o/t The Ukraine.

[the_idiotb_stardson]

So a democratically elected government has been overthrown by, according to the BBC, "pro-democracy" activists.

How does this revolt make the activists "pro-democracy"?

[drpokem]

I'm no fan of the BBC and have in fact had several disputes with the organisation.
It is, however, a large and disparate organisation and it's meaningless in my view to state that the BBC describes Ukranian protesters as 'pro-Democracy'. I trawled through the most recent comments of half-a-dozen BBC news outlets including Today, PM and found that they described the protesters most often simply as "protesters", twice as "anti-government protesters" and once as "violent protests". I did not find any reference to "pro-Democracy protesters."

[John2]

Of course, a democratically elected government and a democratic government can be two different things.

If a government is elected and decides to start using snipers to kill anti-government protesters, is that democratic?

[stevemiller]

Of course, a democratically elected government and a democratic government can be two different things.

If a government is elected and decides to start using snipers to kill anti-government protesters, is that democratic?

If a vote was taken to use snipers then yes. If not, no.

[the_idiotb_stardson]

The news coverage on radio 4 and the World tonight program have called them pro-democracy protesters on numerous occasions.

Also my first search on the BBC uses the term 3 paragraphs in (see link)


I also see that people have taken on the BBC's view of events already . It was interesting that the news coverage of the first casualties failed to mention that nearly half of them were police.

If a democratically elected government are attacked by an angry mob, surely the police have a right to defend themselves?

Shouldn't we also ask the question: is it genuine democracy the people of the Ukraine want or are they going to revolt every time things don't go their way?Hardly democratic.

Shouldn't we wait for the full facts to emerge before we start taking sides?

Shouldn't the BBC stop using heavily weighted terms until a clearer picture emerges. It's either thoughtless or biased to use such terms until we know more.

Shouldn't we look at the quality of those opposing the government. Ma

[wrighty_1]

Its just Ukraine

No "The"

[John2]

It wasn't until I saw the alarming video of protesters being shot a few days ago that I decided to thoroughly read up on the events leading up to the current situation. I came from a position of neutrality and have read very little about the conflict on the BBC.

A few things struck me as deeply concerning about the previous regime and led me to sympathise with the protesters.

If I recall:

Now ousted president Yanukovych was from Donetsk in the East. There is a fine divide in the country between the Russian sympathetic and speaking in the East, and the more pro-Europe, Ukrainian speaking in the West.

In the 2010 election it was widely expected the pro-European candidate would win in a very close second round run off. However days before this election the previous (pro-Russia) president pushed through a controversial new election law (anti-democratic), creating a dispute over the result which saw Yanukovych win.

A year later, his biggest, most outspoken political opponent who he nar

[the_idiotb_stardson]

John thanks for the detailed response.

However your final line "Please feel free to offer an alternative perspective, without hiding behind the disingenuous excuse that "we don't really know what has been going on", because to anybody who can read, we do" speaks volumes.

To anybody who can read? So what we read is true?

We have all poked fun at foreign media and accused them of brainwashing and obscuring fact with ideology...yet you talk as if our media is immune to this?

Do you think those nice, softly spoken middle class intellectuals who write for the Guardian or any newspaper) are not capable of skewing a story for any reason? Maybe they want to get ahead and make a for themselves. Maybe there is pressure from above to write the story in a certain way. Maybe the newspaper is pressurized by other more sinister agencies to report it in a particular way. After all with the phone hacking scandal still fresh in our minds...we know there are links between the media and the polic

[John2]

Of course its possible for journalists to skew an article to suit a particular agenda.

I've not read a single article from the Guardian, or Independant on the Ukraine, and primarily look at what has been said by international diplomats such as John Kerry (who you'll no doubt suggest has his own anti-Russia, pro Europe agenda, and I agree and take this into consideration) as just 1 example.

I've also made a conscious effort to view analysis from RT, which has had a different perspective as an organisation funded by the Russian government.

I'm aware I have an anti-Russian, pro-Europe bias, heavily influenced by the experiences of my best friend who while working at a French Ski resort was befriended by a Russian multimillionaire oligarch and went to work in Moscow as his driver among other duties (he describes teaching a room of wealthy businessmen Western 'high society' dinner etiquette including properly using knife and fork and eating with their mouths closed as one of the more sur

[mygiddypant]

Good to see a debate that maintains civility. I'm with John on this.