RFE/RL Backs Murray

by Laurence on 10/12/2004 · 4 comments

I could not find a single critical comment about Craig Murray’s record in this RFE/RL report, which features purple prose like this:

Human rights groups, meanwhile, are praising Murray’s courage while also questioning how such a confidential memo could have been made public. As RFE/RL’s Grant Podelco and Gulnoza Saidazimova report, this is not the first time Murray has spoken out forcefully on the issue

In this case, at least, RFE/RL’s reporting is neither objective nor true. Rather, it is pro-Murray propaganda. A balanced report might fairly cover the argument that Murray is not courageous, but a slave to the fashionable positions of the chattering classes. By repeating an anti-American mantra, he protects his job. Posing as a martyr, his actions and statements are as suicidal and destructive as those of Bin Laden’s followers. The Craig Murray scandal endangers British interests, and interests of British allies such as the United States, as well as the interests of the people of Uzbekistan. He appears to be trying to cover-up a profound ignorance of Uzbekistan and the war on terror–as well as a number of serious professional problems ignored by RFE/RL’s “reporters”–by making manifestly wild charges.


Subscribe to receive updates from Registan

This post was written by...

– author of 618 posts on 17_PersonNotFound.

For information on reproducing this article, see our Terms of Use

{ 4 comments }

upyernoz October 13, 2004 at 4:56 pm

In this case, at least, RFE/RL’s reporting is neither objective nor true. Rather, it is pro-Murray propaganda. A balanced report might fairly cover the argument that Murray is not courageous, but a slave to the fashionable positions of the chattering classes.

why is that? isn’t it true that human rights groups are praising murray’s courage? you may not agree with the human rights groups assessment, but it is not untrue to correctly report an assessment you disagree with. i don’t see how it’s not objective either. the story simply reports what human rights groups are saying about it, but also raises questions why the memos reached the press. it’s not fair to criticize an article that doesn’t editorialize the way you want it to.

Laurence October 13, 2004 at 6:01 pm

If it is a false assessment, a true report would note that. If there were some controversy around the claim, a true report would note that. When you take an oath in court, you tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Half the truth is not the same thing, especially when it is only a true report of a lie.

upyernoz October 13, 2004 at 10:47 pm

i simply disagree that it’s a false assessment. one could reasonably find murray to be courageous, just as one could reasonably conclude that he is opportunistic. calling someone “courageous” is nothing more than stating an opinion. an article discussing how human rights groups react to the affair is not biased if it reports accurately the opinion of those groups, so long as they make it clear that it is just what the groups have said.

Laurence October 14, 2004 at 3:52 pm

Well, we can agree to disagree. Apparently the Foreign Office didn’t think he was a good ambassador, after all…

Previous post:

Next post: