………………….until it has been denied; officially.
That quotation, care of an Irish journalist named Claud Cockburn, says a great deal about the person, and the television station she worked for over five years which I write about today. The t.v. station is Russia Today, and the reporter’s name was Sara Firth. She resigned from her work as a tv reporter because she states she was disgusted at having to push ‘slanted’ reports over the massacre of innocents who flew, unknowing of their fate, on Malaysian Airways MH17.
She stated she resigned in disgust because said reports being run by the station gave her a ‘kick in the stomach” and ‘disrespected the facts’, prompting her to hand in her notice. She said it was the ‘straw that broke the camel’s back’ after growing increasingly frustrated during her five years as an employee.
Now apart from the fact that Russia Today is, and always has been, a totally-paid-up member of the President Putin fan club, bought by the Kremlin; we must examine this female reporter’s beliefs and statements, both from the present and from the past. If, as she states, just about all news stories and commentary was slanted to place a Kremlin- and Putin-friendly viewpoint across the news-screens of the world, how is it that it took her five long years before she ‘saw the light’, and resigned?
Did this articulate and well-educated woman just have a sudden ‘Damascene Conversion’ over one lie too much, after speaking the Kremlin’s propaganda and slush for five years? She states that she was ‘increasingly frustrated’ and Firth also claimed the news organization has promoted Russian propaganda for years. The network uses young, obedient reporters for big, controversial stories — the less-experienced journalists are more likely to stay on message, she said, “The second you start to question or report honestly then you’re a problem.” Still, she respects many of her co-workers. She said many of them tell the truth, and have tried to fight the system while keeping their jobs on the inside.
Or did she finally decide that she should never have commenced working for a Putin- and Kremlin-backed t.v. station which has been routinely laughed at for the ludicrous manner in which it shamelessly followed the Russian-line, no matter what the actual facts might dictate?
That last query, of course, might well be aimed at another broadcaster which we are all, unfortunately, well-acquainted with? Answers on a used postcard, please.