Smear Campaign against Eritrea
Berhane Alazar
March 18, 2008
I often wonder how some damning information (usually highly exaggerated or down right false) gets spread like wild fire from sources who refuse to identify themselves as if they have something to conceal? And concealing - they must be. Otherwise it should not be too difficult to openly state any information they may have and wish to share with their Western reporters and for which they have some firm ground to stand by their story. Don´t diplomats have carte blanche of intelligence gathering otherwise known as spying anyway?
It is also intriguing when some Western media outlets "Quote" some unnamed usually "Western diplomat?" or "Highly placed diplomat who is familiar with the situation said this and that" without actually naming him? Then the obvious question that one rhetorically ponders is what would be the purpose of shading this so-called diplomat´s identity? After all, we are continually bombarded by the "Truthfulness", "Prudence" and "Strict code of ethics" of Western diplomats as if they could never tell a lie? Oh no, God forbid, they would never do that. It is only the rest of the diplomats that even contemplate of doing such irresponsible act – unbefitting of a "Diplomat".
Another equally silly statement would be quoting a "Person who has asked anonymity for he is not authorized to talk about the matter." For heaven´s sake, if he is not authorized to talk about the subject, why talk about it in the first place? More importantly, shouldn´t the reporting organizations qualify their story as unconfirmed at best and even dismissed it altogether until they could confirm the story´s veracity from people who are qualified to discuss the issue?
Yet another sinister story the Western media would love to tell is some unscrupulous sensationalism like a story from a "Victim". We all know that anyone who has broken some national laws to escape his country of origin is bound to tell his host country of seeking political asylum for some "Dire consequence" would be awaiting him should he be forced to return to the country he fled from. For sure, he is not likely to state that he was escaping for non political reasons (like better economic prospecting). Knowing that it may not be necessarily true what a "Victim" may conveniently state; and to denigrate a decent country and government solely on such a testimony amounts to nothing less than shabby journalism at best.
Unfortunately the list of such meaningless phrases, clauses and statements based on innuendos and hearsays and outright fabrications go on unabated as if the reporters are simply talking to themselves with no implicit shame or accountability of the subject matter they are reporting!
Such actions are also racist in nature for the recipients of such unwarranted smear campaigns are usually those countries and governments that are euphemistically termed either of the East or South of our planet for we are supposed to believe that those of the North and West are perfect with everything they do.
It is also intriguing when some Western media outlets "Quote" some unnamed usually "Western diplomat?" or "Highly placed diplomat who is familiar with the situation said this and that" without actually naming him? Then the obvious question that one rhetorically ponders is what would be the purpose of shading this so-called diplomat´s identity? After all, we are continually bombarded by the "Truthfulness", "Prudence" and "Strict code of ethics" of Western diplomats as if they could never tell a lie? Oh no, God forbid, they would never do that. It is only the rest of the diplomats that even contemplate of doing such irresponsible act – unbefitting of a "Diplomat".
Another equally silly statement would be quoting a "Person who has asked anonymity for he is not authorized to talk about the matter." For heaven´s sake, if he is not authorized to talk about the subject, why talk about it in the first place? More importantly, shouldn´t the reporting organizations qualify their story as unconfirmed at best and even dismissed it altogether until they could confirm the story´s veracity from people who are qualified to discuss the issue?
Yet another sinister story the Western media would love to tell is some unscrupulous sensationalism like a story from a "Victim". We all know that anyone who has broken some national laws to escape his country of origin is bound to tell his host country of seeking political asylum for some "Dire consequence" would be awaiting him should he be forced to return to the country he fled from. For sure, he is not likely to state that he was escaping for non political reasons (like better economic prospecting). Knowing that it may not be necessarily true what a "Victim" may conveniently state; and to denigrate a decent country and government solely on such a testimony amounts to nothing less than shabby journalism at best.
Unfortunately the list of such meaningless phrases, clauses and statements based on innuendos and hearsays and outright fabrications go on unabated as if the reporters are simply talking to themselves with no implicit shame or accountability of the subject matter they are reporting!
Such actions are also racist in nature for the recipients of such unwarranted smear campaigns are usually those countries and governments that are euphemistically termed either of the East or South of our planet for we are supposed to believe that those of the North and West are perfect with everything they do.
Print
Share
Email
