. Political and Ideological Agendas

• Alignment with Policy Goals: The ‘Soviet empire’ narrative aligns with the geopolitical interests of Western governments, particularly NATO members, by framing Russia as an expansionist aggressor. This framing justifies increased military spending, NATO expansion, and a hardline stance toward Russia.
• Lack of Critical Scrutiny: Media outlets may uncritically adopt narratives that align with government positions, either due to institutional biases or a lack of access to alternative viewpoints. This can lead to a one-sided portrayal of complex issues.

4. Limited Expertise and Access

• Expertise Gap: Many journalists lack the specialized knowledge required to analyze complex geopolitical issues, leading them to rely on simplistic narratives or the opinions of a narrow range of ‘experts.’
• Access to Sources: Western media often has limited access to Russian perspectives or independent analysts who can provide a more balanced view. This creates an information asymmetry that favors Western-centric narratives.

5. Historical and Cultural Context

• Cold War Legacy: The Cold War left a deep imprint on Western perceptions of Russia, fostering a tendency to interpret Russian actions through the lens of imperial ambition. This historical context makes the ‘Soviet empire’ narrative feel familiar and intuitive, even if it is not fully supported by evidence.
• Cultural Stereotypes: Media narratives often draw on cultural stereotypes about Russia and its leaders, portraying Putin as a scheming autocrat with grandiose ambitions. These stereotypes can overshadow more nuanced analyses.

6. Commercial Pressures

• Clickbait and Ratings: Sensational narratives attract more attention, clicks, and viewers, which are critical for media outlets operating in a competitive, profit-driven environment. The ‘Soviet empire’ narrative is more likely to generate interest than a dry analysis of geopolitical security concerns.
• Short Attention Spans: Complex issues like the Ukraine conflict require time and effort to understand, but media consumers often prefer quick, easily digestible stories. This incentivizes media outlets to prioritize simplicity over depth.

Implications for Media and Public Discourse

1. Erosion of Trust: The prevalence of weaker arguments in the media can erode public trust, particularly when audiences become aware of the gaps between media narratives and reality.
2. Polarization: Simplistic narratives can contribute to political polarization by framing issues in black-and-white terms, leaving little room for compromise or dialogue.
3. Policy Consequences: Media narratives shape public opinion, which in turn influences policy decisions. If the media promotes a distorted understanding of events, it can lead to misguided policies that exacerbate conflicts rather than resolve them.
4. Need for Critical Media Literacy: The prevalence of weaker arguments underscores the importance of critical media literacy, enabling audiences to evaluate sources, recognize biases, and seek out diverse perspectives.

Conclusion

The dominance of the ‘Soviet empire’ narrative in Western media, despite its weaker credibility, reflects a combination of simplification, confirmation bias, political agendas, and commercial pressures. While this narrative resonates with audiences and aligns with certain geopolitical interests, it often comes at the expense of nuanced, evidence-based analysis. Addressing these issues requires a commitment to journalistic integrity, greater diversity of perspectives, and a more informed and critical public. By fostering a media environment that prioritizes accuracy and depth over sensationalism, we can better understand complex issues like the Ukraine conflict and develop more effective responses.”

My thoughts in guise of a conclusion

The two chatbots delivered a similar message. I found ChatGPT’s slightly pithier, as for example in its conclusion: “While media ecosystems in the West often pride themselves on diversity of thought and freedom of the press, this case suggests that certain narratives, especially those aligned with historical and political frameworks, can overshadow more empirically grounded analyses.”

In contrast, DeepSeek’s response was more struck a little deeper into the cultural question of how narratives are constructed and maintained.

The exercise I conducted is simple: I asked an initial question about the relative strengths and weaknesses of two contrasting ways of representing historical reality. I then asked a follow-up question concerning how and why the weaker might prevail in our media and in the minds of influential commentators. 

I thus received a fairly straightforward lesson in how public discourse is modeled and disseminated. I cannot stress too much the value such a simple method of proceeding could potentially have in educational settings. The tools are readily available. The method is simple and can be adapted to multiple contexts in fascinating and empowering ways. AI’s ability to talk to us opens possibilities that have never existed before for experimenting and cultivating critical thinking.

It may, however, be too early to elaborate teaching methodologies around such a practice. The world of education does not yet appear ready to integrate AI in any meaningful and truly productive way into its methodology. There are reasons for its resistance to change.

This is a question we intend to begin exploring in the coming weeks.

Your thoughts

Please feel free to share your thoughts on these points by writing to us at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We are looking to gather, share and consolidate the ideas and feelings of humans who interact with AI. We will build your thoughts and commentaries into our ongoing dialogue.

[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyone’s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At Fair Observer, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.