User:Rebecca.m.bryant/2008 International Media Response to South Ossetia war

This article is a compilation of media responses and various perspectives on the 2008 South Ossetia war. This particular conflict is a matter of international political debate. In this section we can read about U.S.A.'s, Russian, European Union and Georgian points of view. In the contemporary world media commentary and media presence in a battlefield during a conflict have become a very significant aspect as media reports remain the major sources of information. In a case of war the reliability of media is often questionable or disputable. There is a number of contentious issues in the South Ossetia War that have been described in news all over the world.

Divided Opinions of EU
There were diverse reactions in the European Union depending on the country. The most involved one was France, with the president Sarkozy, current president of the EU, taking part on the conflict as mediator. He proposed: an immediate cease fire, withdraw of military forces to their previous positions, let the displaced civilians go back home and open the area to humanitarian aid workers. This peace agreement between Russia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia was finally signed and lead to the official end of hostilities.

On the other hand, Italian officials appeared to side with Russia, as Franco Frattini, foreign minister, stressed that Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was a close ally of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of Russia.

Germany, which has close links to both Russia and Georgia, also took the lead in the diplomatic effort. Angela Merkel called on both sides to suspend all hostilities and to respect the territorial integrity of Georgia.

In Spain, the president Zapatero, also made public his support to the European mediation in the conflict.

The president of Poland, Lech Kaczynski, and his counterparts from Ukraine and the three Baltic countries, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, expressed their solidarity with Georgia, a country that, like their own nations, spent decades in the grip of the Soviet Union.

In general, the EU, although strongly supporting Georgia, still has a relation of interdependence with Russia. While Russia supplies over a third of Europe's oil and gas, Europe is Moscow's biggest trading partner.

U.S. Media’s Coverage of South Ossetia War
Olga Ivanov, in an article for the Washington Post, claims that American media is “known worldwide for its independence and professionalism.” However, perhaps this is more of an ideal rather than the active reality. As blogging gains popularity, more global citizens are able to speak out against how the media is perceived or how the media is displaying information. In the context of the 2008 South Ossetia War, American media appeared to take a bias stance in favor of the Georgian forces. Some of the first reactions to the conflict were: “U.S. Urges Cease-Fire in Conflict Between Russia, Georgia,” “U.S. Official: Russia’s Attack on Georgia is ‘Disproportionate,’” and “Georgia and Russia Nearing All-Out War” from Fox, CNN, and the New York Times respectively. Fox focuses on the U.S.’s crusade to find peace, CNN highlights Russia’s attack without regarding Georgia’s initial attack, and the NYTimes article’s tagline states, “As Russia moved more forces into the region and continued aerial bombing, it appeared determined to occupy both South Ossetia and Abkhazia.”  Most August stories implied Russia was on offense and Georgia was on defense.

Additionally, the media actively participated in the blame game aspect of the conflict, citing both Putin and Saakashvili's accusations concerning who and what started the war. In post-August articles, a more balanced view was adopted, and all three news sources listed above acknowledged Georgia’s involvement in the war.

In light of the media’s coverage of the conflict, the Presidential election still maintained the U.S.’s attention. As one Fox News affiliated article stated, “both sides accuse the other of exploiting the fighting for political gain.” The conflict offered a platform from which political and ideological debates could stem in order to support or negate McCain or Obama, the two Presidential candidates. While McCain sided with Georgia and stated, “Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces,” Obama stated, “I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict,” and cited both Georgia and Russia as the active players in the conflict.

Initially, the South-Ossetian War functioned symbolically in American media, becoming a war about democracy and the protection of Western ideals. The violence and repercussions of the war are still covered by U.S. media, with less emphasis on the blame game.

Russian Media Response to the war
Russian media as such is a multilateral and complicated environment and to understand its response to the Georgian crisis one must take a number of factors into account. Some media in the Russian Federation remain Kremlin -oriented. Russian media have played an important role in the Russian- Georgian conflict that escalated in August 2008 and since then its stance continues to be an unpopular one.

The Pravda newspaper which is a significant media representative in Russia that is said to be relatively pro-governmental noted the questionable Georgian role, the issue of purchasing the guns illegally, the close-knit collaboration with the U.S., and Georgian troops attitude towards mistreatment the civilians in the conflict. Pravda turned its attention to Sergei Lavrov 's comment criticizing the international community for its lack of reaction to Georgian arms purchasing. Bottom line is that Pravda shows the role U.S. Has played in a negative manner and blames the entire conflict on the Georgian armed forces and the Georgian administration.

A reporter of St.Petersburg Times, Vasily Likhachev, described Georgian missile attacks in South Ossetia as 'catastrophic'. He criticizes Georgian role in the conflict but notes that the attitude of the international community was not indifferent. The St.Petersburg Times' reporter perceives Georgian desperate decisions as a result of insecurity of this state in an international arena and highlights the need for Georgian assistance and guidance in near future

Pavel Felgengauer, observer of the Novaya Gazeta notes the importance of the Russian-Georgian war to the future of the South Ossetia region. The conflict is said to be highly diversified and complex with many actors involved and responsible for various events. The Georgian artillery potential remains an urgent issue. Russians still perceive Georgian political ambitions as threatening to the peacekeeping in the region.

Georgian Media Response to the war
Media analysts state that patriotism has outweighed objectivity or critical reasoning in broadcast coverage of the war.

Georgian journalists have willingly forgone their watchdog role to boost public morale during the Russian occupation. Certain topics such as the government's plans for internally displaced people or the military's conduct of the war being deemed off-limits for critical or detailed coverage. Instead, Georgian television focuses on potential war repercussions for Russia or Georgian businesses' charity drives as more acceptable news coverage.

The print media are beholden to the whims and political allegiances of their owners. They are politicized and biased in their coverage, unrestricted by any internal ethical guidelines.

The Internet, the most popular Georgian forum – the only place where people were engaging in open discussion about the war – was temporarily taken down two days into the hostilities.

The outbreak of hostilities in August with Russia over the disputed region of South Ossetia has taken the level of the media down a further notch. The only real discussion programs on television were taken off the air, leaving only biased coverage, without any debate on some of the questionable moves of the Georgian leadership.

Nowhere can be found balanced, thoughtful discussion of the most pressing issues facing the country, let alone true investigative reporting. Instead, most stations covered the war as “patriots,” taking the government line and encouraging nationalistic sentiments.