Yugoslav Army soldiers take a break from inspecting the wreckage of Serbia's state television headquarters
(2 of 2)
Indeed it was debatable whether NATO's destruction a TV station could reverse
Milosevic's propaganda gains among a population that had already suffered
under the alliance's bombs for a month. But it was the principles involved
that provoked deeper disquiet among many journalists. "NATO is acting like
a censor, putting military objectives above the very principles it claims
to be fighting for," Committee to Protect Journalists Eastern Europe program coordinator Chrystyna Lapychak told
TIME Daily. "The best way to counter propaganda is by offering people
alternative information and allowing them to decide for themselves." The
CPJ, as well as the International Federation of Journalists, condemned NATO's strike, warning that it could
provoke reprisals against Western journalists inside Yugoslavia. In fact,
says Lapychak, by making the media a legitimate military target, NATO's
action may "permanently jeopardize journalists covering conflicts all over
the world."
Coming only after four weeks of bombing, the destruction of the TV station
appeared to be less
a response to the evolving tactical situation than an act of frustration at
the failure of the air campaign to force Milosevic to buckle. And even for
a media corps broadly supportive of NATO's defined objectives, it appears
to have been taken as a sign that the impasse in the Balkans may have
negative consequences that reach far beyond the fate of Kosovo.
