Worldwide Increasing Risk of Reporting the News
A synchronicity of articles by Mark Ames, Sean Guillory, and Tim Newman has led to our discussion today regarding the erosion of the “free press” … not just within Russia but worldwide. I doubt that either Americans or Russians will like the direction that each news media seems to be turning. The annual Reporters Without Borders report discusses the relative ranking of each nations press freedoms. Sean Guillory has a discussion on this topic today as well (and gave me the kick in the pants to complete this article that I started on Sunday.)
The Russian problems with maintaining a free and independent press and news media are well documented. I could try to reiterate those problems, but Sean explains them admirably:
Russia, which suffers from a basic lack of democracy, continues slowly but steadily dismantling the free media, with industrial groups close to President Vladimir Putin buying up nearly all independent media outlets and with passage of a law discouraging NGO activity.Each year several journalists are murdered in Russia with complete impunity. The person who ordered the July 2004 killing in Moscow of Paul Klebnikov, editor of the Russian edition of Forbes magazine, remains publicly unknown. The murder of investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya in early October 2006 is a poor omen for the coming year.
When put into context, the decline in the free press in Russia is symbolic of a global phenomenon. The index also notes that even traditionally high ranked countries like France, the United States, and Japan has seen press freedom deteriorate. Since 2002, when the ranking was created, the US has fallen from 17th to its current position of 53rd. It dropped seven ranks in the last year. RWB explains the drop in the US as a result of, “Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of “national security” to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his “war on terrorism.”
To put a really fine point on the similar issues with the American free press, we have thd recent article by gonzo (I can only imagine he would enjoy the comparison) expat writer/journalist/editor Mark Ames of eXile.ru – Where Is America’s Politkovskaya?:
The West has used poor Anna Politkovskaya’s corpse to do exactly what she fought against: whipping up national hatred, lying, and focusing on evils committed safely far away, rather than on the evils committed by your own country. The West has exploited her death with all of the crudity and cynicism of an Arab mob funeral…only at least the Arabs use their own people’s corpses to demonize an enemy that actually kills them. Whereas in this case, the West stole another country’s corpse, then paraded it at home in order to whip up hatred against the corpse’s birthplace. It would be like the Palestinians slipping into Tel Aviv, grave-robbing Rabin’s corpse after his murder, then parading it around Gaza City, ululating hate towards Israel for allowing the great peacemaker to get killed.That’s kind of how Russians reacted when they saw that the West crudely exploited Politkovskaya’s murder. The West’s crude reaction only increased Russia’s crude counter-reaction…
If you ask me, what is most significant for us in the West about Anna Politkovskaya’s death, and her courageous life (btw, a big “fuck you” to our [Russian] nationalist readers who don’t agree with this), is not so much what it says about Russia — it doesn’t say much new at all, to be honest, but instead is another chapter in an increasingly depressing story that started under Yeltsin.
Rather, what is significant about her death is this: Why doesn’t America have an Anna Politkovskaya? Why don’t we have someone as courageous as she was to tell the story of how we razed Fallujah to the ground Grozny-style? How we bombed to smithereens and ethnically cleansed a city of 300,000 people in retaliation for the deaths of four American contractors? Where is the American Anna Politkovskaya who will tell us about how we directly killed roughly 200,000 Iraqis, and indirectly are responsible for about half a million Iraq deaths since our invasion? Why isn’t there a single American willing to risk almost certain death, the way Politkovskaya did, in the pursuit of truth and humanity?
One reason why is because they risk getting killed not only by Iraqi insurgents and Al Qaeda terrorists, but also by the highly efficient American forces. (Not that this stopped Politkovskaya, but it stops America’s righteous Politkovskaya-bearers.) And even if they get the story out, it gets quashed by the mainstream press, you lose your job, and you get met by a hostile, even bloodthirsty public who doesn’t want to hear about it.
Perhaps you don’t believe that the American military might specifically target journalists. It doesn’t mesh very well with Americans self-image of our free country. Certainly, as Tim Newman of White Sun of the Desert discusses regarding the death of Terry Lloyd, some of these increased deaths in Iraq are due to reporters blatantly and foolishly putting themselves in harms way:
From what I could gather from the initial reports which came out at the time, Lloyd and his crew had disappeared into the battlefield area well ahead of coalition lines, unescorted and without telling the coalition soldiers of their plans. They came across a small convoy of Iraqi soldiers, most of whom were bearing arms, and decided in their wisdom to join them as they headed towards American lines. There is speculation as to whether the Iraqis were planning to surrender, but it seems that no white flag was raised or armaments abandoned to indicate such intentions. Nevertheless, Lloyd and his hapless crew stuck with the Iraqi column as it sped towards American lines. Unsurprisingly, the Americans believed the armed Iraqi soldiers to be attacking and opened fire, and somehow Lloyd was hit by either an American or Iraqi bullet. Lloyd was then transferred to an unmarked minibus which was being used as an ambulance, along with four Iraqi soldiers. The Americans then opened fire on the vehicle, killing Lloyd and the other passengers.Far from being a deliberate murder of a journalist on the part of the Americans, those responsible for the killing were more likely dumbstruck at the stupidity of a civilian press crew accompanying an Iraqi military convoy which was, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, carrying out an attack.
However, this circumstance doesn’t explain all 85 journalists deaths in Iraq. There have been many other cases of reporters killed or “discouraged” in Iraq, often while conducting investigations into unsavory deeds and under circumstances that beg questions. Not enough questions have been asked about some of these well-known attacks. Mark Ames again provides bloody details:
Take the case of Yasser Salihee, an Iraqi correspondent for Knight Ridder. Salihee was shot by an American sniper with a bullet to his head on June 24, 2005. At the time, he was gathering material for an investigative piece about how the US was training death squads — the very same death squads which are now responsible for the savage civil war that kicked into high gear this year.Salihee was killed; the American sniper was cleared; and Knight Ridder washed its hands, declaring “there’s no reason to think that the shooting had anything to do with his reporting work.” Imagine an analogous situation in Chechnya, the hue and cry from the Applebaums — it’d be as inversely loud as the silence over Salihee’s death. At least even the Kremlin admits Politkovskaya was killed for her reporting.
Indeed Salihee is just one of a number of journalists killed in Iraq, by far the most dangerous place in the world for journalists. And it’s not all the insurgents’ fault either. Some more marginal journalists, from Robert Fisk to Dahr Jamail, have written about how US forces in Iraq target journalists for murder. But no one wants to hear that — so these kinds of reports stay on the margins. Journalists were targeted and killed at Al Jazeera; at first, reports that the Americans targeted them were dismissed as “conspiracy theory” talk, but recently, admissions that Bush, Blair, and a former Blair minister all explored ways to bomb Al Jazeera during the war are finally raising questions. Well, not really. Should be raising questions, leading to impassioned editorials by the Post and Anne Applebaum. But they’re not, because they’re too busy demonizing Russia.
Giuliana Sgrena, the Italian journalist who was kidnapped last year in Iraq and freed by an Italian intelligence agent, was shot and wounded (the agent was killed) by US forces when she was returning to freedom. She insisted that US troops deliberately targeted her. A smear campaign in the US press — labeling her a Communist and an anti-American with Stockholm Syndrome– effectively nullified her story, but even pro-Bush Berlusconi was so incensed by the incident that he started to back away from Bush’s war.
Italian TV later discovered evidence that US forces had used an illegal WMD, white phosphorus chemicals, during its destruction of Fallujah the year before. In spite of all the evidence, including burned corpses whose clothes were still intact, eyewitnesses, and even friendly Iraqi ministers who denounced it, the American media largely ignored it. Why the fuck did Italian TV, and not American TV, break this story? Where was Anne Applebaum on the atrocities in Fallujah?
The case of Eason Jordan, CNN’s longtime superstar news chief, might explain the mainstream American media’s silence. This is what happens when you’re a mainstream American media man who dares to tell the ugly truth about Iraq. While hobnobbing with the Global Aristocracy at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January of 2005, Jordan made the mistake of telling his fellow elite what was really happening in Iraq: American forces were “out to get journalists, and some were deliberately targeting journalists.”
Within two weeks, the longtime CNN honcho was out of work. His resignation came complete with a Stalin-esque confession that’s chilling to read today:
“After 23 years at CNN,” he wrote, “I have decided to resign in an effort to prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished by the controversy over conflicting accounts of my recent remarks regarding the alarming number of journalists killed in Iraq. I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists, and I apologize to anyone who thought I said or believed otherwise.”
Yes, he was a wrecker and a Trotskyite, and he begged for forgiveness. Because the man was dead — in America, losing your job like that, after bad-mouthing America, means you’re as good as dead.
A number of journalists have had their careers destroyed for not following the Party Line: Peter Arnett, Ashleigh Banfield, to name two of the most prominent. Meanwhile, the editors at the New York Times and the Washington Post who pushed for war, who spread lies about WMDs and helped bring about the 500,000 deaths reported today (a figure that of course is being attacked and demonized by the same people who cheer an organization’s “courage” when such figures are arrived at in Chechnya), get to keep their jobs.
You can see now why we have no Politkovskaya, as badly as we need one. If you go against the “fascist” tendency in your home country, you’re targeted for death and career destruction by the government and a bloodthirsty right-wing population. Just as with Chechnya, Iraq has been made too dangerous to work in, and the American government has put a perfectly air-tight lid on information, not even allowing photographs of the coffins of dead American servicemen.
The overwhelming message is, that in a world-wide society that is becoming increasingly polarized and politicized, speaking out against your government’s or citizenry’s “official” or popular point of view is becoming more and more hazardous. Careers and lives are being lost in the free reporting of ideas and many citizens are becoming increasingly intolerant of differing points of views. Those opinions that remain free to be spoken are increasingly under large corporate or government influence, in a manner that stifles free expression. When those who have the most to lose by exposure, own the free press, the results are not likely to be good for the general population.
There is good news, of course. We have a tool for free discussion that scarcely no one could have imagined even 20 years ago – the Internet. Tied in with our increasingly wired and high-tech world, the Internet can provide free range for a multitude of ideas and rapid development of stories – with all the pluses (mobile phone photos and videos of incidents) and minuses (flash mobs) that brings.
However, there is evidence that the internet actually might increasingly polarize peoples opinions and serve as a tool of intolerance. Certainly, the biggest bigots on the planet suddenly have a weapon in the internet to smite upon ideas that they don’t appreciate or outright hate.
For comparison, we have below a compilation of journalists deaths during prior wars of the past century. Information is from Committee to Protect Journalists and Freedom Forum:
- Algeria (1993-96): 58
- Colombia (1986-present): 52
- Balkans (1991-95): 36
- Philippines (1983-87): 36
- Turkey (1984-99): 22
- Tajikistan (1992-96): 16
- Sierra Leone (1997-2000): 15
- Afghanistan (2001-04): 9
- Somalia (1993-95): 9
- Kosovo (1999-2001): 7
- First Iraq war (1991): 4
- Central American (1979-89) 89
- Argentina (1976-1983) 98
- Vietnam: (1955-1975) 66
- Korean War: 17
- World War II: 68
- World War I: 2
Online Pharmacy, Cheapest medication | Multiple domain web hosting
October 24, 2006 at 11:00 pm
Thanks for pointing to the Ames article. He’s right. I find it strange how all these Politkovskaya fans have come out of the woodwork in the West. I mean really, when did the Washington Post, NY Times, or even the Moscow Times ever publish any of her articles?
There are American Politkovskayas out there (Amy Goodman is a good example), but it is just like she was ignored in Russia, they are ignored in America.
October 25, 2006 at 1:10 am
Yes, I have pointed to that example often, when people try to say how Politkovskaya was put down by the Kremlin, etc. However right she was in bringing attention to war atrocities and abuses, and other dark topics within Russia, we shouldn’t be surprised that many (if not most) Russians were not interested in hearing that point of view. Americans generally aren’t fond of their own activist writers and journalists either. Nobody wants to be told how bad their shit stinks.
October 25, 2006 at 9:12 am
If I’m not mistaken, Mark Ames essentially wrote the same article on Anna Politkovskaya, as Nation Editor Katrina vanden Heuval. Ames has appeared at that often establishment thinking outlet.
Amy Goodman is a better journalist than the murdered Politkovskaya.
For a different perspective on Politkovskaya, there is this sincerely, well written article which appeared in Monday’s 10/23Johnson’s Russia List (I agree 100% with it):
Anna Politkovskaya and the Self-Defense of Democracy
By Jon Hellevig
The writer is a Finnish lawyer who has lived in Moscow for 15 years. He has written the book Expressions and Interpretations (www.hellevig.ru) discussing Russia’s social development from the viewpoint of philosophy and judicial philosophy. He is also the author of several books on the Russian tax and labor law.
The murder of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya has once again induced a surge of anti-Russianism in Finland. Politicians, so-called researchers and media declare that Russian leaders masterminded the murder. Many people cautiously avoid these direct expressions, while being highly critical of the Russian government. Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja falls somewhere between the two groups, whereas Markku Kivinen from the University of Helsinki affiliated Aleksanteri Institute and MP Heidi Hautala clearly belong to the latter. It is obviously not in the interests of the Russian President to have a well known journalist killed (pointing this out would not be necessary, but for the continuous smear campaign against Russia). Based on information I received from Jukka Mallinen (translator of Politkovskaya’s “Putin’s Russia” into Finnish), there were no Russian government officials behind the murder. On the other hand, there is reason to put forward an alternative motive, which is quite possible — that the murder was orchestrated by those wishing to create the kind of public opinion climate to compliment an anti-Russian agenda.
In our culture, we usually honor the memory of the deceased by saying positive things about the departed in times of sorrow. One would like to show the same respect for Politkovskaya as well. But I cannot keep quiet when I see how her memory has been turned into a weapon to hit the Russian people in a manner that hinders Russia’s development.
Some are not happy with the opportunities that have been created during Putin’s presidency.This includes the chance for many to now actively participate in a democratically run market economy. Upon the Soviet breakup, criminal elements took advantage of the weakness of a young nascent democracy by grabbing and stealing enormous possessions. Putin, courageously challenged the Mafia and oligarchs (often separated through a fine line drawn on water).
Thirsty for “revenge”, some of the non-Russian former Soviet states egg on the EU to engage Russia in a confrontational manner They overlook that Russia and the Russian people were the biggest victims of communism. Led by Yeltsin, the Russian people freed themselves from that burden and encouraged this spirit to other former prisoner-countries. Due to Russia’s large land mass encompassing troubled regions, Russia unwillingly gets drawn into dirty games. This predicament gets twisted into the claim of a revanchist Russia bullying small, defenseless others.
Given the uncritical fanfare accorded to Politkovskaya’s work as a journalist, there is reason to critically review it. A case in point is her book “Putin’s Russia”, (published in 2004) which has been translated into several languages.
In this book, she emotionally focuses on peoples’ life situations (a style used in Karl Marx’s Das Kapital, where he childishly tries to prove his theories of capital through the stories of people’s everyday lives). Politkovskaya begins and ends her book with a stated disgust of Putin (as per the English translation of the book, see the Introduction as well as pages 281 and 282). She states her dislike of Putin “because he was a product of the Russian security service” (as if George Bush Sr.’s politics should be condemned on the grounds that he headed the CIA; a prevalent talking point in some circles). According to Politkovskaya, the KGB influenced Putin “does nothing but destroy civil liberties as he has all through his career”. No mention is made of Putin’s support for the late democratic mayor of St. Petersburg, Anatoly Sobchak. At the end, Politkovskaya states she is disgusted with Putin because there is a war in Chechnya (as if he started it). She adds that in her view, he is a cold, cynical, racist, who is prone to lying (among other references in her book, see pages 281-82). Politkovskaya does not like the fact that this evil (in her view) man goes to Easter church services (pages 279 and 280).
Politkovskaya attacks Putin for being a “racist” and then like a racist claims that Silvio Berlusconi as a European has better powers of thinking than Russia’s Putin (page 279).
Politkovskaya’s likening of Putin with Stalin (page 272) shows that neither the journalist nor her prize givers and back patters have any sense of proportion. But one should remember that the purpose of this investigative journalist was to tell us about her feelings on why she abhors another person.
Politkovskaya displayed no perception that all phenomena in society are based on social practices and that only a positive historical process can promote the wellbeing of society. She does not understand that the basis of a working society was totally destroyed in the Soviet Union and that it was not until 1990 that the building of a democracy, market economy and society at large was started from the ruins of the bankrupt Soviet estate. Through glimpses of peoples’ life experiences, she brings up some of Russia’s problems, such as the undeveloped democracy, criminality, corruption, the poor condition of the army, low pensions and the state of the judicial system. In her state of disgust, Politkovskaya did not analyze what has been done about these matters during Putin’s presidency. Nor does she consider the impact of decisions taken under him. Instead, she writes of human tragedies like the suicide of an alcoholic and about a former friend of hers; a busy businesswoman who went into politics to grab more riches, etc. She tries to convince the reader that Putin is to be blamed for a tragic suicide and a woman politician’s ruthlessness (who succeeded remarkably well). Politkovskaya’s idea was that from day one of his presidency, Putin alone had to make sure that all in Russia was right. Much like if President Tarja Halonen was responsible for the unemployment in Kainuu and drunks at Hakaniemi Market Square.
In one of her brief accounts, Politkovskaya mentions an 80 year old man, who had been found frozen to a floor in Irkutsk, Siberia (page 194). The journalist says the emergency services refused to come to the rescue claiming “the man was so old he could obviously not be all right”. According to Politkovskaya – Putin should have stopped this. She seemingly suggests that it was brave of her to have said as much.
Politkovskaya writes of an impoverished former navy captain Aleksey Dikinin (page 198). His fate is attributed to Putin (with Politkovskaya having the guts to say so). She does not even think of referencing Soviet Communism as the main culprit Mind you, her chronicling of Dikinin was in the first year of Putin’s presidency (2000). Since then, there has been an enormous increase in pensions. I have personally experienced this in the Russian hinterland. At the beginning of this year, I visited a friend of mine in the native village of Azikeevo, situated in the Ural Mountains region of Bashkortostan. A road connection to Azikeevo was opened about ten years ago, at approximately the same time that gas and heating systems were installed. A couple of years ago, phone connections were completed to every cottage. Without any prompting, my friend’s 70 year old uncle repeatedly lauded how good living conditions had become. In a healthy spirit, this senior citizen regularly takes care of horses, cows and chickens. Some retired teachers in that village (a married couple) said that pensions were now so good that they could support their children’s families (there is a photo report of this trip at http://www.hellevig.ru).
Politkovskaya was far from expert on government, military and legal matters. Topics which Putin has frequently discussed in an openly candid way.
Politkovskaya’s writing on terrorist dramas sugarcoated the actions of terrorists. Through their deeds, terrorists try to hurt the society they hit. By killing innocent people, they create public discussion designed to fault the leaders of the target country (reference how terrorists sparked a change in government in Spain). This is incomprehensible logic for a sound person to comment on.
In “Putin’s Russia”, Politkovskaya blames Putin for government corruption in Ekaterinburg. There is no acknowledgement on her part that this political environment was evident BEFORE Putin became president. Putin proposed to correct this by having the political center play a more active role with the outlying regions. Instead of lauding this action (a popular one with most Russians), Politkovksaya wrongly concluded it to be anti-democratic. A stance overlooking how the political center was more democratic than the most “independent” of Russian regions. The regional governors operated under the cloak of democracy. They were chosen through “democratic” elections, as in the Soviet Union (in another connection, Politkovskaya remembered how people were elected in the Soviet Union, page 271). A colorful bunch of criminals and adventurers appointed themselves as governors under the shelter of formal electing and voting procedures. This view is acknowledged by the European Commissioner for Human Rights (see: Alvaro Gil-Robles, Report on Visits to the Russian Federation, 2004). In these conditions, anyone wanting to be governor had himself elected by using threats, bribes, blackmail and bodily harm. Putin’s proposal to strip the regional governors of their mandates made a positive impression. Democracy is now practiced in much more civilized circumstances, based on a democratic competition between the regional parliament and the president. To have the courage to rise against a powerful elite and to succeed is an unbelievably big achievement. In the West, this reality is not fully appreciated, let alone understood. Instead, Politkovskaya’s blinded disgust with Putin is uncritically accepted as the gospel.
Politkovskaya characterizes Putin as seeking “revenge” against the oligarchs. Her characterization of the Mikhail Khordorkovsky owned and operated YUKOS is flawed (pages 275, 276, 284 and 285). She erroneously claims that this business entity “operated in daylight” and “gave five percent of its profits to charity”. YUKOS flagrantly violated tax laws and other legislation through (among other things) criminal tax paradise companies (I reference a Sitra Report: Suuri Maa Pitka Kvartaali, Big Country Long Quartile, 2005).
Furthermore, Politkovskaya claims that Khodorkovsky got into trouble with Putin because he supported “the liberal opposition”. She omits the fact that Khodorkovsky supported the Communist Party. The romantic side of her activity would be lost if this point was made. She did not state the ulterior motive behind Khodorkovsky’s political activism. The “democratic” parties sold him top positions in electoral candidate lists to enable him to place his own trusted candidates. This was how he planned to carry through a takeover of the Russian Duma. But is this the kind of democracy desired by Politkovskaya, Tuomioja and Hautala? In Finland, this advocacy would be considered treason.
A number of anti-Putin analysts admit that former YUKOS CEO Mikhail Khodorkovsky had committed crimes, while rhetorically asking “but why Khodorkovsky, just Khodorkovsky”? The answer is clear: others were quicker to realize that their criminal activities in Russia were over. A society cannot be built on revenge. Putin offered an invitation for all to move forward. Russia loses if there is a large scale injustice. This does not mean that democracy has no right to self-defense. This is Putin’s Russia, and mine.
October 30, 2006 at 3:19 pm
america’s politikovskaya?? by that you mean a courageous journalist willing to risk all to report the truth, right??
i nominate john burns, jackie spinner, anna badken, jill carroll, etc—i’ve heard some fearless stuff on NPR too.
if you can’t find them you’re not looking.
October 30, 2006 at 6:09 pm
None of those reporters has written about just how brutal the Iraq War has been to the Iraqi people or the actions of our own troops.
Seems the entire point of the article was lost upon you.
Unpopular topics, however “truthful”, do not sell newspapers. Further, in this day an age, researching details in the field and speaking out in graphic manner against the Iraq war gets you fired (or worse).
October 31, 2006 at 1:19 pm
do you read the new york times???
they do an entire page almost everyday on the war’s impact on iraqis. they publish amazing photos of grief-stricken iraqis, iraqi dead, iraqi funerals. the ny times doesn’t “speak out in graphic manner against the war”?!?!
dude—what is your problem?
they do speak out, and they do sell newspapers. the la times, chicago tribune, cbs and nbc news, etc—-they also cover the war’s impact on iraqis. guess we just look for different things.
October 31, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Your idea of speaking out against the war in Iraq, apparently doesn’t include the use of illegal chemical weapons (white phosphorus cited above), razing of Fallujah (again cited above), or the killing of journalists (again – cited above).
I get the feeling you didn’t read any of the cited material or even get the point of what was written.
It doesn’t take great journalism skills to write “war is bad” – we have reporters who have started to beat that drum. But what American reporters have taken on any of the real crimes or attrocities that have occurred under the US occupation in Iraq? These topics cited above have gotten more time and research by the foreign news media, than by the American news media.
October 31, 2006 at 4:07 pm
all i did was respond to “none of those reporters has reported on how just how brutal the war has been to iraqis or the actions of our own troops”. you’ve added new arguments, which is fine, but geez, c’mon—-i can’t read your mind. and you don’t read the new york times. i believe the have a website.
October 31, 2006 at 4:17 pm
I don’t see how referring to the article that I cite above – is creating new arguments?
Again, it just gives me the feeling you didn’t read the entire article or the points it originally made.
November 4, 2006 at 4:31 pm
“peter arnett had his career destroyed for not following the pary line”:
i thought it was operation tailwind, a cnn story about a supposed massacre in vietnam. it turned out that arnett’s source, a helicopter pilot, made the whole story up. he was fired for not checking a source. his reporting from war zones made him a cnn star, but he was fired for a lie.
November 4, 2006 at 11:54 pm
Poor facts, “fact checker”
“In 1998 Arnett narrated a joint venture between CNN and Time Magazine called NewsStand, which described what he called “Operation Tailwind.” The report said that the US Army had used Sarin against a group of deserting US soldiers in Laos in 1970. In response, The Pentagon commissioned another report contradicting CNN’s. CNN subsequently retracted the story after conducting an internal investigation, and a number of the persons responsible for the report were fired or forced to resign. Arnett was reprimanded by his employer, and his contract was not renewed.”
June 4, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Michael Averko:
“At the end, Politkovskaya states she is disgusted with Putin because there is a war in Chechnya (as if he started it).”
But Putin did start the second Chechen war.
July 10, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Contrary to Sean Guillory, Anna Politkovskaya had a considerably good deal of play in American mass media.
In comparison, American mass media hasn’t been as prone to giving the same kind of propping to mainstream Russian views.
I’m quite familiar with the cited Jon Hellevig piece, which I very much agree with. Unlike Mark Ames, Hellevig deals with Politkovskaya’s questionable views.