As a radio broadcaster I know how to put a spin on a story - but still
leave myself with plenty of room to defend myself against accusations of
bias. It isn't so much what one says, but how one says it. Mea culpa - I've
done it. Hey, I'm human and I have my opinions. For example, back in the
days before they changed their name, I loved using the acronym SLORC -
Burma's ruling military thugs. I'd let the word just slime off my tongue.
The listener was in no doubt how I felt about them.

Television was even easier. Not only could I use inflection to suggest my
feelings, I sometimes allowed myself a ghost of a smile when quoting some
notable politician saying he or she was as doing this or that for the sake
of the people. You know the sort of thing I mean, I'm sure.

One thing I never did was write up or present a broadcast 'news' story
with the intention of misleading the audience. That wouldn't be honest.
Anyway, the great unwashed public is not stupid, they can tell when a
broadcaster is using tone or facial expression to inject a little of his own
personality/opinion into a story. What the public are not so quick to pick
up, however, is when they are presented with opinions disguised as fact.

Watching the BBC the other night I sat up straight and paid attention
when the correspondent said: "Against the wishes of family members, Serb
authorities in Kosovo buried the victims of the massacre in a mass grave -
effectively burying the evidence with them."

Whoa, whoa, wait a minute. First off, we only have the Kosovo-Albanian
word that it was actually a massacre. Secondly, the Serb authorities had
asked the families of the dead to collect the bodies so they could be given
a proper moslem burial. The families, however, refused. They were demanding
that international forensic pathologists perform autopsies to prove that the
Serb police had killed them in cold blood.

After the burial, family members promptly went to the site and began
digging up their deceased brothers, sons, dads - and began burying them
properly. Why, the question begs, didn't they put the bodies in a morgue and
renew their calls for an international inspection of the corpses?

Y'know what I'm thinking now? Here we bloody go again. During the
Bosnian War I was repeatedly accused of being a Serb apologist. I would
write editorials accusing the international news media of presenting biased
reports - I would receive hate mail calling my motives into question. I've
said it before, I'll say it again: I am not pro-Serb. But for crying out
loud, present the news as news - and opinions as opinions.

The Yugoslav government sent a delegation to Kosovo to discuss a
diplomatic end to the current crisis. On the table was an offer of autonomy.
The Kosovo moslems rejected it outright - they didn't even turn up at the
meeting. For them it is independence or nothing. The media presented the
story as intransigent Serbs setting a rigid agenda while the 'peace-loving'
Albanians were having their aspirations stifled by a dictatorial regime.
Give me a break.

The Turks, just to take an example, are not offering their Kurds the
chance of autonomy, forget independence. And people, Ankara has killed a
sight more Kurds than Belgrade has 'massacred' Kosovo-Albanians. Okay, the
Turkish regime has been 'criticised' and effectively shut out of the
European Union - but where are the sanctions? Oops, sorry, I forgot. Turkey
is a member of that exclusive club; NATO, and they were bought-off by James
Baker when the Gulf War allies needed Turkish bases to bomb Iraq. And lest
we forget, the West was supplying Saddam Hussein with the means to kill his
Kurds before he invaded Kuwait. The hypocrisy of it all.

Moscow isn't offering Chechnya independence. Nobody asked the people of
Hong Kong if they really wanted to become a Special Administrative Region.
Israel still maintains control of lands they conquered but have never been
credited with by the United Nations. Where are the sanctions, hey? Jeez,
just ask any East Timorese what he thinks about the IMF bailout to
Indonesia. I'm still waiting for a 'war resolution' to eject the Indonesian
army from East Timor.

Putting this into a perspective that Western Joe Public can understand.
Even as Britain (read England) devolves a certain amount of power to
Scotland and Wales, London wouldn't consider independence for a second. Much
the same as Washington wouldn't seriously discuss the possibility of Alaska
throwing in their lot with Canada. Kosovo has been part of Serbia for a long
time, folks. If it does ever achieve independence by peaceful means it will
take a long time. Autonomy, the offer on the table, would be a good start.
So now tell me, who is it who wants to fight?

Now, if you are ready for something really controversial - felt but
rarely spoken by a Brit. If Gerry Adams and his ilk are so anti-British and
in love with the province of Ulster, why are so many of his brethren living
and working in major mainland British cities? I was reminded of this by
another BBC report that said ethnic Kosovo-Albanians in Belgrade are
currently keeping a low profile - fearful for their safety. To the best of
my knowledge there were never any attacks on Irish Catholics living in
mainland Britain - and I guess the same must apply if ethnic
Kosovo-Albanians are still living and working in the Yugoslav capital.

As the Kosovo crisis deepens, I guess I'll be back to writing about the
Balkans, and my critics will be having a field day calling me names.
Objective and unbiased probably won't be the adjectives of choice.

Chris Gelken
13 March 1998
Hong Kong