|
Gentlemen,
BBC’s Jacky Rawland’s testimony before the ICTY and against Mr.Milosevic, is an act which could be described as the most ridiculous act in the history of the journalism. If one considers that Miss Rawland as a Belgrade correspondent had already some prejudice against the Serb nation and the former president, and that she entered her campaign with those prejudices, her so called “objectivity” or even “testimony” equals zero. Futhermore, she was discarded by Mr.Milosevic and obliged to leave Belgrade during the NATO campaign. One could consider that her “voluntary” testifying is more or less the simple vengeance to Mr.Milosevic who finds himself in the subordinated position.. First Miss.Rawland moves through the territory of Serbia like through the conquered land, and then makes justice for her own prejudices. It would be most incredible that someone who is expelled and forbidden to work in the country, do not react at all, and moreover goes on informing in objective way. Did not she find in the NATO acting a sort of permission to accomplish her personal views. This already means an abandon of the journalist ethics. It is a most human reaction to be angry and even to search the vengeance , when someone is hurt in his pride. This vengeance does not obligatory mean a physical attack. Milosevic in prison, Miss.Rawland has an opportunity to contribute to the punishment in the most legal way. Was she objective in her reporting, had she preferences in all the events ? Yes. It is again human that one covers those who are “weaker”. That again more or less and depending on many reasons and interests. For example she called the ethnic cleansing” the displacement of Albanians, but what would she call in the Israel-Palestinian conflict those images which show the Israeli bulldozers destroying Palestinian houses, where entire families are suddenly in the street with nowhere to go and deprived of their goods? Does she look in that case the “punishment” or she analyses the causes which led to the punishment ? What did she observe in Kosovo, and why rather one thing than another ? Where does she place the objectivity? It goes for all the journalists. What makes that Albanians in Kosovo are on their lands and the Palestinians in Israel are not ? Miss. Rawland said that the bomb effects are destructive, and that therefore she did not believe that the “NATO bombing killed Albanians. How far was she from the mentioned prison to be able to judge what happened and who killed those people? The US CNN reported that Miss.Rawland saw “the bodies of civilians, some of them having trousers pulled up to their knees”. What does it mean? That when Serbs entered the prison they started to dress, or were they surprised by the sudden bombing, And tried to get dressed in a hurry? Would Serbs, killers, wait for prisoners to get dressed or let them try and then shoot at them? Most probably not. Either they would shoot, at once or they would do it in a different way. The fact that the victims were not wounded by fragments, according to Miss. Rawland does not mean much. Is there any forensic report and when was it established and has Miss. Rawland access to that eventual report? Many more questions could be asked. Today we assist something that is an opened door to the “contractual testifying”, to the creation of the role which does not exist and does not go together with the “INFORMATION”, and which advances the notion “PAID FOR”. In the other words the journalists whose vocation was to inform suddenly becomes the jury, deals with justice although he is not competent to do so, and transforms the INFORMATION to DENOUNCIATION/ACCUSATION., the notions which does not belong to the same family.
Sincerely
Dragan RAKIC Strasbourg France |
Title: Message
