        
|
|
Is There Bias? by V. Miles Raguz One would require a laboratory environment to test interpretation bias in reporting, i.e., whether one side is favored over another. The same or similar event would have to occur twice, with the two sides exchanging roles. If the two actors would simply substitute roles, we would expect that the reporter would judge their behaviour in the same way. It will certainly come as a surprise that an event could repeat itself. But it did. Four months apart. The first in mid-July and the second in mid-November, both near Fojnica, in central Bosnia. Both involved a mental institution caught in the middle of an offensive. Both events involved the Bosnian Croats and the Bosnian Muslims, each time in different roles. The first event was reported as "mentally handicapped children had been abandoned by its staff when the area had been attacked by the muslim-led Bosnian Army."(Bosnian Children's Hospital Cleaned Up by U.N. Troops, J. Burns, The New York Times, July 1993.) The focus was on abandonment of the patients by its Bosnian Croat staff, and concluded that the local Croatian officials and staff may have been negligent. The article read; "Croatian officials said they had ordered all staff members to leave the two hospitals when they came under fire from Bosnian Army forces advancing to the south of Fojnica,... but United Nations officials said there was little evidence of fighting in the immediate vicinity of the hospitals to support Croatian assertions that there was a mortal risk to the hospitals' staff." Four months later, the second event was reported in The New York Times as "A Croatian and Serbian offensive [that] has forced medical workers to stop work at Fojnica and Bakovici[.]" ("Bosnia War Traps Patients in 2 Muslim Hospitals, Reuters, November 13, 1993.) The focus was on forced. The article is not clear as to whether the staff actually left or it just stopped working, but it does say that "where mental patients, unwanted children and the bedridden sick have been left without refuge[.]" Other reports of this event indicate that the staff did leave the hospital. It was not reported, however, whether they left when they became directly endangered or at some other time. The History CaseThe New York Times often makes reference to the Croatian coat of arms. Almost without fail, the Croatian checkerboard coat of arms is described as closely resembling the coat of arms of the Nazi puppet regime in Croatia during World War II. As pointed out earlier, the checkerboard is not a unique symbol of the Ustashe. The letter "U" is. While it is true that the checkerboard was am element of the Nazi-puppet regime insignia, it is also true, that the present checkerboard coat of arms also closely resembles the Croatia state coat of arms during the post-war communist period, the Croatian coat of arms during pre-World War II period, the Croatian coat of arms under the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Croatian coat of arms during the sixteenth century. The Croatian coat of arms dates as far back as the 11th century and is viewed by many as one of the oldest symbols of Croatian nationhood. Therefore, to associate the present coat of arms exclusively to World War II is not only misleading but incorrect. Another issue related to the World War II period in Croatia that has been greatly misrepresented in the media is the question of Serbian fatalities during this period. Many Serbs, even in the highest academic circles, continue to claim that the Ustashe murdered from 750,000 up to two million Serbs during World War II. The New York Times has in the past treated such exaggerated claims without criticism. More recently, however, The New York times has addressed this issue within the context of credible studies on the subject, with the exception of the April 17, 1994 Letter to the Editor from Michael Pravica, of the Harvard Serbian Cultural Club, "Holocaust Memories Make the Serbs Fear Their Neighbours." The author repeats the centerpiece of Belgrade propaganda that 750,000 Serbs lost their lives, primarily in Jasenovac, in the Croatian-perpetrated World War II holocaust. About 500,000 Serbs lost their lives from all causes, mostly from combat, hunger and disease, during WW II: about 300,000 Serbs lost their lives in the NDH (Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina), and about 200,000 in Serbia. The Ustashe did not set foot inside Serbia. The Use of Sources CaseHearing all of the sides is the sacred principle of objective reporting. Regretfully, the Croats may be right in feeling slighted in this regard. The New York Times has shown inordinate reliance on Serb or Muslim sources in reporting about the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. A study of The New York Times reporting during May-December 1993, the period when the Bosnian conflict entered a new phase - the war between the Muslims and Croats, reveals numerous references and quotes from Serb and Muslim sources, while Croat sources came in a distant third. Between May 1 and December 31, 1993, The New York Times referred to or quoted Serb sources 3 times as often as Croat sources [528 vs. 176]. It referred to or quoted Muslim sources 2.5 times as often as Croat sources [439 vs. 176]. The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina is thus explained almost exclusively through the eyes of only two of the parties to the conflict. The Bosnian Croat side, which has at different times played very positive and very negative roles, is seldom heard. This is especially disturbing, not only because of its dual roles, but because it has become the most victimized side in the past year. Sve obavijesti oknjigama mozete dobiti putem
E-Mail adrese: |
|||
|| Povratak na vrh stranice|| Povratak
na Home Page || O HIC-u || Vijesti || Usluge || |
