How the NYT lied, and how the World believed it

In more than sixteen years now (December 1997), the New York Times was repeating at least 2,236 times that the Krajina Serbs are “occupiers”, “conquerrors” or “land grabbers” of one third of Croatia. They repeated, in the same period, the same fabrications about the Bosnian Serbs at least 3,807 times. They claimed that the Bosnian Serbs are “occupiers”, “conquerrors”, “land grabbers” of two thirds of Bosnia.

From the here presented literature it is clear that the Serbs settled in Bosnia in seventh century. They were invited to settle in Krajina in 1578

The following map was issued by the New York Times, Saturday, November 26, 1994.


This map is a Smoking Gun Proof that New York Times (as well as the other major Western media) were involved in blunt Goebbelsian-like propaganda. This map shows that they KNEW they were laying when labbeling the Serbs as “occupiers”, “aggressors”, “land grabbers” etc.

While they published countless maps of the Serbian “conquer” once (and once only!) did they publish that those Serbs actually LIVED (before the war) on the territories they controlled. On the map the Serbs were represented in solid gray color.

NOTE: Even here, at a rare moment of truth, the New York Times had to be true to its ways. They had to blame the Serbs, and Serbs only, for disintegration of Yugoslavia.

In very few sentences of the above text seen on the map they managed to slip the following lies:

  1. They claimed that Serbs had “political domination” over Yugoslavia. The truth is, as you will will see if you follow the following link, that Croat and Slovene Communists controlled Yugoslavia.
  2. The Serbs could not be “minority” in Croatia and Bosnia, as said above. The Serbs were CONSTITUENT nation of Yugoslavia. If secessionists had right to secede the same way the loyal population had the right to stay in the federation…
    Croats and Bosnian Muslims wishing to make their own countries did not have right to kidnap the Serbs and take territory – for centuries majority Serbian – with them.

One more IMPORTANT NOTE: The country of Yugoslavia was formed in 1918. Its first name was the “Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes”. Those three nations were the constituent nations of Yugoslavia. Thus, they have the right to (using peaceful means) negotiate leaving the union.

Albanians of Kosovo are NOT constituent nation of Yugoslavia. They are minority in the true sense of the term. To make a precedent and give Albanians of Kosovo “right” to secede would open a whole new Pandora’s box in the international relationships.


Source: NYT,
srpska – mrež 


Dutch princess Mabel Wisse Smit i.e. Princess Mabel has the Serbian blood on her hands

The following article is the quickest  translation I ever made, and I still haven’t finished.  The first obstacle I’m facing is that I don’t speak Dutch, so I used Google translator and abused one good hearted native Dutch (thanks, R, kisses) . The advantage is that I worked on the issue during my career in a Serbian weekly ten years ago. And I have very good memory.  

There we go:

” Mabel Wisse Smit (1968.), Princess Mabel since her marriage to Queen Beatrix’s second son, is ‘extreme in everything’, one of her best friends said long time ago in an interview with this newspaper. Mabel, she added, is extreme in her intelligence, her sense of adventure, her ambition and her charm. Not to forget her choice of partners.”


It was said that at the end of the 1980s Mabel Wisse Smit, then in her early twenties, has had a relationship with a drug dealer Klaas Bruinsma, who was liquidated in 1991 in Amsterdam. And it was said that Mabel Wisse Smit, when screened, as all future members of the Royal House must be, had lied to Prime Minister Balkenende. ‘There is no remedy for falsehood’, he said on 12 December 2003, when the case came to a climax.

The Royal House, crime, a hint of sex, and all that in the Calvinist Netherlands, and then such a high-profile woman – an eruption of cynicism and malicious delight stirred the Netherlands. Mabel Wisse Smit was the ‘gangster girl’ for weeks in the newspapers and on television. Nothing seemed as important as knowing whether she was spending nights with Klaas Bruinsma on his yacht and whether they have had sex. Paul Rosenmöller, former party leader of GroenLinks, asked that directly in a television interview, after she married Prince Johan Friso. Her eyes widened as she said: ‘Except for Friso, you are the first person to ask me that. And the answer is: no.’

Paul Rosenmöller also asked her how she felt about her name so frequently being linked with men and power. Mabel Wisse Smit answered: ‘If women are successful when they are young, people often think it has to do with their relationships with men.’ She thought that was ‘sexist’.

But when she said that on television, in November of 2004, she already had been rehabilitated for some time. Newspapers and weeklies wrote of her marriage, in April of that same year, of her work for the American billionaire and philanthropist, George Soros, of her talent for bringing people together to work cooperatively, a talent that had contributed to making possible the Rose Revolution in Georgia in December of 2003 and January of 2004. Mabel Wisse Smit was one of those who organised the use of Soros’s money to send extra observers to Georgia when President Shevardnadze, favourably disposed to the Russians, held elections, to check whether these were being conducted honestly. When it was established that this was not the case, new elections were announced. Without a civil war, the democratic Michail Saakasjvili, with Western leanings, came to power.

And then, at the end of August 2003, the Netherlands’ most renowned crime journalist, Peter R. de Vries, decided to get to the bottom of the case. He tracked down one of Bruinsma’s former bodyguards, the Chilean, Charlie da Silva. On television he said he was certain that Mabel Wisse Smit had been his boss’s girlfriend. That was when the ‘yes she did – no she didn’t’ slanging match started that lasted until 12 December 2003, the day Prime Minister Balkenende said there was no remedy for falsehood. Prince Johan Friso and Mabel Wisse Smit were later to express their heartfelt indignation about this: they had told no lies; at the most they hadn’t told the whole truth. Why should they?

At the United Nations in New York in 1993, she got to know Mohamed Sacirbey, ten years her senior and married. But that did not stop them from openly beginning a relationship with each other. In 1992, when the war in Bosnia had just broken out, he had been requested by President Alija Izetbegovic to internationally promote the Bosnian cause, as Foreign Minister.

Mabel Wisse Smit became one of Sacirbey’s lobbyists. In the Netherlands she set up the European Council for Peace on the Balkans. She found people like Thatcher and Giscard d’Estaing willing to lend their names to the cause. Sacirbey represented Bosnia at the peace treaties concluded in Dayton, Ohio in 1995. Then he stepped down as Foreign Minister and once more became Ambassador to the United Nations in New York.

The Bosnian government was responsible for his arrest there in 2003. It was said that, under his responsibility, 2.5 million dollars went missing from the UN mission during the war. In January 2005. , Sacirbey was extradited to Bosnia by the United States.

Shortly after Dayton, Mabel Wisse Smit and Sacirbey ended their relationship. In 1998, she was approached by the Open Society Institute in New York to set up an office in Europe. The World Economic Forum in Geneva pointed her out as one of the future world leaders.

At the end of 2000, Mabel Wisse Smit was introduced by her friend Laurentien Brinkhorst to Prince Johan Friso. Laurentien Brinkhorst was then the fiancée of Friso’s brother Constantijn. When her son announced his engagement in 2003, queen Beatrix said she was ‘especially pleased’ with Mabel, ‘her very loving and talented, future daughter-in-law’.

Princess Mabel still works in Brussels, at the Open Society Institute of George Soros. Once the screening by the Intelligence Services [AIVD] had not turned up any more damaging facts, she once again became the ambitious, brilliant networker she had been before the Klaas Bruinsma affair. Prince Friso has been Director of the Space Faculty of the INO [the Dutch Organisation for Applied Scientific Research] since March of 2004. The couple is no longer a subject for the serious press. The tabloids were concentrating on their first child.

The work of Mabel Wisse Smit in the Dutch media was described as “charity” but that’s  nonsense: her employer, the Open Society Institute, is a political organization par excellence, and has never hidden. The OSI exists to the liberal-conservative ideas of the philosopher Karl Popper to wear – according to the interpretation of mega-speculator George Soros.

The social philosophy of Karl Popper is easy to summarize: ‘open society’ essentially means ‘free market’. For an international currency speculator, his liberalism an attractive philosophy.

In any case, Mabel was politically active since 1994, and especially with a right-wing agenda.

In 1993 she was an intern at the UN: it is not something that you just arrange through the internship coordinator -some mighty protegee or the right people with the right contacts.  That’s an entrance to the world of international politics, and Mabel Wisse Smit went further in that direction. She worked at  the OSI,  in charge of the Western military interventions, and the imposition of a free-market economy, even by war.

George Soros and his foundations propagate an ultra-liberal ideology: it is based on the absolute moral superiority of liberal society, whereas  their liberalism is an obligation that has to emerge the entire world,  by the conquer and later liberalization.

The OSI seeks an Atlantic-oriented Europe of national states, led by the United States – the model on which NATO is based. When many Eastern Europeans fled their homelands, Soros  combined his globalism with anti-communism. The expectation of these exiles was that after the breakup of the multi-ethnic states such as Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, the new national states would enter the free market, and accept the leadership of the U.S.
In most cases this presumption came true.   And it also explains the strategy of the OSI:
to promote liberalism, by ethnic divisions and separations encouraging.
This essay (published in the magazine of the U.S. defense academy)  helps the future of the  OSI to be understand. It advocates a strategy of the U.S. ‘unnatural’ multi-ethnic states breaking up, and replace by ‘natural’ ethnic states.

We destroyed or helped destroy 11 empires in our 250-year old epoch, while the remaining few – Portuguese, Dutch, Belgian – died of decay. The fundamental difficulty remaining, apart from mankind’s innate tendencies, is that those empires twisted the world into unnatural shapes. Although the empires are gone, the treacherous boundaries they established remain. Empires drew borders based not upon popular preference or human affinities, but as a result of conflicts, competition, and compromise with other empires…. Instead of using our might in vain attempts to force those who hate one another to live together – our “no-divorce” approach to foreign policy – we should lead the way in developing mechanisms to amend borders peacefully – or as peacefully as possible.”

Mabel Wisse Smit is also an eager  supporter of the Soros ideology,  – otherwise she could never find herself  in a top job at the OSI. That seems to me more important than a relationship with Klaas Bruinsma. She is the director of the Brussels office of the OSI, which is directly under the headquarters in New York .  Along with the office in Budapest, OSI-Brussels regulates the flow of funds to the national Soros foundations in several Eastern European countries.

It co-ordinates the co-operation with Western governments and international organizations – and therefore also with the EU. Soros activities are often co-financed by other agencies in Eastern Europe, especially the EU. The Brussels office also supervises the policy of the new members of the EU – and the EU uses the ‘values’ of the OSI to penetrate. This may include, for example, that the new Member States liberalism in nursery schools should teach, or that universities are in English.

Mabel Wisse Smit has been directly involved in three organizations. First there was the European Action Council for Peace in the Balkans – not to be confused with the American Action Council for Peace in the Balkans “. The EACPB was founded in 1994, and the future Dutch princess Mabel  had a relationship with the Bosnian representative to the UN, Mohammed Sacirbey, which lasted until 1998  according Sacirbey.

From this period Mabel Wisse Smit and Willemijn Proceedings started the War Child Netherlands organization. This actually was the Dutch branch of the previously established British War Child.  Two years later  she became the head of the Organization.

War Child Netherlands is formed by a political lobby to serve a political cause – the cause of Bosnian independence and Western intervention. Mabel Wisse Smit remained four years on the Board of War Child sitting, until 1999, while she also worked at the EACPB. The two organizations shared an office for three consecutive addresses: War Child paid the rent of Lauriergracht Singel 126 and 118.

It is unclear what the EACPB has done for many years, there are well-sounding names in a Committee of Recommendation list, but the organization does not even have a website. It is also unclear who paid it, as well as  on what  Mabel lived in the years between internship and first permanent job.

Since 1997 Mabel was on the payroll of the George Soros Open Society Institute. On the website of the OSI Education Support Unit she’s titled the “Executive Director” of the EACPB, same as in OSI.   Mabel Wisse Smit has always had her political work  based on the humanitarian fundraising,  and that’s the case of the ‘ War Child’ in general, which was the 90s closely connected  with the pro-intervention lobby.

Also Wisse Smit positioned  the Amsterdam lawyer Phon van den Biesen in the administration of both the EACPB as War Child. Van den Biesen was not an independent figure: he was a  lawyer of the state of Bosnia. He along with Mohammed Sacirbey spoke at the International Court, when Bosnia accused  Yugoslavia for genocide.

The War Child Netherlands is  partly paid by the  Ministry of Foreign Affairs – € 3.7 million for the years 2003-2006. The British War Child was founded with money from the British Foreign Office, specifically the ODA led by Thatcher’s former chief of staff Andy Bearpark.

Mabel Wisse Smit a was part of Bosnian Muslim lobby: until October 2003 that fact got little attention in the media.

It is hard to imagine what kind of pro-Bosnian and anti-Serb hysteria reigned at that time. The Soviet Union had just gone down, and there was a great revival of nationalism. The war in Bosnia was portrayed as the new Holocaust, and opponents of the intervention were labeled as fascists. Especially the  controversial ‘Serbian attack’ on Sarajevo was used to create a myth,  and it was achieved through picturing the situation in Bosnia as a battle between good and evil, an attack on the culture, tolerance, on humanity, on the art, the literature, and the city. Even the special terminology a.e.  word ‘urbicide’ (city murder)  has been coined to describe it.

Public opinion was literally edited with horror stories, such as the Serbian “rape camps” – that were never found.
All this was the case of the Bosnian nationalism (in several variants), and Croatian nationalism, Slovenian nationalism, Macedonian nationalism, and later also the Albanian nationalism in Kosovo. Mabel Wisse Smit has worked to establish closed national states in the Balkans. It is thanks to people like her that Soros and NGO succeeded in enforcing their agenda.

After the war in Bosnia – from 1996 –  she focused on Serbia alone, and soon on  Serbian Kosovo.

A large part of the former Bosnia-lobbying campaign has simply continued, now with the Kosovo Albanians,  who were portrayed as the victims and took over the role BOsnian Muslim separatists previously played.
Western intervention was  the  aim again, but through  the overthrow of Milosevic and the ‘liberalization’ of Serbia.
And after the NATO aggression on Serbia 1999.  Milosevic was forced to retreat from Kosovo. He was then replaced  by a pro-Western, USA, NATO supported, payed by Sorosh opposition movement, supported by a part of the army.

The Soros foundations supported and controlled the opposition in Serbia.  Mabel Wisse Smit was, because of its coordinating role at the office of the OSI, certainly also involved. Zoran Djindjic, assassinated later, was seen in the West as a future leader of Serbia, but he never received widespread support. After the fall of Milosevic, the “normal work” of the OSI began – promoting liberalism and  privatization.“Major Gathering of Investors in Belgrade by The End of February.
The two-day Yugoslavia Summit dedicated to international support for the country’s plans for economic development and Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic opened on February 25, with the participation of several hundreds of local and foreign companies. The summit, held at the Hyatt Regency Hotel,  discussed economic and international policy, investment opportunities in Serbia, Privatization, the banking and finance systems, security and safety of the market and other significant themes related to Yugoslavia’s economic development. Confirmed participants included Yugoslav Deputy Prime Minister Miroljub Labus,  National Bank Governor Mladjan Dinkic, Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic, the UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy for the Balkans, Carl Bildt, and U.S. ambassador to Yugoslavia William Montgomery, as well as Serbian government ministers and representatives . The organizers have Also Announced participation of executive director of the Soros Foundation Mabel Wisse Smith, EBRD office head Henry Russel, IMF representative for Yugoslavia Joshua Charap, World Bank Belgrade office head Rory O’Sullivan, and European Agency for Reconstruction representative Hasso Milineus
Belgrade , Feb. 8, 2002. ” –

To be continued 

Mainstream Media or Retard Informs Retards

This is the phenomena I’ve been observing for years (that’s why I copied the whole text from the site):

Hiding Kosovo Albanian and Bosnian Muslim Killers Among the “Yugoslavians”, “Bosnians” and “Americans”

In the past two years in United States we had four Yugoslavian terrorists who wanted to “kill as many American soldiers as possible”, a coldblooded Yugoslavian murderer who shot a man in the face, killing him in broad daylight in the midst of New York, a Bosnian mass murderer who gunned down random mall shoppers, two naturalized Americans who wanted to wage violent jihad around the world, and a Bosnian beauty — all belonging to none of the world’s known nations, and mostly coming from a nonexistent country.

Arber Mustafaj, Kosovo Albanian killer

Arber Mustafaj, Kosovo Albanian killer

Although even the New York Times must have heard by now Yugoslavian nation never existed, that long-ago-destroyed country called Yugoslavia (meaning a country of the Southern Slavs) was populated by Serbian, Slovenian, Croat, Muslim and Macedonian nations and numerous othernational minorities, American corporate media keeps reinventing the Yugoslavian nation whenever they need to cover up for their allies of the day.

Kosovo Albanian terrorist Hysein Sherifi
Kosovo Albanian terrorist Hysen Sherifi

When six terrorists plotting to blow up U.S. Army base in New Jersey were arrested everyone, starting from the Associated Press and NYT down, reported that the men are “Yugoslavs”, “from former Yugoslavia and Middle East”.

In fact, four of the “Fort Dix Six”, sentenced in the meantime, are Albanians from the Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija, one man is Turkish and the sixth is Jordanian.

The exact same retard-informs-retards approach was employed few wees ago, when Kosovo Albanian Arber Mustafaj, a fake refugee with a lengthy crime sheet, was apprehended by the U.S. border patrol and arrested on an outstanding warrant for murder (he shot a man in New York City). Both the border patroland the U.S. media informed us that Mustafaj is “a Yugoslavian man” and was with “two other Yugoslavians” at the time of apprehension. We are told one of those other two is his brother — guess what’s his nationality.

Bosnian Muslim jihadists Anes Subasic
Bosnian Muslim jihadist Anes Subasic

Sulejman Talović, who went on a shooting spree at a Utah shopping mall, killing five people and wounding four others, was merely a “Bosnian” — another nonexistent nationality in a country populated by the Serbs, Croats and Muslims, conveniently used to protect the laboriously fabricated good-guys image of the latest U.S. allies. It took no less than a riot by an outraged blogosphere for the MSM to admit the killer was neither a Bosnian Serb, nor a Bosnian Croat but, indeed, a Bosnian Muslim. However, they added another twist to it and had enough audacity left to still end up blaming the Serbs for his carnage. The one for the Believe It or Not department.

Out of seven recently arrested terrorists, charged with plotting to wage jihad outside the United States, one is Bosnian Muslim (Anes Subašić) and another is Albanian from Kosovo and Metohija province (Hysen Sherifi). But see if you can find that information anywhere herehere, or here. To AP, CNN and NYT, both Subašić and Sherifi have no ethnic background or any background whatsoever, they are simply “naturalized American citizens”. Imagine how naturalized a Serb would be if one would try something these two were about to pull.

Bosnian Beauty and Serb War Criminals

When Danijela Krstić, a beautiful Serbian girl from the town of Zvornik whose family was forced to flee Alija Izetbegović’s jihad, won the title of Miss Oregon, she was paraded through the press as another member of a nonexistent nationality.

Miss Oregon 2009 Danijela Krstic, Bosnian Serb
Danijela Krstic, Bosnian Serb beauty

“Bosnian beauty wins Miss Oregon crown”, cheered the Beaverton Valley Times, stressing Danijela, “a refugee from Bosnia” is “the first winner to be born outside the United States in the pageant’s 61-year history”. A charity organization introduced Miss Oregon as “a Bosnian refugee who moved to Oregon as a teenager”, while the state’s Rotary Club explained Danijela is “24 years old and a native of Bosnia”.

The same way former President Karadžić and General Ratko Mladić are simply Bosnians, right?

There must have been a score of “Yugoslavian”, “Bosnian” and “Balkan” killers and terrorists in the past years that a whole team would be needed to track down and cover, but the principle is always the same: you will be told someone is a Serb — Bosnian, Kosovo or any other — right from the title only if he is accused of doing something wrong. In all other cases, you will be left to think the “Yugoslav”, “Bosnian” or “Balkan” brute in question is most probably another “evil Serb”, because no American media outlet will tell you that he isn’t.

As for the beauties… well, they can’t be Serb, can they?

Danijela most surely is, and apparently one with more than just a pretty face. She just returned from Montenegro coast, where she took 45 Kosovo Serb children from their ghettos in Orahovac, Goraždevac, Hoča and Peć, for a summer vacation and tour of Serbian Orthodox holy sites.

“The words of praise are too small for Danijela’s humanity and everything she has done for our children — we shall never forget this”, the school pedagogue Milica Perić, surrounded by the joyous Kosovo and Metohija children, told Serbian news agency Tanjug at the end of their unexpected bliss by the sea.


The Book that provided Jewish support to neo Nazi Croatia, or Are PR agencies allowed to falsify history?

The very first falsification of history  took place in former Yugoslavia, when the West desperately needed to gain support for their ‘guys’, , who’s history consisted only from data related to serving different Powers. The West both loves and needs those obeyable, who are the best warriors  ’not for their bravery, but for their sadism’ .

One of the first things the West needed to do was to make connection between NAZISM, Reich, and Serbia, which was impossible to do, for all the Serbian lands are full of Serbs killed by Germans ( ‘for single dead German, 100 Serbs to be shot’ policy), and more by Croats and Bosnian Muslim  (over a million during the WWII only), by the Albanians (over 300.000. in WWII), and approx. 50.000 by Bulgaria during Balkan, 1st and the Second WW).
So it was Serbia who never  kneeled to any power (therefore not to NWO, NATO, USA either ), and that’s the main difference between them and their neighboring states, who were eager to express their devotion to every single mass murderer on the horizon if they would have been given the right to kill, rob, rape or usurp property of those who are non obeyable (see welcoming Hitler in Slovenia, Maribor  by renaming invader a liberator and throwing mountains of roses on his way
(see Hitler in Zageb )
and Bosnian Muslims,as well as the Albanians


on the picture: Notorious Bosnian Handjar SS division, responsible for murdering hundreds of thousands of Serbs in Kozara and potkozarje, Herzegovina  and Bosnia. The cap they wore is a typical Turkish fes (militarized version)

Meanwhile Serbia replied to Hitler same as to NATO half a century later:  NO! Never! Better to be dead, than to be a slave!

Ruder&Finn had a very difficult task – to do the impossible: to link the Serbs to Nazis, and to provoke a sort of  a global odium.
One of the first thing they did was to buy quasi historians and researchers who will write a new falsified history that will attract the most powerful lobby in Congress – Jewish.  But with the ‘new’ history where all the facts are twisted,  imagined and forged, where the victim becomes a murderer and the torturer is a savior- everything was possible. This is how one PR invented historic ‘study’ looks like:

images (1)

And it tells the story of Serbs as murderers of Jews, about Jewish community of Serbia and their non recognized civil rights, and similar)  When one takes a look at the cover photo it’s simply clear what kind of feeling Ruder Finn wanted  (and succeeded) to provoke: There is a human with the star of Bethlehem, obviously Jewish trying to protect himself from the Serbian insignia, and Cyrillic text that says something about Anti Masons exhibition, and the price. Simple psycho suggestion: Jews endangered by the Serbs. Therefore, the Serbs must be evil. If the Serbs are evil (endangering Jews), than those who are fighting against them must be good. That’s where the brainwashed mass media consumer’s analytic capacity ends.  And who cares about thousands of Serbs who were killed by Jewish newly discovered friends,  for hiding Jewish children in their homes? Jews, obviously, don’t.  I sincerely hope that Serbs will remember that, even though they are famous for their bad historic memory.

  •  On August 1991, the Croatian government hired the American public relations firm Ruder Finn Global Public Affairs to ”develop and carry out strategies and tactics for communication with members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate as well as with officials of the U.S. government including the State Department, the National Security Council and other relevant agencies and departments of the U.S. government as well as with American and international news media”. On 12 November 1991, Ruder Finn’s contract was renewed to include lobbying in relation to diplomatic recognition, sanctions, and embargoes, as well as briefings for officials of the first Bush administration and preparation of special background material, press releases, both reactive and proactive articles and letters to the editors to appear in major newspapers, briefings for journalists, columnists, and commentators. In January and February 1992, Ruder Finn organized trips to Croatia for U.S. Congressmen. The United States recognized Croatia as an independent state on 7 April 1992
  • On 23 June 1992, Izetbegovic’s government in Sarajevo in turn signed a contract with Ruder Finn in order to promote a stronger leadership role for the United States in the Balkans. To this end, the agency undertook an impressive array of actions, notably setting up a “Bosnia Crisis Communication Center” in contact with American, British, and French media; media appearance coaching for Bosnian foreign minister Haris Silajdzic; sending press releases to U.S. Congressmen and “Fax Updates” on developments in Bosnia-Herzegovina to over 300 addresses, including the most important world media and parliamentarians; writing 17 letters to be signed by Izetbegovic and Silajdzic and addressed to top world representatives at international conferences; organizing personal contacts between Silajdzic and Al Gore, Margaret Thatcher, and other influential personalities, including 17 U.S. Senators; placing articles on in the editorial pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and so on.
  • Eighteen months after taking the Croatian contract, Ruder Finn was able to boast to having “developed a reputation as the international public relations agency with the greatest experience and involvement with the crisis in the Balkans. Our work has helped put Ruder Finn on the map in Washington, DC, and internationally.” The agency claimed to have gained “dozens of close contacts in Congress and among the news media”.
  • In October 1992, Ruder Finn took up the job of public relations for the ethnic Albanian separatists in the Serbian province of Kosovo.
  • In April 1993, French television journalist Jacques Merlino visited the Washington headquarters of Ruder Finn Global Public Affairs to interview the man in charge of the Balkan contracts, James Harff. Merlino asked Harff what he considered his proudest achievement in this operation. The answer: “Having succeeded in putting Jewish opinion on our side.” The image of both Croats and Bosnian Muslims risked being tarnished by their involvement in the persecution of Jews during World War II. “Our challenge was to turn that around”, Harff told Merlino, and this had been done thanks to the “camps” story.

In the first days of August 1992, the Long Island newspaper Newsday published reports from its Bonn correspondent Roy Gutman, based on interviews in Zagreb, telling of horrendous conditions in Serb-run internment camps in Bosnia. Seeing the potential impact of comparison with Nazi “death camps”, Ruder Finn immediately contacted three major Jewish organizations, the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, and the American Jewish Congress, suggesting they publicly protest. They did. This launched the demonization of Serbs as the new Nazis. In 1993, Ruder Finn was awarded the Silver Medal of the Public Relations Society of America in the category “crisis communication“.

Media Cleansing – Dirty Reporting



BOOK REVIEW by Edward. S. Herman:

This important and valuable book complements perfectly the superb volumes on Yugoslavia by Diana Johnstone (Fools’ Crusade) and Michael Mandel (How America Gets Away With Murder). Johnstone provides essential history and context to the Balkan wars, analyzing the indigenous participants, their backgrounds, motivations and strategies, and the very important role played there by external interveners (the Croatian and Bosnian Muslim diaspora  and PR firms, Austria, Germany, the United States, and the UN and Yugoslavia Tribunal (ICTY]).  Mandel provides an outstanding study of the recent U.S. aggression and the role and abuse of international law and the ICTY in facilitating those aggression  Brock focuses on the role of the media, which like the NATO powers and ICTY were “co-belligerents,” doing yeoman service in advancing the program of the individuals, groups and governments that wanted war. “Embedded” journalists did not start with the Iraq invasion-occupation; voluntary embeds were a dominant feature of the Western media in the Balkans conflicts.

The huge irony that Brock reveals so clearly is that the media co-belligerents, pushing relentlessly for more aggressive action, supposedly in the interests of stopping ethnic cleansing and killing, played into the hands of parties with a political agenda that assured and produced far more ethnic cleansing and killing than might have taken place without their bellicosity and war propaganda service. The same irony is clear in Johnstone’s and Mandel’s volumes that deal with the ends and means of the indigenous and external participants.

The focus on “justice” as opposed to peace, and the demonizing of the Serbs and making them the unique group needing punishment, was the vehicle used by Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic and his close associates, and Clinton/Albright and KohlGenscher and their associates, to prevent a peaceful settlement – most importantly in backing out of the 1992 Lisbon Agreement – and to work incessantly to get NATO to intervene militarily on behalf, first, of Izetbegovic and the Bosnian Muslims and then the Kosovo Liberation Army and Kosovo Albanians. Brock shows that the media served these pro-violence and anti-peace ends relentlessly and effectively.
He argues convincingly that this was a model case of “pack journalism,” and also of what has been called “advocacy journalism” or “the journalism of attachment.” The journalists were quickly convinced that good was fighting evil, or that it was obligatory and less risky to take this as a given, and so they joined the pack and became advocates attached to the supposed good side and their victims. This was aided in the Balkans by the fact that most of the journalists didn’t know the language or history of the area, and that, because of the threat of bodily harm in
trying to do real journalism,they tended to congregate in protected areas – many of them, as one cynical observer noted, only reported what they saw “150 meters on either side of the Holiday Inn” (General Lewis MacKenzie).
This made them dependent for “news” on one another and on the official sources happy to service their needs. As they stayed in the part of Sarajevo controlled by the Bosnian Muslims, they, along with U.S. officials, were the main sources of news, and as Brock notes they were hardly aware of the existence of a large Serb population in Sarajevo, some 50,000 of whose members left or were driven out of the city. The pack were even unaware of the exodus of the Jewish population of Sarajevo (pp. 131-3), quietly threatened by the dominant Muslims and recalling well (like the Serbs) the murderous behavior of the Muslims and Croats in the era of Nazi rule during World War II.
The pack journalists in Sarajevo (and elsewhere in the Balkans) were thus highly manageable, knowing the broader truth in advance, dispensing with notions of substantive objectivity and balance, and on the hunt for stories that would both confirm the institutionalized bias – and therefore please their editors at home – and advance the cause that they advocated and for which they campaigned.
Journalists like David Rieff, Roy Gutman and Ed Vulliamy openly acknowledged that they were campaigners for more aggressive NATO intervention (i.e., war), and they were by no means alone. But this meant that they had ceased to be serious journalists who would check out the facts and claims of all sides and provide a full and fair picture of the complex events in the struggle. They would instead gravitate to stories that advanced the cause and would treat them with uncritical zeal. As another cynical observer described it,this meant that Izetbegovic “could
play them like a Stradivarius,” and in effect use them as agents of Bosnian Muslim propaganda and disinformation. (The more “balanced” Roy Gutman was played like a Stradivarius by the Croatian information service and U.S. Embassy as well  as Muslim authorities.)
This pack and bandwagon process fed on itself. As it focused only on the victimization of the Bosnian Muslims, featuring grim pictures and stories of their suffering, ignoring Serb victims and context, and aided by the parallel agenda and bias of the ICTY and Western political establishment, the party line of almost exclusively one-sided evil was steadily reinforced. (Former State Department official George Kenney’s research disclosed, however, that “the percentage of each population base killed was roughly identical,” and even an ICTY-sponsored study found Serb deaths not far below their proportion of the Bosnia-Herzegovina population – see Ewa Tabeau and Jacub Bijak,
“War-related Deaths in the 1992–1995 Armed Conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina: A Critique of Previous Estimates and Recent Results (European Journal of Population/Revue européenne de Démographie, June, 2005).
Gullibility and the demand for more spectacular showings of evil encouraged increasingly  irresponsible reporting and claims of victimization in “rape camps” and Auschwitz-like “death camps.” The books of these journalists would be what Brock calls “victim epics,” with politically correct selective victimization based largely on witness evidence supplied by partisan sources that was regrettably “unconfirmed.”
Brock has a detailed and convincing deconstruction of the claims of rape camps and rape as a Serb military tactic and exclusive (chapter 5).While certainly never denying Serb rapes, he shows that there is not the slightest evidence that Serb rapes were more numerous or organized than those of Bosnian Muslim or Croatian forces. He points out that the documentation of Serb rape victims is more extensive and of better quality than that of victims of Serbs,despite the sizable resources put into collecting evidence of the latter. The Serb data just never could attract the interest of the pack (and the same was true of the pack’s treatment of Serb dossiers of war crimes and prison camps in which Serbs were victims).
The bias confused the media – Paul Lewis writing in the New York Times on “Rape Was Weapon of the Serbs” (Oct. 20, 1993) noted that a UN report had identified “800 victims by name,” but Lewis failed to mention that they were Serb women. The estimates of 50,000 or 20,000 rape victims of Serbs were based on no evidence whatsoever, and the belief that rape was a special Serb crime rested strictly on the overwhelming political bias of the pack and superior public relations and propaganda activity of the Croats and Bosnian Muslims. (A January 1994 UN report evaluating all the documentation on rapes, excluding evidence
from the Serbs, listed 126 confirmed victims. This finding did not interest the officilas and media. The media role in this hysterical propaganda barrage, with the best of the reports noting that the claims are “unconfirmed” (!), was a scandal, reflecting a media completely out of control and justifying UN official Aracelly Santana’s comment that “I’ve never seen so much lack of professionalism and ethics in the press.” The UN representatives and British officials dealing with the media in Sarajevo looked upon the pack with contempt as a destructive force, some of them even calling its members “the reptiles.”
Brock also has a very good discussion of the famous photo of Fikret Alic, taken at the Trnopolje transit camp in August 1992, another fine illustration of the quest for denigration of the enemy and the lack of scruple of Western reporters and media. He shows that the three British  reporters, two from Independent Television News (ITN) and one from the Guardian, sought out the uniquely emaciated man among the camp residents, and carefully arranged for a photo that
made it look as if Alic was enclosed in a fenced prison, the reporters having deliberately placed themselves behind four strands of rusted and sagging barbed wire, strung haphazardly between two posts, with a thin chicken wire mesh hanging beneath, with Alic on the other side. “The cameramen and layout editors cropped the photos of Alic so that the three or four strands of barbed wire were emphasized.” There was no barbed wire fence around the camp, which was a transit facility and not even a prison encampment, and the refugees in the camp were even free to leave. But the Fikret Alic picture was quickly seized upon by the Western media, and juxtaposed with pictures of Belsen and Auschwitz, and the media featured this “death camp” with frenzied indignation and thoroughgoing dishonesty.


Compelling evidence by Thomas Deichmann that the photo was a propaganda fraud led to a journalistic bloodbath: “The reactionary attacks from pack-journalism’s interventionists ommenced with fury and gusto,” and led to a libel suit and bankruptcy of the British magazine Living Marxism that had published Deichmann’s article. The suit was lost by Living Marxism not on the ground that the facts in the article were wrong but rather that it had not been proved that there was an intent to deceive – the huge deception, which happened to fit both the biases of the reporters, editors and Western establishment, was inadvertent!
This deceptive photo worked wonders in advancing the demonization process and war agenda, and though based on serious misrepresentation it was not correctible in the mainstream and remains alive today (in Emma Brockes’ recent attack on Noam Chomsky in The Guardian she mentions that ITN won its libel suit on this topic, but she failed to note that it was won on the question of intent, not on the question of whether the facts relating to the photo were misleading).
And the pack journalists would provide a steady stream of followup negatives, always one-sided and stripped of context, and often falsifications. Brock has a number of pages that simply list misrepresentations, sometimes photos of victims identified as Muslims but actually Serbs (see pp. 30-32, 122-4, 170-2), and dozens of illustrations of blatant bias are scattered throughout the book. Brock also shows how regularly the pack journalists would report on Serb attacks on various towns – e.g.,Goradze,Mostar, Bihac, Vukovar, and Struga – never mentioning either the fact that the towns had previously been ethnically cleansed of Serbs, or that the Serbs were retaliating for recent attacks emanating from these towns. The decontextualization and misreading of the recent sequence of events was standard reportorial operating practice, resting on bias plus uncritical dependence on Bosnian Muslim or Croat sources. (On lies regarding the Serb attack on Goradze, pp. 75-76; on Vukovar, pp. xiii-xv; on the remarkable effectiveness of Croat propaganda and lack of integrity of AP and other Western sources at Struga, pp. 42-45; on Michael Gordon’s lies on the numbers in Serb
concentration camps, pp. 80-81).
Brock notes that there were dissenters from party line pack journalism, but he shows that these were quickly attacked and marginalized, in a familiar process.

This is the “media cleansing,” that permitted the triumph of “dirty reporting.” Brock himself, having written an article critical of the already closed party line media coverage back in 1993 (“Dateline Yugoslavia: The Partisan Press,” Foreign Policy, Winter 1993-1994), was harshly assailed by members of the pack, and the publisher of his article was also put under pressure and threatened for this deviationism. George Kenney, a former State Department official working on the Balkans, who had quit because of insufficient U.S. intervention in the ongoing wars, changed his views and became a serious critic of the party line. Kenney, like Brock, was quickly subjected to nasty attacks and dropped by the BBC and U.S. mainstream media as a commentator on the Balkans struggle.

Even Lt. General Michael Rose, the UNPROFOR commander in Sarajevo, was subjected to slashing attacks by pack members, who resented his frequent confutations of pack misinformation, and who, as campaigners for the Bosnian Muslims, were angry at the failure of UNPROFOR to bomb the Serbs (see Brock’s crushing analysis of Peter Jennings’ biased, ignorant and nasty attack on Rose – “The Peacekeepers – How the UN Failed in Bosnia,” ABC, April 24, 1995, at pp. 175-6; and on Jennings’ and ABC’s journalistic abuses more broadly, p. 173 ).

Perhaps the most interesting case was that of David Binder, who writes a Foreword to Brock’s book under review here, and who was the most experienced and knowledgeable New York Times reporter working in the Balkans in the 1980s and 1990s. Binder, however, was not a party liner, having witnessed and reported on the Kosovo Albanians attempts to drive Serbs out of Kosovo in the 1980s and who recognized that important elements of that community were striving for ethnic purification. But with the firming up of the party line in the 1990s his insistence on sometimes reporting items putting the Bosnian Muslims or Kosovo Albanians in a bad light was looked upon with disfavor by his editors. In one notorious case discussed by Brock, Binder wrote an article based on the testimony of numerous qualified UN and military insiders that pointed to the Bosnian Muslims as the source of the bomb that killed mainly Bosnian Muslim civilians in Sarajevo in the Markale market bombing of February 5, 1994, but which helped sell more aggressive NATO actions against the Serbs. The Times refused to publish the articlewhich forced Binder to resort to a Swiss newspaper, Die Weltwoche and the journal Foreign Policy (“Anatomy of a Massacre,” Winter 1994-95). Eventually Binder was removed from reporting on the Balkans in favor of reporters like Roger Cohen, Carlotta Gall, Marlise Simons, and John F. Burns, who were prepared to toe the party line – and sometimes disseminated lies, but only lies that reinforced the party line and its biases (see the discussion of John F. Burns below). The treatment of Binder was reminiscent of the removal of Raymond Bonner from reporting on Central America in the 1980s, after Bonner failed to stop sending in copy on the murderous operations of the U.S.-supported Salvadoran army. The firing of Bonner was widely seen as a warning to journalist deviationists; the removal of Binder and the attacks on Brock and Kenney had a similar chilling effect. 

Under the pack system, and with the triumph of the demonization process and simple Manichean world view of the struggle, there was a massive voluntary embedding and collapse of journalistic standards.

The rush was on to illustrate villainy at all costs, a process also notorious at the end of the Kosovo war in June 1999 when NATO-country pack journalists rushed into Kosovo searching for rape victims, dead bodies, and stories of Serb atrocities. In this environment journalistic fraud flourishes and gullibility is great, making the journalists sitting ducks for interested propagandists. If Bosnian Muslim officials claimed 200,000 Bosnian Muslim victims in 1992-1993, that was swallowed uncritically by the media (and Clinton) despite implausibility, inconsistencies, and doubts expressed by the likes of George Kenney. This figure persists up to today – see the editorials “Bosnia, 10 Years Later” in the New York Times, Nov. 25, 2005 and “Bosnia’s Slow Progress,” Washington Post, Nov. 29 – despite repudiation even by ICTYsponsored sources, which have lowered the number for deaths on all sides, civilian and military, to something like 100,000. (See the Tabeau/Biljac study cited earlier.) We may recall the history of the figure of 2 million murdered by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, first provided by Jean Lacouture in early 1977, then acknowledged by him to have been created out of the whole cloth, but accepted and persisting up to today.

The rule for demonized enemies is that the worst is believable and can be institutionalized even if demonstrably fraudulent.

Brock shows that it was a regular practice for the media to swallow and transmit without verification Bosnian Muslim official and even ham radio station claims of deaths in various battle zones. These were almost always inflated or entirely false, but the media took the bait, and while disappointed to find later that they had been gulled, neither issued corrections nor learned to be cautious.

There were no real costs for the journalists or media in making errors damaging to the demonized enemy. Brock is at his best in analyzing the work of John F. Burns of the New York
Times and Roy Gutman of Newsday, who shared the 1993 Pulitzer Prize for journalism for their work in Bosnia. Brock shows that this award is a perfect manifestation of the corruption of the “journalism of attachment” and of the Pulitzer award system, which is an index of the corruption of journalism more broadly.
The Burns case is the more dramatic, and even funny, as Burns got the award based in large part on a long Times article that focused on the confession of a Bosnian Serb prisoner of the Muslims, Borislav Herak, who confessed to having murdered 29 Muslims and raped eight women. Burns’s article was billed as offering “insight into the way thousands of others have died in Bosnia.”
Burns, who was well-known at the time to be an Izetbegovic favorite, had been given quick access to Herak, along with a Soros-funded movie-maker (whose presence at the interrogation was never acknowledged in the Burns report). Herak appeared very frightened, told his story to Burns “partly in the presence of prison officials,” and after one session asked Burns to get the prison authorities to promise not to beat him after his testimony!
There was no corroborating evidence in corpses or eyewitnesses to his alleged crimes, and a fellow Bosnian Serb arrested with Herak had said right away that Herak was lying. Both Burns and the movie-maker suppressed the fact that Herak had accused UNPROFOR head, Canadian General Lewis MacKenzie, of having raped Bosnian women in a local bordello. Burns acknowledged to MacKenzie that this would reduce Herak’s credibility and spoil the story, but he suppressed the information in violation of professional standards and in support of lies that he should have known were lies. Several years later Herak recanted, claiming that he had been tortured and forced to memorize his confession lines.

Shortly after this admission two of his alleged murder victims turned up alive.

The Times, in reporting on the appearance of the two supposed Herak victims, said that this was an embarrassment to the Bosnian Muslim government, but it found nothing embarrassing in the incident to the New York Times, and there has been no move by the Pulitzer award committee to remove Burns’ Pulitzer award based on a confession under torture with
compromising evidence suppressed. 

Brock has quite a few other illustrations of Burns’ violations of journalistic ethics. Burns pioneered in alleging 200,000 Muslim deaths in the warfare as early as July 1993, up from his estimate in April of 140,000; and, “venturing less and less outside Sarajevo, [Burns] consistently reported the government’s inflated casualty counts during the war.” On the MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour (Jan. 10, 1994)
Burns upped the ante to 300,000 killed and 900,000 wounded. (For other Burns lies, misrepresentations and suppressions of evidence, pp. 77-80, 187.)
Brock’s analysis of the work of Roy Gutman is equally devastating. He shows compellingly that Gutman was not A Witness to Genocide (the title of Gutman 1993 book based on his dispatches from Bosnia), but rather an agent of propaganda provided, directly or indirectly, by parties with an axe to grind. Many of his sources were not witnesses but purveyors of hearsay evidence from alleged witnesses. Gutman treated his sources uncritically; even speaking at one point of  “reliable rumors.” He rarely demanded – and even more rarely obtained and supplied – any corroboration to allegations of Serb abuse. If the Bosnian Muslims and Croats claimed 100,000 prisoners in Serb prison camps that was enough for Gutman;the fact that the Red Cross estimated that there were only some 10,000 prisoners in the camps of the Serbs,Croats and Bosnian Muslims taken together was of no interest to him; their finding meant that his preferred larger number was “unconfirmed.” His business was making the case against the bad guys, and he didn’t just cut corners in making that case, with the help of his badly compromised sources he wrote works of fiction that had some “unconfirmed” elements of reality. Gutman located most of his sources with the help of Croatian, Bosnian Muslim and U.S. Embassy intermediaries, most extensively from the Croatian Information Center (CIC), a government propaganda agency whose work Gutman found to be “more or less scholarly.” Gutman claimed to have met a major propaganda agent of the CIC, and Gutman source, Jadranka Cigelj, “by chance,” but he admits to having gotten a number of witnesses (or purveyors of witness hearsay) from Croatian “charitable foundations” and the U.S. embassy.

As one critical journalist (Joan Phillips) put it, his death camp stories “are based on very few accounts from alleged survivors. They rely on hearsay and double hearsay. They are given the
stamp of authority by speculation and surmise from officials.”
Gutman was very free in using analogies to Belsen, Auschwitz and references to “death camps” and “concentration camps,” “deportations,” and estimates of Serb death camp killings running up to 5,000, although his word usage and numbers varied based on probable audience knowledge and receptivity. The lack of scruple here was marked, and misstatements were frequent. “It was like Jews being deported to Auschwitz” was a lie, as there was no evidence whatsoever that Bosnian Muslims moved around by the Serbs were going to gas chambers.

Phillips notes that the 350 journalists who rushed into Bosnia looking for death camps “ didn’t find them, nor did they find any evidence that they existed.” There was in fact never any evidence that treatment in the Bosnian Serb camps was any worse than that in the Croatian and Bosnian Muslim camps, that were of no interest to Gutman.
Brock’s detailed analysis of Gutman’s work (pp. 87-116) is a compelling study in journalistic malpractice that should by read by every student of the media, especially given the fact that the outrageous performance that Brock describes here resulted in a Pulitzer prize, shared by Gutman’s rival in disinformation John F. Burns! Gutman didn’t relish any analysis by Brock, warning him by e-mail that his Witness to Genocide could “not be quoted under any circumstances.” He didn’t even relish exposure at the Hague, refusing to testify there, where he would have had to deal with cross-examination.
Brock’s book has many other good things in it, like a discussion of the role of George Soros, public relations firms, Germany, the Vatican, and of course the Tribunal as an instrument of NATO. It is a very important work filling a needed gap in the critical literature on the Balkans wars and enlightening on the work of the mainstream media. It is a sad commentary on the intellectual culture that this book, like that of Johnstone and Mandel, which contests an institutionalized party line, will be ignored in the mainstream.

Equally troubling, just as neither Johnstone nor Mandel was reviewed in the supposedly “left” Nation, In These Times, Progressive, and Mother Jones, there is a good chance that Brock will join them in being bypassed in favor of less “controversial” works. This is a testimonial to the ability of imperialism to make an official party line on an imperial project unchallengeable even on its purported left.  This is hegemony at its finest.