emdrone (emdrone) wrote,

How US journalism works

1. First they played the BBC report
Who triggered the first explosion and the attack is NOT KNOWN and is absolutely CRITICAL, because Putin promised that the safety of the hostages was tantamount. (i.e. it becomes the Final Judgement of Putin)

2. Then they talked to someone from the Time mag in Moscow. It all "was unclear". He was pathetic - did not know how many hostages there were, or saved children in hospitals, or attackers, what had been happening so far (was there a better timeline of events? - Err..No!), whether and how many bandits escaped, whether they were being hunted down - nothing!! Anyone reading staff on the Net knew vastly more. He was useless - BUT for one thing, insinuating:
So who initiated the all-important first move, asks the host.
Well, there are two theories, the first is the one Russians tell officially, that they were picking up bodies and then decided it was a good time for the assault (!!), but then it does not quite explain, why Russians moved 2 tanks in the region, and had the specially trained assault units and...
My jaw literally dropped. What low, stinking punk! He tried to present the fact itself that the specnaz troops were at the location as a "damning" evidence of the Russians' intention to provoke the violence and so hold them fully responsible!!!

Both the BBC report, and the scum intentionally avoided presenting the quite consistent story of one bomb going off inside (one of the girls actually said the piece of scotch it was hanging from broke), which caused panic and initial stampede from the school, then attempts by the hostage-takers to shoot the fleeing children, the subsequent small arms shooting spree from the local ossetians, soldiers etc. to try to cover the fleeing hostages (which all created a terrible mess), and next a very quick introduction of the storming troops and storming itself.
The story seems to be confirmed several times over, has been repeated everywhere and available, but the mere mentioning of this sequence was obviously PROHIBITED in the Western networks! Not even as one of the possible views, not as a Russian official view, with whatever doubts and qualifications - no! They had to SPECIFICALLY WITHHOLD this episode to be able to later proceed with their blaming game.

3. Next, we have two talking heads. A member of some think tank on the freedom of Caucasus and Chechnya, and some expert and a book author (Yo'av Karny?).

Discussion slips into Chechen independence in no time and never leaves the topic.
(a) Group consisted not of Chechens only! - ingushes, chechens, RUSSIANS (with emphasis)
(b) Were there policial aims? - Chechnya independence.
(c) Did they really try to achieve it with such means?!! (asks the anchorwoman with surprise) -- Well, it deteriorated from original pure aims of the independence fighters. The enormity of suffering in the first Russian war, constant attacks, rapes and pillaging made them behave worse and worse.
Talkinghead 2 does not agree that they "deteriorated" in any way and continues on Chechen independence

4. What can I add?
Neither the original news reports, nor the follow-up "discussion" host(ess):
(a) express their unacceptance of the attackers in clear-cut terms
(b) or provide the history of the conflict in at least neutral terms. History as a number of facts simply banned out of existence for the western viewer.

For example, it's accepted practice in Western journalism to "provide background" and list similar previous events. NOT A SINGLE punk ever remembered correctly the chechen "attack on the hospital" as an attack on a special kind of hospital where women GIVE BIRTH, nor their practice of using the pregnant women as live shields (they made them stand and shot from the lying position between womens' legs, as far as I can remember).

The start of the second Chechen war is never described as a sequence of
(a) invasion by the "independent" at that point Chechens into the neighbouring territory that covers strategically most of the Caspian sea shoreline belonging to Russia with the openly proclaimed aim of establishing a kind of "Muslim Republic".
(b) ensuing local fights, in which the invaders were repulsed, by locals to a large degree
(c) blowing up of 2 blocks of flats, which at the time many believed was intended as a revenge attack against Moscow and
(d) introduction of troops into Chechnya.
No ordinary TV viewer in the US ever heard these two stories, EVER.

What a marvellous display of punk journalism.

P.S. Murdoc's Fox News has a different, aggressively inventive spin.
This time the story starts from the hostage-takers detonating explosive. The gunbattle between them and and Russian forces ensues - "with fleeing children caught in crossfire!! Nobody knows how many died!
Then it seemed the Russian troops had no plan, the roof crashed and a wall came down! Real nightmare!! It will take many days to count the victims."

  • Первое впечатление

    Как правило первые и эмоциональные впечтления бывают неверны, но всё же... ... обращение к нации Путина сегодня, 21 апреля 2021, вызвало у меня…

  • Современнае Абразаванийе

    .. или что такое cancel culture В связи с нынешними событиями по отключениям президентов - и первой волной ukaze Байдена, а также недавними…

  • Короткое замечание о главном

    В ленте увидел ссылку на пост против вчерашних демонстраций детей. Автор выдаёт кучу вопросов, дескать, а понимаете ли вы, что вы это делаете во…

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded