Comments:Russian minister: South Ossetia reporting biased in Western media
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
Strategic blunder led Georgia into S.Ossetia folly
Would the United-states invade Canada entirely if it had sent troops to control a separated and unstable Quebec? I don't think it's a reason for invasion at all. --22.214.171.124 18:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Z_E_U_S
- Lol, the United States invade Canada. I realize you were probably joking, but still, it made me laugh because it would never happen. However, I do think the US Troops would be better used in Georgia helping Georgia against the Russians than in Iraq.126.96.36.199 17:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Russian media is no better - they keep talking about "cities and villages levelled entirely by Georgian bombings", "tanks driving over women and children", and "Georgian troops with US badges" (WTF?). They had the audacity to say that Tshinvali shelling/bombing was worse than the siege of Sarajevo! Of course, no mention of the fact that Russian planes have also bombed the city (when Georgian troops were still in it), and denial of bombings of Georgian towns and villages - they keep saying that it's "just military objects" that are being hit, with not a single pic of a bombing on Georgian side. 188.8.131.52 18:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Russians are know to control their medias by fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index#Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index_Ranking) being 144 of 169 for the freedom of press, unlike most western medias which top on freedom of press index. So why are they saying we are biased when it's widely know as fact they bias theirs. It's not the best argument they could have thrown at us lol. --184.108.40.206 19:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Z_E_U_S
- Well, it's not a surprise that US-controlled so-called 'Freedom' Press has placed US-controlled medias at the top of the list. It would be self critique otherwise. But I wonder why they ranked Russia 144, not 169. Maybe just to make some naive illusion of neutrality... BTW... United States: 48 place. 'United States (extra-territorial)': 111 (what's this?)220.127.116.11 19:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is Reporters Without Borders , it's a Paris-based international non-governmental organization that advocates freedom of the press. And the united-states keep having lower and lower scores from year to year on their index ; 2002 : 4.75 , 2003 : 6.00 , 2004 : 4.00 , 2005 :9.50 , 2006 :13.00 , 2007 :14.50 . I wouldn't call the french the most pro-American country around and reporters without borders is widely considered neutral and objective. --18.104.22.168 20:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Z_E_U_S
- Well, unlike most other european countries, France sometimes remembers that she is independent state. But basing in Paris instead of New York does not mean being controlled by France instead of US... Ok, surely stating "US-controlled" is over-simplification. But I think it's obvious that this organization is western-oriented, so it's biased just the same way as the western media is. I mean most of media - looks like there are several alternative sources. The same in Russia: there are several media sources who constantly blame russian government, both with and without the reason. 22.214.171.124 20:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nice theory, 126.96.36.199, unfortunately it holds no water as Reporters without Borders is NOT US-Controlled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
All of this could have happened without any bloodshed... But the elites are coldhearted people that decide everything in a room, without caring for the lives of people.
The two regions South Ossetia and Abkhazia are, since 1992, independent from Georgia. They could pass onto Russia, the same way Kosovo did to the US... But it didn't happen this way... Why? Because there is much to gain from both sides:
1. Saakashvili and his "Rose Revolution" are down... Since 2003 he has revealed what he really is... a fascist. He bans every protest, illegaly detains opposition members, controls all the media with the blessing of the "anglosphere". His popularity among the georgians is way down. The russians, of course, are anxious to set up their own puppet, and this terrifies the anglosphere. So, all of this, is serving in an attempt to rally all georgians to his side, against the Evil Russians.
2.It's no coincidence that fact that this happened about the same time as the beginning of the Olympic Games in China... China, hypnotizing the World with it's massive, beautiful, technological cerimony, with the theme "One World One [Communist] Dream", is doing propaganda at a time when the anglosphere has its lowest popularity around the World, facing a huge economic recession, as well as the US backyard going left-wing. They needed something to counter this... So, what better than showing all the western World how russians are Evil to make that point? They could force their georgian puppet (Saakashvili) to let the russians officially take over the two regions (South Ossetia and Abkhazia) peacefully... But they didn't, because they needed all of this to happen.
3.This is also a blessing for the russians... They're saving their population from the Evil US-backed fascist Saakashvili, and that theatrical plot, like in the West, works wonders... They're also showing the World, that this isn't communist Russia anymore, and that they do have the muscle necessary... The time when the anglosphere imposed and did whatever they wanted is gone. Russia is in da'house, and oh my, does it explode!
4.And, of course this situation gets solved before the future president of the US comes to power, thus, saving him to deal with this situation. Kosovo to the anglosphere, South Ossetia and Abkhazia to the russians (amidst other things aswell, more political than territorial). When Obama takes over the US, everyone (americans, europeans, russians and chinese) will hold hands, distribute kisses to all the foreheads available and pat themselves on the backs, on live TVs all over the World!! It will be a peaceful, beautiful World, with the all the status quos (western and eastern) preserved!!
Do you like this "democratic" World, where thousands of people die just to make propaganda?
- Well, you have a point. But in case of Kosovo, there were a number of states who recognized it's independence. Abhasia and South Ossetia have declared independence long ago. They are de-facto independent long ago. But no one recognize it because of high politics. Russia has known that if it will recognize, no one wlll follow, even allies (because thay are also afraid to worsen relations with US). BTW what is different with Kosovo? Say is't not bias... 184.108.40.206 21:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- How is it different to Chechnya ? The Russians should first let Chechnya go before they interfere in other countries. Lysy (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Compare Chechnya to South Ossetia - compare Kokoyty to Basayev. Ossetians do not kidnap people, do not raid theatres and schools, do not tie with Al Qaeda.--Beaumain (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Response to first reply:
- There are also "US allies" that did not (and do not) recognize Kosovo independence. As you say, its "high politics". You're too nice... I call it hipocrisy. In what is Kosovo different? Almost nothing. I believe that even the US flag waving scene will have its version in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but of course, instead of the US flag, it will be the russian one "Oh, long live Russia, preserver of Peace and Life!!". HAHAHAHAHA!
- Response to second reply (I assume it's directed to me, if it isn't I'm sorry):
- Why should they let Chechnya go? So that NATO installs bases inside russian territory? The russians will never let Chechnya go... And for the international media, they do have a reason... they also have their "War on Terror", and they're fighting terrorists (which are being helped by Saakashvili, the same way the russians support georgian separatists).
reporting of South Ossetia conflict
The comments of the South Ossetian minister on the western media are quite correct. Indeed, your own reports are riddled with misleading statements and unverified "facts" presented as if they were true. For example, you headline one story "South Georgia wants ceasefire." You have not the faintest idea what the South Georgian government wants and nor have I. In this kind of situation, all participants can be relied on to make all kinds of statements for all kinds of reasons, and it is most dangerous to take any of them as fact. What you may know is what the South Georgian Government has said, and that is a very different thing. You should put everything from "wants" to "ceasefire" in quotes so I know you are reporting an attributed statement. It would also be useful if you then rang the Russian Press office and tried to explain to me the basis for their scepticism, so that I can decide for myself which I believe.
You also say the BBC has a film crew in the conflict zone. You cannot know this for sure, either. The only basis for such a statement can be that a)you have seen a filmed report which purports to come from a the conflict zone or b) the BBC says it has a crew there. If a) you should say "However, the BBC has broadcast several filmed reports it says are from a crew in the conflict zone and if b) "However the BBC says it has a film crew in Scrublisi, x miles inside the conflict zone." Then I will decide for myself what I believe. Kevin Atkins
- Everything is biased... everything... Do you know why? Because we're all human beings, and all of them take sides... The only way to have a unbiased perspective of any situation, is by replacing humans by an AI programmed to be 100% impartial... and this idea is ridiculous (as much as it is expecting 100% impartial news made by human beings). I'm living in a country where the only perspective I'm allowed to see is the one CNN and BBC are saying: Russia is Evil, US is the force Good and Enlightment". On cable over here, for international news, there's only CNN and BBC... nothing more. All the media is controlled by politically motivated economical interests, either this be in the west or in the east. You will NEVER have a 100% impartial view of the situation... NEVER. And BBC is as reliable as me on this issue. They give on the TV what their politics say they should and that's it. It is completely irrelevant if the station has reporters on the site... Do you know how stupid this is? I have seen on TV, right now, footage taken in the early 1990's being presented as if it was recorded today, in 2008... This is how stupid things have become. That, and the "precious time" that idiot Saakashvili spends on live feeds to BBC and CNN, saying how good and "democratic" he is and how Evil are the russians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
McCain Adviser Was Lobbyist for Georgia?
Wall Street Journal say, John McCain's top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, was a paid lobbyist for the Georgia. It explains MC's striking pro-Georgian sentiment. MC will lose many points on it. --Beaumain (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)