New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans
for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be
limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI
all over again?
(1906 previous messages)
- 08:41am Apr 2, 2001 EST (#1907
Some decry the backwardness of newspapers other than the NYT. I
believe they do so with reason.
But some of the difficulties may be of the NYT's own making.
Often, though not always, the most important truths are
nonpolitical, but have, together, the effect of constraining
political deception. Sometimes NYT stories are not followed because
other journalists (not just editors) don't like the TIMES, and other
stories are not followed up by other papers because the reporters on
those papers simply never read them. Not all journalism academics
love the TIMES, either.
If TIMES beat reporters notified their opposite numbers by e-mail
when they posted stories, and asked for the same courtesy, the
coordination of the press in the USA might be materially increased.
And the NYT would stand alone and isolated on stories less often.
Such communications would also tend to increase the chance that the
TIMES would catch good journalistic initiatives in other papers.
There are plenty of them.
Among journalists, the TIMES, and TIMES reporters, both have
reputations for haughtiness that produce real resentments, some
justified, some not. As a consequence, articles in the TIMES are
often not only not followed, but not even read, by the reporters on
other papers who might be expected to know of them. (No one can
read the whole NYT corpus -- it is simply too big for that -- though
because of the complexity of the world, the word count is fully
justified.) These patterns of isolation and mutual hostility do
the paper no good, nor do they serve the nation.
I believe that some easy changes here would somewhat reduce the
"isolation" of the rest of the press from the "truth" as the NYT
sees it. In addition, the "truth" the NYT sees might, from time to
time, be augmented and refocused by contact with other minds.
- 11:07am Apr 2, 2001 EST (#1908
"The Bush administration should make the case to Moscow that
NATO enlargement to the Baltic states would advance Russia's own
interests as well as ours. Russia wants stability along its Western
borders, neighbors who treat their Russian minorities with respect
and prosperous trading partners. NATO enlargement promotes such
developments. Aspirants know that strong democratic structures,
respect for minority rights and free markets are necessary for
inclusion in the club; just as important, they are necessary to
remain members in good standing."
Let's revive the history just a bit. after the fall of a Berlin's
Wall, the West explicitely promised that there will be no NATO
expansion. Than, in exchange to financial help to Russia in general
and Eltzin's "family" in particular they convinced then already
corrupted Kremlin to allow the conditional NATO expansion. The
Russians where too occupied with their internal troubles to notice
or pay attention. The West was still seen as a "friend". Russia
cooperated with NATO in peacekeeping missions, hold joined exercises
end even rolled the idea of Russian inclusion into NATO. The NATO
was still percieved as a strictly defensive (by its charter)
organisation, rather symbolic militarely after the desintegration of
USSR, and as a potential customer for Russian industry. The main
idea was to facilitate the Russian integration into the Europe and
the rest of developed World using all roads available. And if some
Russian olligarhs could get rich on the way (the "family" in
particular) - the better.
Untill 1999. The bombing of Yugoslavia dramatically changed the
situation. Not only the NATO commited the military aggression
against its own charter, it did so without UN Security Council
Resolution and International Law, in openly arrogant disregard to
Russia's and China's objections. The 78 days and nights of
methodical devastation of civilian infrastructure of the
non-aggresive European country, the first since WWII, caused such a
dramatic effect within Russia that resulted even in fall of the
Eltzin and the "family".
The thousend words can't change the single action.
Today, even the NATO existance, not expansion, can't be justified
in the eyes of Russian public.
It also became clear that NATO's collegiality is a fiction due to
its total dependence on US intelligence, command and control. The
NATO is viewed today as an extention of the Pentagon.
If the West really would see the NATO as an effective tool to
promote stability and prosperity of the member-nations, there would
be a very strong incentive to include the Russia. The arguments
about not-readiness and insufficient democratisation of Russia to
become a NATO member just don't hold water after the invitation of
other ex-Soviet republics including Gorgia which have a far less
democratic and modern societies.
Today there can be no explanation for NATO's expansion other then
an attempt to isolate and threaten the Russia.
- 11:27am Apr 2, 2001 EST (#1909
NYT: - http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/02/opinion/02BLIN.html
" ... respect for minority rights ... are necessary for
inclusion in the club ... "
I can't help but the Turkey comes to my mind as an example.
New York Times on the Web Forums Science