I just wanted to bring to light a comment I left on Bloggledygook that follows up with my full thoughts on the Kuchma interview piece. This is less of a short sex joke, and more of something long and serious. I hope you all don’t mind too much! But here we go…

The New York Times has, especially in the past several weeks, been heavily monitored and bashed by the blogosphere for its editorial bias in its news stories. I’m inclined to agree, and we can define editorial bias in many ways.

In one way, it could be how Sarah Boxer recklessly put the good guys at Iraq the Model in danger because of her underlying purpose in writing a slanted story. She left out many facts and put in many of her own crazy ideas into the story in substitute of the truth. So here we have one definition: covert purpose. Their comments and the story can be found here

Another way we can define editorial bias can be seen from the recent “Gay Spongebob” fiasco. What happened here is that the New York Times started some controversy, saying that James Dobson and two “Christian activist groups” had bashed Spongebob Squarepants because, according to the article, the character promoted homosexuality. This is false, as Dobson was actually criticizing a video that uses cartoons to promote whatever agenda it was trying to promote. And now, in turn, the New York Times has been exposed again for writing with its own agenda. So, another definition: taking quotes out of context to further an agenda. Here’s the rundown of the issue here.

Notice how all of these mention an agenda, a covert purpose of some sort… and editorial bias regardless of facts.

And now, we have C.J. Chivers, the man writing about Ukraine for the New York Times. He wrote two pieces, one of them about how the SBU helped the opposition, and the other about Kuchma’s now isolated views on the recent events. There was a lot of fact checking on the first article, and there seems to be quite a bit of truth to it, though somewhat exaggerated. The second, also, obviously contains Kuchma’s real thoughts.

The most disturbing thing about these articles, however, are not what these people say, but what the author himself says between the quotes. Let me illustrate from the recent Kuchma interview article. We start with, of course, Chivers’ high appraisal of Kuchma:

As a former missile-plant director who inherited the reins of a dysfunctional post-Soviet nation, Mr. Kuchma, 66, was a technocrat turned head of state, and brought with him a high intellect, management experience and a political base in a powerful clan as he confronted almost insurmountable problems. He departs with a much healthier nation but a darkly complicated legacy.

Can we honestly say that anyone “ÄinheritsÅ the reins” of a post-Soviet country? Chivers, while talking up Kuchma, actually portrays many of his negative qualities as things that supposedly helped him bring forward the country. His management experience went solely to the use of his political base in a powerful clan, and his most insurmountable problem was getting around such complications as legal barriers, public outcry, and those darned journalists. And we all know what happens to journalists under Kuchma’s managing experience.

Next, he talks about the opposition, in which he imposes a relatively negative tone:

To his critics and the opposition that paralyzed Kiev in November and December, he is a president who presided over the corrupt privatization of the nation’s resources, steering wealth toward supporters, relatives and eastern clans.

He has been accused of ordering the murder of a journalist, Georgy Gongadze, in 2000, of approving the sale of radar systems to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and of rigging the election for Mr. Yanukovich, his disastrous choice as successor. Having found himself caught between the competing interests of Russia and the West, he satisfied neither. His stature on the world stage has shrunk.

The opposition “paralyzed” Kiev? Kuchma has only been “accused” of these things? You know, there are words for everything; some that sound better than others, some that sound worse than others. It’s too bad that Mr. Chivers chooses to use the wrong words for the wrong side. But it gets worse, as Chivers’ little rewrite of history doesn’t heed:

He leaves a country with a rapidly expanding economy, with independent parliamentary factions, an opposition television station and an often lively press. These would be all but unimaginable instruments of democracy in many former Soviet republics led by their former Communist Party men.

I honestly don’t know where to start. Well, I have a good idea: the lies. We’ll start with number one on the list. We have the rapidly expanding economy, complete with the trafficking of women as sex slaves, 29% of the population below the poverty line, and national resources devoured and squandered through corrupt privatization deals. If the economy is so good, why aren’t the people benefiting from their labors? That’s a rhetorical question.

On to number two, independent parliamentary factions. Yes, while Ukraine has a number of parties, the distribution of seats has been heavily gerrymandered in Kuchma’s favor. The way this thing works is that the Verkhovna Rada is unicameral and has 450 seats, 225 of which are allocated proportionately to parties who receive 4% of more of the national electoral vote, and the other 225 seats are awarded popularly but in the form of single mandates. I don’t think it’s coicidence that the single-mandate districts were built heavily in favor of Kuchma. This, combined with the problem of a unicameral legislature, allowed his agenda to dominate without much interference. Party diversity is useless when the government rigs everything.

Point three, an opposition news station that developed under Kuchma’s generous reign. Or should I say because of his reign? In any case, according to the BBC, news coverage of the opposition was blocked by the government in the region.

Rolling news coverage of the protests by Channel 5 – the one station fully backing the opposition – had earlier been blocked in the region.

And then, because of Kuchma and the fraudulent November elections, the state-controlled UT1 and state-backing One Plus One finally rebelled.

The Ukrainian media played a big role in boosting Mr Yanukovych’s election chances by denying the opposition any airtime to make its case and ridiculing his challenger, Mr Yushchenko. Reporters say the government issued lists of what they could and could not show.

And if I remember correctly, the government alos threatened TV stations with fines and the possibility of being shut down if they spoke negatively of the government.

Yes, these are the unimaginable miracles of a healthy democracy under Kuchma. Corruption, embezzlement, fraud, there are so many names for what he did to Ukraine. And there are so many names for what Chivers and the New York Times are doing to Ukraine as well, though I’m afraid I don’t have a profanity filter installed.

This was just on the first page. Let’s go to page two.

But Mr. Polokhalo also noted Mr. Kuchma’s political savvy against his competitors. In December, in exchange for a repeat election, he coaxed the opposition into constitutional changes that should reduce the powers of his successor, navigating the electoral crisis in a way that preserved influence. “He outdid everyone in a very narrow space,” he said.

Was it because of his political savvy, or because the protesters took over the parliament and forced a vote, which was then cheered by the legislators? Interesting indeed, a pressure Kuchma had never been forced to deal with before, and suddenly he has “political savvy.”

What Chivers is doing is rewriting history. I don’t know why he would do it; I don’t know what, in particular, his agenda is. But we do know that he is trying to make Kuchma look good, and with his previous article, head of the SBU Shmeshko as well. Is it possible that he is being paid off? Is it possible that he is getting all of these interviews and big stories because… he will only print the positive? Real journalist Veronica Khokhlova thinks so, and she has more credibility with me than the New York Times ever will.

That is, of course, speculation, but very evident and very relevant to what is going on here. The New York Times, and their writer C.J. Chivers, are lying. I don’t care why they are doing it anymore, that may never be found out. But they are doing it, and they have a history of doing it. They may be able to write without giving people all of the facts, but once these are published, they can no longer go back on them. I hope this rather long commentary helped to further illustrate that point.