Home >> Europe >> The Balkans

     Email   Print 

Journalism Now: Two Versions of Balkan Wars

Rod Amis - 1/17/2006

In the January, 2006, edition of Z Magazine, my housemate, a self-avowed leftist, brought to my attention there is a book review my Edward S. Herman of Peter Brock's Media Cleansing: Dirty Reporting - Journalism and Tragedy in Yugoslavia. Ron suggested I read this because it confirms all the reporting that was featured here in G21 during the Balkan wars of the 1990s. Among our correspondents, Ratislav Durman, Dragana Vicanovic, Adam Smith and myself, we presented a very different picture of those wars than the Mouthpiece Media (MM) and I am proud to say, as with our reporting of the Cambodian elections and Hurricane Katrina's effects in New Orleans, we never found the need to retract anything we presented you - unlike members of the MM like the New York Times and the Washington Post.

That a small independent magazine, that survives on beggared $10 and $20 donations, should so consistently give you the real story on the ground when major outlets of the MM, with millions of dollars in resources, do not should give you pause.

The difference between our reporting and that of the MM is that we actually do it from the ground, where the story is, as opposed to from the lounge of some hotel where all the "respectable" journalists are parroting each others' stories or those of the "official" sources to which they have access by dint of their prestige. Think about it.

The interesting points that Herman brings up about Brock's book are mostly messages of sadness for a journalist like myself. Of special note are his comments about two gentleman - and I use the term loosely - who garnered Pulitzer Prizes for their reporting on the Balkan wars, John F. Burns of the New York Times and Roy Gutman of Newsday. Brock documents relentlessly that the reporting these two produced about the wars constitute a tissue of lies. They totally vilified the Serbs while ignoring the facts on the ground, facts brought to light here in your World's Magazine that:

* The Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was not an organization of brave freedom fighters but rather a narco-terrorist organization that was one of the biggest drug purveyors in Europe at the time;
* Serbian claims of terrorism were well-founded and ethnic-cleansing cut both ways;
* Rather than a plan for a Greater Serbia, what we were witnessing was the implementation of a Greater Albanian.

As I say, these two liars went on the get Pulitzer Prizes, which speaks volumes about the Pulitzers, and G21.net went on begging for ten and twenty dollar donations.

Now ask me what I think about truth and justice.

One last example as concerns my thoughts about the MM and the art of journalism.

On the day that Slobodan Milosevic was taken to the Hague Tribunal, there was a massive protest on the streets of Belgrade. Two stories of note were filed that day. One was by Christiane Amanpour for CNN, filed from London. The other was from Yours Unruly, filed from Belgrade. Ms. Amanpour told her viewers, standing on the streets of London, that the Serbs had taken to the streets in celebration of Milosevic being taken off to the Hague. Yours Unruly reported, from the streets of Belgrade, surrounded by the Serbs chanting and carrying signs, that these people had taken to the streets in protest of Milosevic's extradition because - after years of protesting against his regime - they believed it was their right to bring him to justice.

We have two versions of the same story. The representative of the MM reported to the world from a thousand miles away. Yours Unruly reported from on the ground in Serbia. Both stories said that there was a march on the streets of Belgrade. That was undeniably true. Each story presented a different reason for why it was taking place. Both stories could not possibly be correct as to why people were on the street.

Which one of us do you suspect got the story right?