Sign up for The Media Today, CJR’s daily newsletter.
Writing yesterday on the op-ed page of the New York Times, journalism professor Elinor Burkett argued that the media has misrepresented recent events in Kyrgyzstan. “Democracy is on the march, we are told; yet another despot of the former Soviet world has been cast aside,” writes a skeptical Burkett, who was a Fulbright scholar in the country and authored a book about her experiences there.
It’s a good story, but I’m afraid that plugging the political upheaval of this poor Central Asian nation into the paradigm du jour is akin to stuffing an elephant into a gorilla skin.
[T]he Kyrgyz mobs that seized the provincial capitals of Osh and Jalalabad before moving on Bishkek weren’t demonstrating against the flawed parliamentary elections in February and March. Rather, they were venting their frustration over the grim economic situation of a nation dependent on foreign exchange coming largely from a single gold mine and two foreign military bases, one Russian and one American.
This got us to wondering how bloggers familiar with Kyrgyzstan are assessing events. As events were unfolding late last week, Sean-Paul Kelley at Agonist.org posted two observations, one a history of the country, and the other a careful examination of the ethnic mix of a crowd in Osh, based on their hats.
The Web site Registan.net offers regular updates about developments in the country, and last week posted an eyewitness account from Bishkek by Elnura Osmonalieva. Peace Corps volunteer Larry Tweed, based in Osh, also is blogging, although at the moment he’s fixated on junk food.
Speaking of junk food, Nanny does not approve. Frankly, Nanny doesn’t approve of much. (We’re a little behind the curve, but check out the riff on hot cross buns.)
The Carpetbagger thinks Scott McClellan ought to check his nose in the mirror. That follows McClellan’s statement at yesterday’s White House press briefing that the Bush administration “welcome[s] a diversity of views” at presidential appearances. “[T]here was no indication McClellan was kidding,” writes Carpetbagger.
And, finally in the Check-The-Veracity-at-the-Door Department, Captain Ed at Captain’s Quarters takes up the authorship of the purported “GOP Talking Points Memo” on the Terri Schiavo case — reported by ABC News and the Washington Post. Post reporter Howard Kurtz today offers a rowback that the Captain doesn’t like:
Now we hear that no one can determine the actual source of the memo, and that neither of the initial reporters apparently even asked anyone from the GOP about its origin.
Howard Kurtz can talk about how “carefully worded” the reports were, but the fact is that they clearly meant to associate the memo — the unprofessionally typed, factually deficient, and improperly formatted memo — with the GOP. If they didn’t, then Kurtz by implication must condemn the rest of the press corps for a type of functional illiteracy for not getting the nuance of their careful wording correct. And for all the care that Kurtz says the two media outlets put into the wording to avoid that characterization, he never asks about how the ABC headline got onto the story, nor does he mention any steps either organization [might] have taken to correct the impression their articles have obviously left with fellow journalists in the Exempt Media.
First it was MSM, then it became CM (Corporate Media), courtesy of CJR Daily (Thank you … thank you very much … but please hold the applause until the waiters clear the tables of the rock-hard dinner rolls …) And now it’s EM (Exempt Media), courtesy of Captain Ed? Exempt from what, exactly? Apparently not criticism, thank God.
–Susan Q. Stranahan
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.
