Academic Matters

This paper was written for my Media & Conflict Module (cross-programme) under the guidance of my in-exile Pakistani lecture, Mr Javed Nazir.

1. War In Chechnya 

The fall of the Soviet Union brings about the power struggle and vacuum throughout the Caucasus and Central Asia. Separatists in
Chechnya, aware of Russian weakness back then, took advantage of the situation by wanting to separate more territory from the Russia and thus creating “an Islamic republic from the black to the Caspian seas”.
Russia claimed that the mission of its arms forces during the first war was to restore constitutional order while the second war was a counter-terrorist operation against the Chechens.  

1.1 The First Chechen War 

Chechens experienced the most savage wars of the 20^th century and have the misfortune to experienced not one but many wars with
Russia. The first war, fought from 1994 to 1996, resulted in Chechnya’s independence from Russia which was however not recognized byRussia. Boris Yeltsin, Russia president at that point of time, refused to recognize Chechnya as an independent country and invaded Chechnya to assert the Russian authority.  The war started with civil wars between the Chechen entities of separatists and Dudaev. Dudaev was a puppet for the Russian elites to transform Chechnya into a port for their illegal activities such as money laundering and narcotics. The Chechen militants were not in support of Dudaev but found themselves drawn to the conflict when the Russian forces were harsh towards the Chechens and after a full-scale intervention by the Russian forces, the war turned from a civil war to war between
Russia and Chechnya. The civil war was in fact a cover up to the illegal traces and the Russian troops were brought in to disarm the warring Chechen entities.  The conflict however, is not one of ethnicity initially but is a struggle between the mafia and the political clans.  

A bloody war ensues with Russia withdrawal and defeated by the Chechen guerilla. On 31^st Aug 1996, Yeltsin’s national security adviser Alexander Lebed and the Chechen-elected president Aslan Maskhadov signed the Khasav-Yurt Accord for ceasefire and withdrawal of both forces from Grozny. The official figures of lives lost stands at more than 30,000 for Chechens and 5,300 for the Russian forces.  

1.2 The Second Chechen War 

The second Chechen War started in 1999; Vladimir Putin became the Russian president the same year while the war was still ongoing.
Russia objectives back then were to subdue the militants in Chechnya. It all started when the Chechen militants penetrated Dangestani villages and proclaimed an Islamic state over that part of Dangestani. The Russian authorities managed to stir the nationalist feelings of the Dangestani people and the Chechens fighters were seen as invaders.  

At around the same time, the blowing up of apartment blocks in Moscow created a climate of fear towards the Chechens, although their involvement remains uncertain. The Russian Authorities took this opportunity to confront the Chechen fighters for their terrorists’ activities and involvements. However, analysts noted that the Russian attack is a mask to reverse the earlier humiliating defeat in the first war. Russian authorities present the war as an “anti-terrorist operation” breeding on their soil and managed to prevent the breakaway of
Chechnya from the Russian federation.  

The aggravation caused by the Russian forces led to the high number of deaths for the Chechen civilians and mass migration of the Chechen people from the rocket bombardments. The ongoing conflict led to 70 percent (more then 60,000) of the dwellings in Chechnya destroyed with most the assets of the nation and its people looted. More than 90 percent of the Chechens are now unemployed and a whole generation of men (some 200,000) grown up without formal education which led to them knowing only the skill to wage an armed conflict.  

2.1 Human Rights Violations 

The conflict in Chechnya has been characterized by widespread and credible reports that Russian forces have been responsible for violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, including “disappearances”, extrajudicial executions and torture, including rape.  

During the first conflict, the Russian forces bombed a huge number of Chechens in the densely populated
Grozny to exterminate the militants and the occupants of
Grozny, who are mostly not supportive of Dudaev. The bombings led to 300,000 inhabitants fleeing Grozny to escape the rocket bombardments.  

The first war turned the international opinion against
Russia mainly because of the bombings in
Grozny and the human rights violations stories splashes across the international media.                 

2.2 Russia Media Control 

The change in public opinion between the first and the second conflict is due to the Russian authorities’ successful propaganda. In the second Chechen war, the Russian Information Centre was set up as the main node for reports and news on the conflict.

Putin started his public relations campaign by replacing key positions in the media industry with his political aides and has managed to promote and control the media towards adopting a pro-government stance. 

 

The centre screened reports to be disseminated and selected “loyal” journalist to publish their articles. Other journalists needed prior screening and are accompanied by a military escort when entering the conflict zone.
Russia dailies, Kommersant, claimed to have obtained a document that outlined the tightly military controlled of the mass media. The newspaper reported on the Russian Information Center document instructing the military spokesmen and journalists on the terms to be used must when reporting Chechnya. The federal forces and troops should be called “subdivisions and units of the Russian Federation Armed Forces and the Ministry of Internal Affairs Internal Troops” while the Chechens are labeled “separatist” and “terrorist units”.

During the first war, Russian authorities denied any media contact with the soldiers and leaders and thus no information or explanations were available from the Russian side. The Chechens however, invited the press coverage given and soon, images of the defeated and dead Russian solders were splattered on the media.

The Russian authorities are also linked to killings and kidnappings of journalists who published stories not in their favor. Andrei Babitsky, Russian journalist famous for his
Chechnya war coverage, is kidnapped by the Russian military. Fresh Russian authorities’ atrocities against the media include the barring of reporters from the U.S ABC network because of their airing of an interview with Chechen rebel Shamil Basayev.

According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, virtually all Russian media have demonized Chechens and highlighted Russian military successes throughout the second conflict. The Russian media also downplayed the destruction of villages and cities, the plight of refugees, and allegations of brutality and torture by Russian troops.

The mood of the Russian citizens changed dramatically in the Second War due to the major public relations campaigning by the authorities. While the Russian were indifferent to the ongoing war in
Chechnya during the first conflict, the second conflict sees a massive support for the Russian authorities to exert their authority. In a  survey conducted by Russian independent research centre, Russian Public Opinion and Market Research, it was found that 62.5% of the public supported the eradication of the Chechen resistance in November 1999 compare with 3.2% in October 1995. 

The second military conflict was accompanied by the anti-Chechen campaign in Russian mass media and most of the reports highlighted the terrorists connections of the Chechens and soon, the whole of
Chechnya are suspects of being Jihadists.   

2.3 Media Myths

The tight Russian control on news leaving the state led to a few media myths and beliefs among the international population. The myths are:

1. The Chechen Conflicts are Separatist Conflicts

The Russian forces were initially involved to weed out the political turmoil and civil strife during the first Chechen conflict. The Russian forces were brought in after the invasion of Dagestan by the Chechen militants in the second conflict.

2. The Chechen Conflict is Unjustified

The conventional view of the conflict is that it’s a Russian effort to suppress separatists and international interventions are uncalled for.

3. The Chechen Conflict is due to historical grievances

Although the Chechens and the Russian have been at war many times before and many are pointing to the theory of grievances due to the brutal deportation of the Chechen people to Central Asia in 1944, it only remains as a source of deep resentment between the entities.

4. Chechens are responsible for Russian’s apartment blast

There’s has been no clear connection between the Chechens involvement and the blast which killed 94 people in their sleep. 

5. The Chechen conflicts resulted in growing Islamic extremism in the region.

Although the Russian authorities characterized the second conflict as a crusade against the International Islamism and terrorism, it should be noted that the conflict started because of economic devastation, social dislocation and widespread desperation. 

3.1 Western Media

The western media portrays the conflict in Chechnya as a “war of national liberation” and justified the cause of the Chechen rebels for independence. Most of the articles on the Chechens killings are being explained as a response to the aggravation caused by the Russian forces.

It was reported the West supported the Chechnya war. In 1995, the International Monetary Fund gave a loan worth $6.8 million to Russia. It should also be noted that from the U.S lobbying, the European Council admits Russia into its organization while Turkey, were denied membership for a long time. The western worlds supported Russia but prefer to keep their support under wraps. The US and Russia has deep forged ties with the US looking up to Russia for their natural reserves such as gas and oil.  

3.2 European Media

Review of European media article on the conflict especially French Le Monde on the conflict shown that the European government is critical of the Russian military and do not trust the Russian government. Le monde even addressed the issue of labeling the war in Chechnya as terrorism activities is a fluke and alleged that the anti-terrorist operation is a disguise for ethic cleansing orders which is organized by the Russian authorities.  

In a Le Monde editorial on 28 April 2002, the paper went further in bashing the United Nations for letting
Russia escape any condemnation on the human rights violations. The editorial brought up the issue on the unfairness of the United Nations committee members.  The members brought up the “recency issue” to justify their vote to let  Russia off while Israel is being condemned for their massive manslaughter of the Palestinian people.  

On December 1994, 52 heads of state were in Budapest debating European crisis prevention matter while the images of Russian forces bombings at the Grozny airport were shown worldwide. Despite a few concerns, the debate ensues and none of the images of the Grozny tempted the heads of state to intervene. The western countries prefer to keep their hands out of the domestic conflict and were afraid of being on the Russian’s opposite side.  

The second conflict however began few months after the war in Kosovo and the Europeans were then sympathizing with the victims of the war. These analogies were used by the French philosophers, Andre Glicksman and Bernard –Henry Levy, to define the actions of the Russian forces as “genocide”. The French assumed that the war will be solved with Chechnya gaining independence and the intervention of international forces in the Caucasus.  

The international community did not do much to stop the Chechen wars. Countries such as the United States,France and Germany expressed concerns on the civilians’ deaths in Chechnya but were not eager to get involved and persuade Russia to end the war. The war between Chechens and the Russians are considered a domestic issue and thus no international intervention was given. The U.S has no vested interest in engaging the Russian military and thus is not eager to intervene. After 9/11, the western authorities only addressed the
Chechnya because of the number of Chechens participating in the act of terrorism such as bombings local places.  

4. Former Yugoslavia Conflict History 

Former Yugoslavia (literally known as Land of the
South Slavs), was a nation with complex history and experienced large numbers of killings on its land during the 90s. The former Yugoslavia, a south-eastern European country in the Balkans, was a nation of diverse mixture of people, languages, religions and culture which was created after 40 years of cold war.  

The Ottoman Turks weakened prowess gave way to the independence of Serbia. However not all was well with
Serbia and the South Slav peoples. The Slovenian and Croatian, proposed for a South Slav kingdom within the Austrian Empire. The South Slavs wanted to regain their lost freedom under the various empires and free themselves from tyrannies and dictatorships.  The idea of the kingdom under Austrian sponsorship fizzled on the collapse of Austria-Hungary. 

The Serbs wanted a fully independent South Slav state. The disintegration of the Ottoman Empire by the end of the century is a prelude to the conflict by other ambitious nations to have a hold in the empire’s remaining Balkan lands. The consequence of the conflict is the elimination of the European order in World War I.  

The elements which branch the hatred of split into a civil war generate from the unrest in the first Yugoslavia, the civil war during the Second World War, the idea of “Greater Serbia” and the Balkan adaptations of Pan-Slavism. The country, already invaded by the Austrian and the Ottoman Empire by the early nineteenth century, disintegrated into eight federal units in the nineties.Apart Serbia, Kosovo and Vojvodina were two autonomous provinces and another of the six republics are Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia. 

During World War II, the Axis Powers occupied Yugoslavia and split it up. The Independent State of Croatia was established as a Nazi puppet-state and German troops occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as part of Serbia and Slovenia. Other parts of the country were occupied by Bulgaria,Hungary and Italy. The Independent State of Croatia created concentration camps for anti-fascists, communists, Serbs, Gypsies and Jews. A large number of people, mostly Serbs, were executed in these camps.  The Axis was expelled from
Yugoslavia in 1945 and a new constitution modeled after the Soviet Union, Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia, was formed in 1946.
Yugoslavia after World War II consisted of pre-war Serbian domination population and population exploited by the Nazis during the war. The Nazis used Croatian fascism for barbarous acts against the Serbs and generated anti-Serbs sentiments amongst the Kosovar. 

4.2 Albanians and the Bosnian Muslim population. 

Ethnic Tensions in Yugoslavia grew after the death of Josip Broz Tito, the Communist dictator who reunited
Yugoslavia and imprisoned nationalist after the World War II. Tito died on 4 May 1980 after 37 years of ruling
Yugoslavia and having a rotating presidency among
Yugoslavia’s ethnicities. Slobodan Milosevic, a Montenegrin Serb, rose to power and become the president of Serbia by 1990. Milosevic wanted a “Greater Serbia”, mirroring the pre-1974 Serbian sovereignty and inciting Serb nationalism.  The notions for a “Greater Serbia” drove Milosevic to committing major crimes of ethnic cleansing and genocide that were initiated and carried out by him and his forces.

The greatest conflicts on the former Yugoslavia took place between 1991 and 2001, with its roots in various underlying political, economic and cultural problems ethnic and religious tensions. The war   was characterized by brutal ethnic conflicts between the populations. On one side, The Serbs were fighting against the Croats, Bosniaks and Albanians; and on the other side the Bosniaks and Croats were fighting against the Albanians.  

The vital key in attaining Milosevic’s objectives was the Serbian Media itself and their campaign to generate national hysteria on the “Others”. At least three years before the war started, a war psychosis had already been spread to the Serbs population that they were under siege and should exterminate the “Others”   

4.3 Bosnia Conflict  

The conflict in Bosnia from 1992 to 1996 was the first ever ethnic cleansing the world witnessed after the holocaust in World War II. Reports of death camps, rapes and killings were rampant.

The declaration of independence from Yugoslavia in April 1992 caused the immediate insurgent of the Bosnian Serb population against the Muslim and Croatian population. The initial cooperation of Muslims and the Croatians was a tactical alliance for outvoting the Serbs at the independence referendum. The conflict between Muslims and Croats broke out in 1993 with complex collaborations. The Muslims and Serbs were cooperating against the Croats in Herzegovina but the Serbs and the Muslim were fighting each other in the north-west Bosnia. In central Bosnia, the Croats and the Serbs were fighting against the Muslims.  

While the Serbs were receiving military support from Serbia and the Yugoslavia army, the Croatian army aided the Bosnia Croatians population. Serbian forces began firing and taking siege of Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia in late 1992. The United Nations (UN) and Security Council actively protected the Bosnian Muslims. The February 1994 Serb attack in a Sarajevo market which killed 68 civilians had North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) issuing the ultimatum of air strikes on the Serbs if they do not heed the warning of withdrawal of the heavy weapons. Bosnian Muslims and the Croatians ended the conflict between them and were working together again against the Serbs by March 1994.  

The Bosnian Serb attacked a safe haven of Srebrenica in 1995 and massacred thousands of Muslim males in the presence of the Dutch UN groups. NATO reacted with air strikes against the Serbs and enabling territorial gains to the Bosnian Muslim and the Croats.  

The 1995 Daytona peace accord, signed in Paris, separated the region into two entities, a Muslim-Croat Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Bosnian Serb Republic.  

5.1 Human Rights Violations 

The Serbs forces were reported to be involved with systematic rapes of the Bosnian women. The women were kept in concentration camps to prevent abortions and the official number of women rapes stands at 20,000 which may be higher in reality. Mass killing were also reported and the Bosnian Serbs even attacked the civilian targets in the safe area guarded by international forces.  

5.2 Manipulation of the media by Milosevic 

Despite the intense media coverage on the Yugoslav wars in the western world, understanding of the conflict among the public was poor due to the complex make-up of ethnicities in Yugoslavia.  

The media in every states of the former Yugoslavia were independently fighting with one another and instead of highlighting the wrongdoings, the individual media advocated killings. Basic-Hrvatin, in her study on the
Yugoslavia’s internal media, identifies three central levels of influence which were used to support the nationalist sentiments:

• The local media is responsible for the key role in shaping national and public memory.
• The local television defined a specific understanding of nation (e.g. “The Greater Serbia”).
• The local media centralized systems of spinning the news create a “nationalization of the public sphere”.

Media reports are a factor of conflict due to the illustration and creation “the exclusion of the other”. The television broadcasts of individual nations trumpeted their own causes and conceptions of the nation were only comprehensive to members of the community who share a common background identity.  The local media was found to be using historical narratives to highlights the danger of the other ethnicities. Serb and Croat television effectively emphasized the differences and advocates the separation of the multi-ethnic community as well as exaggerating incompatible concepts which led to conflict. Tight control by the Serbian authorities on the media ensure that the public approved the “extreme nationalist policies” 

According to Mark Thompson, a leading media analyst and Yugoslavia expert, Serbia used “fascist” models of media representations to dehumanize anyone who supported the “Others”. The National Radio and Television Broadcaster spewed ethnic hatred during the wars and was a tool for Milosevic policies for ethnic hatred, crisis escalation, and war with a media campaign. Milosevic’s media campaign was able to reach the Serbian people who were overseas and able to portray strength in unity among the Serbs. One of the absurd articles on the Serbs’ media was the reports of Serb babies being fed to lions in the
Sarajevo zoo.   

Milosevic’s propaganda on the ethnic hatred in the former Yugoslavia provided a framework for understanding the violent expulsions of non-Serbs from their homes. Milosevic’s rhetoric also led to inaction from international landscape because it was seen as a natural consequence of the Yugoslav culture to embroiled in ethnic conflicts.

The absence of physical differences between the former
Yugoslavia people helps legitimized resistance to intervention from the world’s political players. Reports in the United States perpetuated that there were no real national interests in the Balkans and by recasting the crisis in American terms; journalists avoided the grappling of the complex Balkan politics and Serbian atrocities.  

Milosevic not only control the news on the media but also painted false picture to the Serbian people rejecting the Western peacekeeping efforts.   

5.3 European Media coverage of the Bosnian War 

The Bosnian war received lukewarm attention initially but received full media attention after the discovery of detention camps in Bosnia. Roy Gutman , a Newsday reporter, was the first few Western journalists visiting the war torn area and started publishing the news on detention camps for Muslims beginning 19 July 1992(“The road to ‘ethnic cleansing’”, 1996).  Images of emaciated men behind barb wires reminded the people of the holocaust atrocities during World War II and the world soon took notice and is eager to stop the ethnic cleansing.  

Media and policymakers of Europe and America were contemplating between interventions or watching it from behind their desks. In Europe, it was found that the four major Dutch newspapers published over twice the number of articles during August 1992 than the monthly average in 1993[1](Ruigok, Ridder, & Scholten, 2005).  Most of the printed articles then had a tone of moral indignation about the Serbian atrocities and columnists as well as editorial boards felt that military intervention was inevitable. 

Journalist David Reiff argued that “it really was the television cameras and not NATO, let alone United Nations , that saved Sarajevo after the massacre in the Central Market in early February 1994”(Spencer, 2005). Reiff also highlighted that the objectives of the western media were to have an informed society which would eventually demands actions on their governments to prevent the massacres and rapes of the Bosnian Muslims. 

The Dutch government had been active in developing diplomatic relations in the former Yugoslavia since becoming the chairman of the European Community in 1991. In a study done by the Netherlands Institute of War Documentation it was concluded that in 1993, a combination of humanitarian motivation and political ambition led the Dutch government involvement which could be use to show it’s worth the Dutch prestige around the world (2002). The Dutch government stance affected the Dutch reporters in reporting the Bosnian wars. The Dutch journalists kept on reporting the news on the conflict even though the compassion fatigue was clearly visible. The Serbs are portrayed as the bad guys while the Muslims are portrayed as victims. Dutch articles are found to be quoting Dutch politicians when describing the above mentioned images.  

5.4 The US media Coverage 

The fall of Srebrenica, in the east of Bosnia, was an eminent importance to the US media. The Washington Post and the New York Times had 70 articles on Bosnia between 11 and 18 July 19995 with at least one article was run on the front page everyday.  Channel News Network (CNN) ran 84 news segments on Bosnia over an eight day period. The media coverage focused mainly on the refugees and the Western policy of “doing too little too late”.  The US media were using emotive descriptors, such as “mass of wailing humanity”, to highlight the plight of the refugees. According to Vershbow and Lake, the fall of Srebrenica and the wide media coverage provide US the opportunity “to forge consensus against allies” for a more forceful stance in Bosnia.  

As a whole, the Bosnian War was reported as a battle between the good and evil and atrocities are reported on the media without checking or gathering official confirmations. Roy Gutman, a Newsday journalist, admitted that he failed to check the authenticity of the Serbian death camps in his “rush to tell the world the story”.  

6 Conclusions 

The media can break or make a person and it is a common knowledge that political organization thrive on their media power to succeed. Media play a crucial role in representing conflicts. Politics and media can never be separated with the politicians making use of the media for their agenda and the media making use of the other to sell their papers. Objectivity, factuality and truth-speaking from the journalists are face with severe pressures when reporting conflicts.  The media, in the modern era, are indisputably an instrument of war. Winning modern wars is as much dependent on carrying domestic and international public opinion as it is on defeating the enemy on the battlefield. Although the aspiration of many journalists is to provide an impartial and balanced assessment of conflict, it is inevitable side one party over another. The Russian government tight media control can be seen as a success and effective on their part.  The second conflict was fought with a major public relations campaign such that it influences the public opinions of the Russian. Other atrocities by the manipulated Russian media include the demonization of the Chechens and the downplaying of the destructions by the Russian troops. Russian authorities have effectively taken the Chechen war off the political agenda as international issues and constant projection of the Chechens as terrorists in the media wards of international interventions.   

The only news available to the International readers have been screened by the Russian Authorities and is somehow lopsided as it only presents one side of the stories. Attempts by international journalists to go over the conflict zone has been stop and warned by the Russian authorities as life–endangering.  

However, the French media has been active in calling for international interventions and their own French government to do something on “the war in their own soil”. All along, the French media is against the war and is argues that the war is Putin’s farce to relived them of the humiliation faced during the first conflict.  

In fact, the French media has been justifying the actions of the Chechens as a defense against ethnic cleansing. The French media highlighted that the lost lives of the Chechens is reflected as terrorists fatalities by the Russian authorities and are not keeping quite on their unhappiness when the United Nations Council decided to let Russia off without any condemnation.  

Western Media are known to portray the conflicts as the conflict for independence by the Chechens with explanations of the Chechen attack of the Russian forces as a reaction to being aggravated. Although the media is somehow sympathetic to the plight of the Chechen, the U.S government was not involved promoting interventions. The likely reason for this could be the deep seated interest in the Russian natural reserves and not wanting to be on the other side of the Russian authorities.  

The media in the Bosnian conflict provides a leverage of political pressure onto other political bystanders for actions. Despite the intense media coverage on the Yugoslav wars in the international front, understanding of the conflict among the public is poor due to the complex history and ethnicities of the media.  

With each state having a number of media outlets, there is competition to support their own state and trumpet their own cause. The media outlets itself are having a war in advocating the killings instead of highlighting the killings.   

The local media in Yugoslavia, especially Serbs, were a tool for obtaining public support. The media in Serbia plays the central role in the creation of the war. The media success of Slobodan Milosevic was propogating the rhetoric that the Yugoslavs had been fighting one another since centuries back .

The internal media of Milosevic were found to influence its public to support the nationalist sentiments. This includes shaping the national and public memory, defining a specific understanding of the nation which is “the Greater Serbia” and the illustration and creation “the exclusion of the other”.  

In the Bosnian war, news images conjured up the sympathy for the Bosnians and resulted in international interventions. Dutch papers reported extensively on the conflict and categorized the Serbs as the perpetrators while the Bosnian Muslims are defenseless victims. The western media are also responsible in reporting the atrocities but is is found that the media stance is not reflective of its government.   

7. References

The road to ‘ethnic cleansing’. (1996, 11 Jun). The Wall Street Journal, p. A14.

 

Andrei Krasnov and Viktor Smirnov, “From the Russian Information Bureau,” Kommersant, 16 October 1999, p. 3 as reported in The Current Digest, Vol 51, No 42, p. 17, 18.

Bildt, C. (1998). Peace journey : the struggle for peace in Bosnia.London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Gray, E. (2000). Putin’s Media War. Retrieved 1 Mar, 2007, from http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/2000/Russia_analysis_March00/Russia_analysis_march00.html

Heyman, J. (1999, 29 Jul). What Balkan People Need Is Rant-Free Radio Broadcasting International Herald Tribune.

Hunt, S. (2004). This was not our war : Bosnian women reclaiming the peace.Durham: Duke University Press.

Lee, R. A. (2002). New and Recent Wars & Conflicts of the World. Retrieved 15 Mar, 2007, from http://www.historyguy.com/new_and_recent_conflicts.html

McLaughlin, G. (2002). The war correspondent.
London ;Sterling, Va.: Pluto Press.

Rex, J. (1997). Ethnicity reader : nationalism, multiculturalism and migration: Polity.

Robinson, P. (2002). The CNN effect : the myth of news, foreign policy, and intervention.
London ;New York: Routledge.

Ruigok, N., Ridder, J. A. d., & Scholten, O. (2005). News Coverage of the Bosnian War in Dutch Newspaper.New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ruigrok, N. (2005). Journalism of attachment : Dutch newspapers during the Bosnian war.
Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.

Sakwa, R. (2005).Chechnya : from past to future.London: Anthem.

Savich, C. K. (2002). The Origins and Causes of the Bosnian Civil War 1992-1995. Retrieved 1 Apr, 2007, from http://www.rastko.org.yu/istorija/iii/cksavich-originsofwar.html#_Toc2952303

Spencer, G. (2005). The media and peace : from
Vietnam to the ‘War on terror’.
Basingstoke England ;New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Thomas, T. L. (2000). Manipulating The Mass Consciousness: Russian And Chechen “Information War” Tactics In The 2nd Chechen-Russian Conflict Retrieved 1 Apr, 2007, from http://leav-www.army.mil/fmso/documents/chechiw.htm

Thompson, Mark (1994) Forging War: the media Bosnia-Hercegovina.
London: Article19V. Mukomel and M. Olkot, et al., Armed International and Regional Conflicts: Human Losses and Economic Damage. Social Consequences. Identity and Conflicts in Post-Soviet States (Russian) (Moscow: Carnegie Center, 1997), p.301.

---

[1] 579 articles in August 1992 and 277 average articles in 1993.