Protests in Ukraine

Friday, February 21, 2014


Before an agreement was brokered Friday, the standoff in Kiev between Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s government and the loose coalition of anti-government forces was bloody and telegenic. Bob examines what those gripping images tell us, and what they don't. 

Hosted by:

Bob Garfield

Comments [9]

Charlie Wilson II from Japan

Ukraine is Second Afghanistan♪ v(゚∀゚)b Ukekeke

Mar. 10 2014 09:57 PM

A nameless "reporter from London" claims OTM has intentionally misrepresented the events in Ukraine- but cites nothing, contradicts nothing with testimony. This nameless voice does manage to plug their own web site, though. Absolutely incredible.

Mar. 01 2014 11:17 AM

Dave, when speaking to another person's motive, thinking, and preference- especially when ascribing bias -if you have no basis for the assertion, it amounts to nothing more than slander. There is nothing subjective about the reason for there not being coverage of the FCC investigation this last week.

Ignorant to truth, you could have investigated- discovered if the FCC investigation was on the OTM raider, and if they had a report in the works or planned one. The critique may have been warranted, or not at all- the fact is you really have no clue. Such a voice is without credit- and falls well bellow the minimum standard we set for journalism; hold yourself to that same standard and your words will have worth.

Mar. 01 2014 11:12 AM
reporter from London, UK

As eyewitness to the situation and violence in Maidan or EuroMaidan how some characterize it as, I can only say that media is the US media is purposefully misrepresenting the facts and omitting them when it falls out of narrative's template. I am currently working on several articles for FPIF.ORG that will explain what is missing and how is the media de-facto censorship shaping the narrative. So in another words: buyer beware.

Mar. 01 2014 02:50 AM

In Answer to Listener CLeFay: 1) No dart required. I chose this one simply because it was the first story. I could have chosen the last. It matters not. One can only post “in response” to OTM whether here on Facebook. I have no ability to start a separate thread. 2) Do I need a basis of authority to give an opinion? By nature, an opinion is personal/subjective. Your demand for me to supply one is self-defeating because *you* have no outside authority to demand that I supply one. 3) However, if you would like a comparative evidence that OTM is totally disinterested in what would normally be right in their ballpark, ask yourself this: If it came out that the G. W, Bush administration’s FCC was planning to send government contractors into the nation's newsrooms to determine whether journalists were producing articles, television reports, Internet content, and commentary that meets “the public's 'critical information needs,” do you think they just might cover that?

Feb. 25 2014 10:48 AM

Like Susan Pizzo, I would appreciate greater insight into the coverage of events in Venezuela than a passing observation that listeners probably heard it here first- a fine starting premise, but does not constitute a report. I absolutely do not agree with Pizzo that this week's coverage of Kiev was "thoughtful" and "nuanced"; the proclamation that media drove events in Ukraine was left unsupported. While mention of either acknowledged their news worthiness, no actual discovery was offered. How did the media drive events in Kiev? Why has word of the goings on in Venezuela largely been absent? It seems like you phoned in those questions; did you want listeners to investigate and get back to you?

Feb. 25 2014 06:24 AM

How did listener Dave chose THIS article to proclaim OTM is dancing to the tune of political masters? Was a dart thrown at a wall of stories to find a recipient for ire? From whence is authority garnered to proclaim that OTM is "totally disinterested" in FCC examination of news rooms? Failure to schedule critical analysis to the timing demands of one listener is not evidence of bias- liberal or otherwise; the incredible claim is incongruent with OTM's history of integrity, scrutiny of media, curiosity, and fixation on process.

Feb. 25 2014 06:01 AM

So it is revealed this week that there is a pilot plan for the FCC to go into American Newsrooms to examine the process by which stories are selected, their news philosophy, and to uncover perceived outlet biases. This is something Nixon tried to do, but you are totally disinterested in this story, and don’t even rate is a mention on OTM.

No doubt, the FCC would be very pleased at how your process at On The Media is doing in selecting stories. Move along . . . noting to see here, because liberals are doing it, and not conservatives.

Feb. 24 2014 09:03 AM
Susan Pizzo from Bahama, NC

Such a thoughtful, nuanced approach on Kiev and Viet Nam - but what happened with Venezuela? There's a counter-narrative to how the current protests are being covered in the mainstream media that's very familiar to students of the darker side of US history (see Iran in the '50's, Indonesia and Viet Nam in the '60's, and Chile in the 70's - for a start). Here's the pitch from Carl Gibson's article below: "While the anger of Venezuelans is genuine, and the Maduro government is openly corrupt, any regime change in oil-rich Venezuela appears to be orchestrated by the oil-hungry United States." (1)

I'd very much like to hear an examination of the accusation that the US is following a familiar destabilization playbook to re-install friendly elites in Caracas. There are allegations that product shortages, electrical outages, and even murders are the result of deliberate external activity. Scholars like Mark Weisbrot and shows like Democracy Now have handled this story very differently. Be sure to check out the family and political ties of Leopoldo Lopez, for instance. Yes we are in a moment of global unrest - but as with the Tea Party, some of it is being channeled into astroturf uprisings that might not ultimately benefit the broader society. Some links...





Feb. 23 2014 04:44 PM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.