Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: E questa sarebbe la libera stampa?

Riflessioni di una Russa che lavora al Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/14/AR2008081403048.html?sub=AR
A Free Press? Not This Time.
By Olga Ivanova
Friday, August 15, 2008; Page A21
I wish I could fly back to Russia. I have been in the United States
for a year, and I am studying and working here to get experience in
American journalism, known worldwide for its independence and
professionalism. But in recent days it has felt as though I am too
late, that the journalism of Watergate is well behind us and that
reporting is no longer fair and balanced.
This Story
For years I have respected American newspapers for being independent.
But no longer. Coverage of the conflict between Russia and Georgia has
been unprofessional, to say the least. I was surprised and
disappointed that the world's media immediately took the side of
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili last week.
American newspapers have run story after story about how "evil" Russia
invaded a sovereign neighboring state. Many accounts made it seem as
though the conflict was started by an aggressive Russia invading the
Georgian territory of South Ossetia. Some said that South Ossetia's
capital, Tskhinvali, was destroyed by the Russian army. Little
attention was paid to the chronology of events, the facts underlying
the conflict.
ad_icon
Last week, Georgia's president invaded South Ossetia during the night,
much as Adolf Hitler invaded Russia in 1941. Within hours, Georgian
troops destroyed Tskhinvali, a city of 100,000, and they killed more
than 2,000 civilians. Almost all of the people who died that night
were Russian citizens. They chose to become citizens of Russia years
ago, when Georgia refused to recognize South Ossetia as a non-Georgian
territory.
The truth is that, in this case, Russian aggression actually made some
sense. Russia defended its citizens.
Yet American newspapers published stories that omitted mention of the
Georgian invasion. And American media as a whole have been
disturbingly pro-Georgian. The lead photograph on the front page of
Sunday's Post showed two men -- one dead, the other crying -- amid
ruins in Gori, Georgia. Many other images could have been used.
Monday's Wall Street Journal, for example, contained several stories
about the conflict and even an op-ed by Saakashvili. Where was the
Russian response?
I understand why the Georgian government would block access to Russian
media Web sites. I understand why Russian media would present events
in a light that favors Moscow's actions. But American media are not
supposed to do the equivalent.
The much-revered American principle of a free press guarantees access
to an independent source of information. It is supposed to mean that
nobody takes a side, that journalists give readers the facts and let
them draw their own conclusions. The Georgian president quickly became
a chief newsmaker for Western media outlets, yet little could be found
to explain the Russian side.
It's hard to understand how and why the terrible situation between
Georgia and Russia has played out this way. Everything seemed too
clear for the journalists writing about the conflict: Big, evil Russia
tried to destroy small, democratic Georgia.
And the American media's willingness to choose sides provoked Russian
media outlets. Russian newspapers did not waste time reminding readers
that the true evil was the United States and that Washington was
ultimately responsible for the conflict in Ossetia and Georgia.
Beyond the slanted coverage, I am also concerned about the lack of
information on the number of civilians killed and wounded. How should
we know which accounts to trust?
Over the past week, American media have achieved one thing for sure:
They have lost prestige among a generation of young Russians who
believed that America is a country of true, uncorrupted, independent
information. Many Russian youths come to the United States for college
and then go back to Russia to help build our own democracy. Russians
believe in democracy. But I don't know whether many Russians will ever
trust American media reports again.
U.S. newspapers have lost esteem among Russian journalists as well.
These reporters have long looked to American newspapers as icons of
quality journalism. They are supposed to stand for truth and serve the
people's interests. But whose interests did newspapers serve by
publishing stories in the best traditions of the Cold War?
I think that both the Russian and Georgian governments attacked
civilians. I blame the governments for this war. But I am also
saddened by the unfair coverage of the conflict from Russian and
American media. If this is what freedom of the press looks like, then
I no longer want to believe in this freedom. I prefer to stay neutral
and independent, just like a professional journalist has to do.
The writer, a master's degree candidate at Duquesne University, is an
intern at The Post.

 Riflessioni di una Russa che lavora al Washington Post:
Sarà meglio che vada via dagli Usa, prima che a Guantanamo tolgano
i musulmani (passati di moda) e ci mettano i russi ;-)
Ciao! 

 Ciao!
adesso non esageriamo per favore... 

 adesso non esageriamo per favore...
La riconosco... è la frase detta da Saak... ai russi, subito dopo
aver iniziato la guerra in Georgia
Ciao! 

 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:48a81f8a$0$40306$4faf...@reader5.news.tin.it...

non mi risulta :-) 


Il risveglio di biancaneve.
Saluti
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://arianna.libero.it/usenet/

U.S. newspapers have lost esteem among Russian journalists as well.
*ROTFL*
Come se ve ne fosse stato bisogno, visto che il giornalismo in Russia
e' quasi tutto di regime :)
-Stefano