International Issues Press Coverage, Essay Example

The below paper is designed to review the international press coverage of Ukraine’s separatist elections in the province of Donetsk held on the 2^nd of November. The topic was selected, as the events are crucial in the process of peace in East Europe, and the reports of different newspapers vary based on their focus and approach. The author would like to review four news articles published right after the elections were held in the self-proclaimed People’s Republic of Donetsk. The main focus of the review will be based on what the reports cover, what they omit, whether or not they provide background information. Further, the author will examine the articles in order to determine whether they represent the national government’s views, and if they are objective, or take side. The news articles are selected from the following publications: The Moscow Times, Time, The Guardian, South China Morning Post, and Kyiv Post.

Background Information

On the 2^nd of November, the region of Donetsk, currently belonging to Ukraine held local parliamentary elections in the region. According to the leaders of the newly formed People’s Republic of Donetsk, the region is independent of Russia. The separation of the region occurred on he 7^th of April, however, it has not been recognized by the international community. The significance of the elections in international politics lies in the fact that a separate entity with its own government, siding with Russia can create further complications for international communities, and undermine the stability of the region.

Article Reviews

The Time. The Time (Stout) reported that the White House did not recognize the results of the elections, just one day after the votes. Right after the title: “The White House Slams Separatist Elections in Southeastern Ukraine”, the blurb states something that seems to be unrelated to the elections and the standpoint of the U.S. Government: “Fears are also raised that the Kremlin is again sending men and equipment into rebel areas”. This, seemingly unrelated additional information suggests that the main reason why the U.S. does not recognize the independent state’s new government is that the political movement is funded by Russia. The author uses the term: “Russia-backed separatists” to connect the information to the news. The article further explains that the elections constitute towards violating the ceasefire. The report seems to be representing the views of the U.S. government, as the quote provided by the spokesperson of the National Security Council, Bernadette Meehan uses the same term as the author: “Russia-backed separatists”.

Overall, the Time provides a balanced report, as it also quotes the statement of the Foreign Ministry of Russia, and the statement of Ukrainian president, Poroshenko. The article also provides information about the next steps: discussion held between Ukraine’s president and the security team.

The Guardian. The article published by The Guardian (Walker) two days after the election focus on the reaction of Ukraine to the news that separatist leaders of Donetsk and Luhansk won the “illegitimate” elections. The article provides more background information than the one published by the Times. It states that – according to the Ukrainian president – the elections violated the law of the country, and the Poroshenko is looking to bring criminal cases against the leaders and the organizers. Further, the author provides information about Russia’s reaction; the state did not recognize the independence of the region,  but stated that the “ vote should be respected” (Walker). The article also states that the majority of the international community rejected the votes as legitimate.

The rest of the article focuses on trying to provide explanations for the events and interpreting the significance of the issue in international politics. As the author states: “Western diplomats have been left guessing exactly what Moscow wants in the region”. He is attempting to provide different opinions and views on the same case; featuring statements of Angela Merkel German chancellor, the head of the electoral committee, and people voting for the new leaders. However, the concluding two paragraphs of the article suggest that the writer takes side with the people who would like the region to belong to Ukraine again. He states that these people are hiding from pro-Russian activist, who are depicted as aggressors:

“Most of those who supported a unified Ukraine left Donetsk as the situation turned nastier, while those who have remained have kept quiet in an atmosphere of fear, in which those suspected of pro-Kiev sympathies could be arrested or worse”.

South China Morning Post. The newspaper focuses on Russia’s reaction to the election results, and claims that Russia does recognize the polls. However, this is a kind of overstatement: Russia’s diplomats were indeed very careful in their wording. However, it seems that overreaction of Russia’s statements does not come from the author, but is originated from the European community. Quoting German spokesman of the government, Steffen Seibert, the article states: “there are official Russian voices that either respect or recognise these so-called elections”. The statement does not differentiate between recognition and respect, while there is a huge difference. Indeed, Russia did not recognize the elections as legal. The government did not even enter a dispute about the legality of the elections, as it is an internal affair of the Ukrainian government. The foreign ministry’s statement simply concludes that “Those elected have received a mandate to resolve the practical issues of re-establishing normal life in the region.”, but it does not urge Ukraine to respect the results of the elections.

Reviewing the level of insight the author provides into the international relations between Russia and Ukraine, it is clear that the author does not take side, simply features different opinions. Still, the article focuses on the German view of the elections, which states that the votes should not be recognized, and that the recent events slow down the peace process in the region.

Indirectly, the author of the article suggests that the West (Germany) and Ukraine blame the lack of peace in the region on Russia, while new leaders of the region, siding with Russia blame it on Ukraine. Quoting Zakharchenko, the leader elected in Donetsk region on the 2^nd of November, the article features his opinion: “Ukraine does not want peace, as it claims. Obviously it is playing a double game,” The article, however, does not provide the reader with individual opinion, and simply focuses on lining up different statements from Germany, Ukraine, and Russia. It is, in this way, impartial.

Kyiv Post. The article written by Bateson provides by far the most background information about the significance of the elections, and provides the most context for interpreting the results, as well as the reactions of the international community. I expected this article to be the most one-sided, however, it seems to be well researched and mostly balanced. It provides information that has been omitted from other articles: why is the election a from of breaking the peace agreement. According to the article, the  “illegitimate, so-called local ‘elections’ that contravene Ukraine’s laws and constitution and contradict the Sept. 5 Minsk Protocol”. This means that Ukraine and Russia have agreed that elections would be held later in the year, according to Ukrainian law, however, these efforts have been undermined by the votes of November. The author also provides more information about the elections than other reporters, stating not only that they were against the law of Ukraine, but also that the  Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s election watchdog was not present, and refused to take part in observing the elections. Further, it is important to note that one important detail has been omitted from the report. The author (Bateson), talking about the Minsk protocol states that the “agreement has been broken virtually every day”, but does not say that both parties were equally guilty. Instead, he moves straight onto the next line of thought: that the self-proclaimed leaders indicated that they will continue military operations in the region and intend to capture more towns. The statements of the prime minister of the leader of the People’s Republic of Donetsk, Zakharchenko, regarding further military action are not reported by other articles. The Kyiv Post article, therefore, provides the most comprehensive analysis about international relations between Russia and Ukraine.

In the summary paragraph, the author quotes a political expert, Vlodymir Fesenko, who confirms what Western leaders expressed in other reports: the elections reduce the chance of settling the conflict between the two countries in a peaceful manner.

 Moscow Times. The first thing that stands out as interesting in this article is the choice of words in the title. First, the author calls the group of people siding with Russia “separatists”. This indicates that the report is attempting to remain objective. The second word choice that is unexpected is “controversial”, used to describe the elections. The above word choices are interesting, given the fact that most news reports previously examined state that official Russian sources side with the rebels. The attempt to remain objective continue in the first paragraph of the article. The author calls the organizers “pro-Russian rebels”.

Based on the coverage, the article, however, seems to be one-sided. It expands on the leadership and high approval rate of Zakharchenko, and features quotes from voters who supported him. The emotion-filled description of the day of the vote, and people’s determination suggests that the newspaper’s editors side with separatists, however, they do not openly state this. The below description clearly depicts voters as heroes: “Across the region suffering from years of neglect and months of conflict, Russian speakers wary of the new pro-European government in Kiev stood in freezing temperatures to cast their vote, some near the remains of shrapnel from mortar bombings”. The above sentence also suggests that voting for the rebels would end the conflict and economic troubles, which is not a logical conclusion indeed, and is not backed up by facts, only emotions. Still further, the article features Zakrachenko making promises for the residents: “Using colorful language in a heavy local accent, Zakharchenko, 38, has compared the region’s coal deposits to the oil reserves in the United Arab Emirates and has promised pensioners a stipend that will allow them to go on safari in Australia”. Placing this event in the article suggests a strong emotional connection, however, there are no facts lined up to support or dispute the legitimacy of claims. It is clear that the new president is building up his popularity by making promises he has no chance to keep. As the new republic is not recognized by the international community, it does not have any chance for building prosperity on coal export. Overall, the article mentions the rebels in context with positive events most of the time. The author features interviews of residents who praise the new leader, and even mention that the rebels fixed the window of the school. Further, the article quotes rebels making claims that are not supported by facts: “Rebels say the election will legitimize the separatist leadership”.

Overall, the language of the article suggests that it is an objective report, but reviewing the in-proportionate allocation of space for rebels and pro-Ukraine population, it is evident that it is one-sided. Further, it features several claims that are based on emotional manipulation and are not supported by facts.

Conclusion

Reviewing the above reports about the separatist elections in Southern Ukraine provinces has been an interesting task. While all authors were attempting to appear objective, the most impartial article was the one published by South China Post. It did provide adequate amount of background information, featured views from both sides and the international community, and did not offer explanation of the events. Consequently, the most one-sided reports were the ones published in Russia and Ukraine. Kyiv Post used the method of omitting important relevant information to take sides, while Moscow Times did not represent both views and opinions proportionately. The Moscow Times article was also found to be the most manipulative, as it featured illogical and populist opinions, instead of expert views to reflect on the events. It failed to question the legitimacy of Zakharchenko’s claims that the new government would be recognized (despite the rejection of the international community), and that Ukraine’s southern region can build wealth based on coal production.

As a conclusion, completing the project has taught me that maintaining objectivity is important in media, and emphasizing or neglecting information can make a report one-sided.

Works Cited

Bateson, I. “Russia, West diverge sharply on ‘elections’ in Ukraine’s east” Kyiv Post. Nov. 3, 2014 http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/russia-west-diverge-sharply-on-elections-in-ukraines-east-370503.html

A. “E.U. blasts Russian support for ‘illegal’ elections in eastern Ukraine” South China Morning Post. 04 November, 2014 http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1631526/eu-blasts-russian-support-illegal-elections-eastern-ukraine

Stout, D. “The White House Slams Separatist Elections in Southeastern Ukraine” Time. Nov. 4, 2014  http://time.com/3555707/white-house-russia-ukraine-rebel-elections/

Walker, S. “Ukraine president in crisis talks with security chiefs over ‘electoral farce’” The Guardian. Tuesday 4 November 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/04/ukraine-president-petro-poroshenko-elections

Zmeyev, M. “Ukraine Separatists Elect Leaders in Controversial Election” The Moscow Times. Nov. 03 2014 . http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/ukraine-separatists-elect-leaders-in-disputed-election/510545.html