Good morning, Scott. Thanks for reading.
Ya know, you could have saved us time by simply coming out and saying: "I agree with Sanchez and the rest of the U.S. corporate media: Russia did in fact commit unwaranted aggression and should be reminded of it repeatedly, while Georgia and its darling president should be treated with kid gloves." But of course we aren't always that frank, now are we.
Anyhow, assuming you're actually serious, here's goes...
What the heck? Do YOU have some sort of agenda with this article??
Yes, as a matter of fact. I do: to expose treasonous state thugs, their cronies in news media, and their apologists everywhere.
In political struggles, such as the American Revolution, it boils down to the basics of the people v. the state. In this case, the people are Americans who have been violated, dominated, lied to, and taken down a path of self-destruction by the state (neocons, the Executive, central bank, media, corporate cronies, MIC, etc.), for the state's enrichment. Similarly, the South Ossetians, by more than 95% affirmative vote and violent resistance, have struggled for years against the absolute will of the Georgian state. They also prefer to be part of the Russian federation. The Georgian tyrants, worse than dis-Honest Abe, just won't have such a thing as a legitimate people's secession. The people v. the state (and yes, it really is that simple): which side would you defend? Let's see...
You are more one-sided and unfair in this article than CNN is being.
Indeed. Factual context and reality tend to fall on the side of "the people." Which is typically quite unfair to those who, like CNN, peddle self-immolating, imperial, neocon foreign policy, and those like McCain and Obama followers, who can't or won't see that they are being reamed with sandpaper — again.
It is, however, a promising sign that you at least admit that CNN "is being one-sided and unfair."
In fact, I'd have to say that clip was an excellent job by CNN and I'll say why...
First, you said, "Also notice that, in the clip Sanchez segues into, the Russian ambassador’s stinging response to war criminal Khalilzad's provocative and hypocritical remark in the U.N. is not included..."
Could it be because Sanchez interviewed that very Russian ambassador and basically had his response right there?
Nope.
The Khalilzad clip was shown during Sanchez's live broadcast; Ambassador Churkin's interview with Sanchez was recorded earlier in the "weekend." [Lead-in: "I spoke with the Russian U.N. ambassador this weekend . . ."] So, how can Churkin respond to the Khlalilzad clip when in fact Chukin was, himself, in a clip wherein the subject didn't even come up? Some feat that would've been.
I mean come on. What's the point in showing his response then if he's going to be shown again saying the same thing and more to Sanchez?
He didn't say the same thing; nor was he asked about it.
"and that throughout the entire segment, only U.S. officials’ quotes are cited — all of them provocative and against Russia."
The Russian ambassador gets to answer some questions to explain what their side is, and then Sanchez also quotes Bush and Cheney.
Nope. He answers Sanchez's loaded questions, which amount to: Why are you guys being the aggressor here? Kinda like: When will you stop beating your wife?
Sanchez accuses Russia, at least twice, of "aggression" — even after Churkin points out the FACT that the initial attack was the Thurday-Friday overnight sneak attack wherein "2000 civilians" were killed by Georgian aggression. You'd think Sanchez would then move on to somethnig else, but uh-uh. Is that "fair"?
The quotes from Bush and Cheney weren't even significant or detailed.
That's absolutely preposterous, but I'll respond anyway like this: Don't let the neocons' moronic, insane, and naive calculations to rub off on you.
I'd say it was actually balanced. You make it sound like the Russian side of it was smothered when that is not the case. Any open-minded person who saw that clip probably came away thinking "hmm, it's hard to know for sure who's right" or "it sounds like Russia's in the right and Bush and Cheney are overreacting." CNN did a fair job.
Sure, if what you mean by "open-minded" is "lobotomized," and if "fair job" means a fair job of empire-apologetics, or, shaking 'em down.
No normal person who paid attention to what was said will come away thinking more negative of Russia.
Neocons, lemmings, and the brainwashed are not normal.
They start off with the US ambassador making the blunt question about what Russia's plans are....then, they don't show his response, but even better, they basically do a "and here to answer that question, the Russian ambassador himself"
Nope.
Again: He was not asked the same question about regime change. Sanchez singled out Russia for "aggression" all throughout, despite (or maybe because of) Churkin's solid responses.
...then they have the fair interview which gave me a positive view of Russia's actions...
Funny.
To a "normal" person, when a news anchor basically accuses Russia of committing an act of aggression three times; implies that Russia unlawfully invaded Georgia; and accuses Russia of not trying to make peace — one after another and despite each of the interviewee's refutations — that represents multiple counts of journalistic "aggression." (Notice Sanchez doesn't contest the factual nature of Churkin's rebuttals except for once in desperation, when he purports to relate what "some" are saying: he only prods and prods with the "aggression" theme. To the discerning viewer, that is yellow, castigating, attack journalism.)
then they end it with brief quotes from Bush and Cheney that really aren't that substantial and actually, since it came right after hearing a good explanation from the Russian ambassador, made me more suspicious and critical of the administration for being so negative toward Russia.
Do you actually believe what you're writing? The interview went basically like this:
Sanchez (pre-interview): I asked the Russian ambassador why Russia committed aggression. (Unilateral guilt stated as fact.)
Sanchez: Why did you invade Georgia ("a sovereign country": an implication that Russia committed an act of aggression)?
Churkin: We didn't. Georgia invaded Ossetia and murdered Ossetian and Russian civilians; we responded lawfully as per our agreement with the Ossetians.
Sanchez: Yeah, but why did you invade a saahhvereign country?
Churkin: We didn't. We responded to the Georgian aggression as peacekeepers.
Sanchez: Why didn't you try to make peace? Did you? (Total fraud. Georgians have been the rejectionists. See links at the bottom.)
Churkin: We did. For years. The Georgians refused to sign a nonuse of force agreement.
Sanchez: Is it a peacekeeping mission or aggression? (WTF?)
Churkin: It has turned into a peacemaking mission due to Georgian aggression. Until Georgia pulls out of S. Ossetia, we will not stop our military operations there.
Sanchez then basically repeats what Churkin says, and then rephrases it like a Mother says to her naughty son: "What...did...I...hear...you...say?!!! Did you say what I thought you said, young man?" As if he was guilty of something horrendous.
In today's America, being paranoid is necessary sometimes, but this is unneccessary.
Is being a lemming — or even a shill — for the neocons "necessary sometimes"? Just asking.
And speaking of unneccessary, how about this hostile, accusatory line: "The neocon-Likudniks and their indomitable, back-pocket, corporate media are trying their best to get the USA dragged into this because they both profit from our losses and the deaths of millions." Geez, you take a decent clip, call it unfair, and in addition you take the unfairness to a much higher level.
That's only because you're failing to recognize the omission of facts and utter inversions of reality by the "decent" and "fair" host. What repeatedly decimates your case is your failure to factor in the obvious attempt at painting the Russian ambassador as someone not to be believed. (Else, why the repeated charges and implications of Russia being solely guilty of committing aggressive war when in fact that distinction belongs to Georgia?)
I think you are really overreacting and dramaticizing your view, at least based on what's in that clip. If you can find multiple, clearly biased clips of CNN, then that's different.
Again: CNN is leading the charge.
Now, you show me one clip where Georgian president Saakashvili is repeatedly pressured to account for Georgian guilt by CNN or any U.S. corporate media outlet. Or one clip where his government is charged of aggression — much less, multiple times despite refutations. Bonus points if you can show me a clip where the murdered and suppressed hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of S. Ossetians are cast as innocent victims of Georgian aggression (i.e., the truth).
Saakashvili gets entire 8–10-minute segments to propagandize the American people, uninterrupted, wah-wahing like the neocon baby puppet he is. CNN is leading the charade.
But based on the clip you gave and your response to it, I think you are being very unfair.
Reality is unfair. Reality is biased — to empire-apologists and lemmings, at least.
Don't be fooled so easily by the smooth voice, the subtle use of live and recorded clips, and the guest's chance to respond. Everybody gets to "answer some questions." But, did the reporter ask the right ones? Absolutely not. He virtually asked the same, ill-conceived question over and over. How is that fair?
But go ahead and trust the same MSM and gang of thieves that sold you Iraqi WMDs, Saddam's existential threat, anthrax, Iranian existential threat, and now the angelic Georgian president and the aggressive evil Russian bear (even despite the pathological m.o. of news media to habitually take the side of the aggressive imperial state).
If that's the case, then this is not a serious discussion. You could have done some research before you stepped into this one.
But if, by chance, you are indeed serious, check out the following reading list and then come on back if you want to have a serious, honest discussion.
— Here's one where the author says, flat-out, that Russia "invaded" after the Georgian invasion. But he also puts nice contemporary and historical context to it, including the reality of Russia being encircled by NATO and the neocons, and so forth: [link edited for length]
— Here's one where the author annihilates the notion that U.S. corporate media are being truthful and just in their coverage of the conflict: [link edited for length]
— And even the biggest imperial propaganda mill of them all, AP, put out a report within a day of the first news-break, wherein Georgia's aggression is made clear. The reporter even mentions in so many words Saakashvili's fraud of being a tyrant posing as a beacon of "freedom and democracy" as well as the dubious presence of neocon-Likudnik agents in Georgia: [link edited for length]
Rare context and objectivity from AP.
And then there's the Paul Craig Roberts smackdown, from the other day; it touches on all of them (and how): [link edited for length]
If you can't see the contrast between 1) earnest and conscientious journalism, polemical or not, and 2) tabloid trash, fluffy and plastic or not, then let's not waste much more time on this non-debate.
Regards,
