Итереснюй комментарий
Читая комметарии на несколько иную тему, наткнулся на интересный коммнетарий, относящийся к данной:
Цитата:
CantTakeItAnymore
June 5, 2007 1:13 PM
Grassmarket
Nice slur, but I think these days the question should be how many Western journalists are on the CIA payroll.
I always assumed that conspiracy theorists where mad. But after returning to the UK from an extended period spent working in Russia I noticed the consistent failure of Western reporters to cover the Russian news adequately.
A recent example is the coverage of the statement of Andrey Lugovoi, the chief suspect in the Litvenko poisoning affair.
I first heard the news of Lugovoi's statement on a morning news bulleting on BBC Radio 4. It went through Lugovoi's general claims and theories as who was behind Litvinenko's poisoning.
By mid morning, the news had become "Friends and family of Alexander Litvenko have rejected the claims made by Andrey Lugovoi" - the bulletins nolonger bothered to outline Lugovoi's claims. One of the 'friends' who commented on the Lugovoi's claims was Alexandr Goldfarb.
The bulletin failed to mention that Goldfarb (head of the Berezovsky-founded International Foundation for Civil Liberties) was personally accused by Lugovoi of organizing asylum for a number of Russians on cooked-up claims of persecution in Russia. Goldfarb rejected Lugovoi's assertion that Litvinenko worked for MI6, but no mention was made of the fact that Goldfarb himself had been had accusation leveled against him and that he was as such an interested party.
Not a single Western news source has reported Lugovoi's claim that in October 2006 he and Litvinenko together met two British secret service operatives. He even named them: Jeremy Evans (Director of Internal Analysis) and Daniel Kuark - I assume this is a transcription error and that probably meant 'Clark' - (Financial Analyst).
Who are these two? Why has no western media outlet bothered to include their names in their accounts of the Lugovoi's statement? Lugovoi asked why the address of the office he met the supposed secret agents was not included in the list of those mentioned in the Western media. He also asked if Polonium had been found at this address.
But none of these claims made it to print in the West?
It should be easy enough to check out who Jeremy Evans and Daniel Clark are - after all - if they are agents then their cover is already blown.
If Lugovoi's accusations against MI6 are 'ludicrous' then the media should say why - but it does not. All we hear is that unnamed security experts reject Lugovoi's claims, but then they would wouldn't they?
Lugovoi's full statement can be found in Russian, in full on the website of the Western-suported Echo Moscow.
If you compare the full list of accusations he makes you will see that articles which purport to analyse his statement 'claim by claim' manifestly do not.
Why is this?
Laziness? An intolerance of views which run counter to the prevailing orthodoxy of opinion? Or something worse?
|
Послушал внимательно прессконференцию , спасибо миханику .
Действительно, Луговой называл имена агентов-вербовщиков.
Почему об этом молчат западные сми?
Может действительно они контролируются CIA?
А здесь вы найдете текст.
-----------------
Судак судака видит из далека
|
