Tuesday, October 03, 2006
A Tale of Two Editorials
Both The Times of London and The Washington Post have editorialized on the escalating crisis between Russia and Georgia. I invite you to compare and contrast the two.
The London newspaper says that Georgia should be "wary of unnecessarily provoking a thin-skinned Russia" while the Post trumpets that Russia is trying to "crush a neighboring democracy."
I invite you the read the two. Which one is more apropos for guiding policymakers in the West? Which one presents a sober, factual analysis of the situation, which neither pulls punches nor feels the need to spin developments to present "good" and "bad" guys? Then ask yourself, why we Americans have to turn to a British newspaper to get the "fair and balanced" treatment needed to make effective policy?
The London newspaper says that Georgia should be "wary of unnecessarily provoking a thin-skinned Russia" while the Post trumpets that Russia is trying to "crush a neighboring democracy."
I invite you the read the two. Which one is more apropos for guiding policymakers in the West? Which one presents a sober, factual analysis of the situation, which neither pulls punches nor feels the need to spin developments to present "good" and "bad" guys? Then ask yourself, why we Americans have to turn to a British newspaper to get the "fair and balanced" treatment needed to make effective policy?
Comments:
<< Home
"It is a delusion to imagine that Georgia can ignore its neighbour or that the West will offer military and diplomatic protection."
Say what you may but this is equally valid for Lebanon, Azerbaijan, and other such places.
As for why we have to go to UK papers it is because US polity cannot handle accepting limits.
Say what you may but this is equally valid for Lebanon, Azerbaijan, and other such places.
As for why we have to go to UK papers it is because US polity cannot handle accepting limits.
# posted by 
: 8:42 AM
: 8:42 AM
The Times of London doesn't have an agenda like the Washington Post; they are a newspaper, not a bunch of advocates and lobbyists.
# posted by : 8:44 AM
: 8:44 AM 
Adrian, to clarify, the Post is: This is what it SHOULD be, as long as it doesn't cost us anything.
# posted by : 12:19 PM
: 12:19 PM
http://www.russiablog.org/2006/10/russia_issues_blockade_against.html
More on the economics of the Georgia-Russia relationship here.
More on the economics of the Georgia-Russia relationship here.
# posted by : 2:46 PM
: 2:46 PM
"Then ask yourself, why we Americans have to turn to a British newspaper to get the "fair and balanced" treatment needed to make effective policy?"
Because the Cold War never ended in Washington. the USG continued to wage it, while Moscow stopped. But since the Russian government has come to understand that we are unappeasable, they have stopped trying to appease us, and are now returning our punches.
And the Washington Post dosen't like that.
Post a Comment
Because the Cold War never ended in Washington. the USG continued to wage it, while Moscow stopped. But since the Russian government has come to understand that we are unappeasable, they have stopped trying to appease us, and are now returning our punches.
And the Washington Post dosen't like that.
# posted by : 3:02 AM
: 3:02 AM << Home
