Those of us who watch the news or catch the news on the ‘net are aware of the hostilities in the region of Georgia, Russia, and Ossetia and some other -ia’s between the Black and Caspian Seas. Prince Caspian would be sad to see the violence, I’m pretty sure.
The media here in DC, and I assume elsewhere are heavily slanted towards painting Russia as an aggressor, practically invoking old Cold War sentiments. Secretary of State Rice boldly stated our demands to Russia. Russia not happy with US and Poland Pact. Yes the word ‘pact’ was used in the Express “adpaper” (a step child of the Washington Post and given freely as one enters and leaves the metro). What are unsuspecting and trustful Washingtonians supposed to think? Why did the media not paint Georgia as the aggressor, in clear terms? Here’s my theory.
A newspaper can go three ways: 1) Make Russia look bad, 2) be relatively neutral and state some facts, but not make Russia look bad or good, or 3) Make Russia look good. I would say the same again, but insert ‘Georgia’ for ‘Russia.’ Obviously choice number 2 will not sell newspapers. That leaves 1 or 3, so then it comes down to what do the money bags want? I’m not talking about the moneybags at the paper, but the moneybags that put pressure on the paper and on the politicians who also in turn put pressure on the paper. At the risk of sounding paranoid, I say there are unseen wheels turning that for some reason make it a good idea to paint Russia bad. Usually these wheels are economic. We are competing with Russia for China’s affection, we are competing with Russia for resources such as oil, we are competing with Russia for many country’s affections, who knows what the real reasons are.
Anyway, here’s an eye opening clip about a girl who was in Georgia when bombing was going on, and her take and her aunt’s take on the situation over there.
Here is an op-ed piece from former Russian president Gorbachev in the NYT.