On local politics, The Nation gives voice to all sides of the current conflict, but internationally you still print one-sided views. They do come from variety of sources (AP, AFP, Bloomberg, etc) but still present a unified view on most international prob
When the same Western media cover Thailand there is a huge outcry over distorted information. What makes people think that they are any better when covering Ukraine? One could easily imagine what kind of coverage Thailand would get if reds hole up somewhere in Chiang Mai after the current government is dismissed and a non-elected person appointed as the PM.
Here’s an example of how propaganda works in regard to the Ukraine situation: In a recent interview with Ukraine PM Yatsenuk that appeared in The Nation, he said that only 10 per cent of East Ukrainians want to join Russia. What he didn’t say is that same polls showed that up to 75 per cent of them consider his “revolutionary” government illegitimate and that their demands are for greater independence within Ukraine – a legitimate political aspiration. This, by the way, is the second time Ukraine’s elected president has been driven out of office by Kiev protesters.
Fifteen years ago international media was similarly united in support of Chechen Islamic insurgency, until 9/11 came along. Then they were united on the need to invade Iraq – until no WMD’s were found there. Two years ago they were united against Syria’s leader Assad, until videos of rebels eating people’s hearts started popping up on the Internet.
Ukraine is, similarly, a very shaky case. Would it be possible to provide a wider perspective with more diverse views in The Nation?