Tweet
The LA Times and Armenian Coverage
http://www.asbarez.com/77680/the-la-time s-and-armenian-coverage/
By Garen Yegparian on Feb 19th, 2010
We were all pleased when the LA Times finally left the dark side by
terminating its use of the word `alleged' every time it referred to
the Genocide. We were also pleased when the paper dumped Douglas
Frantz, a clearly biased, Turkophilic former editor. But is that it?
Is that all we want from the preeminent newspaper serving the region
with the second largest Armenian population outside of Armenia?
The LATimes covers our Christmas celebrations every January, but
that's about it for coverage of local issues of Armenian interest.
Occasionally, Homenetmen's Navasartian Games will elicit coverage. I
suppose thousands of people, largely kids, getting together
constructively don't merit interest more than about once every
half-a-dozen years. Part of this is our fault. Communities smaller
than ours get more visibility. Why shouldn't we be pushing more human
interest stories? Vartivar anyone? Wetting each other sanctioned by
one of the oldest churches around sure seems like an interesting story
angle, not to mention its origins back in pagan times. How about our
political activities? Or the social services and support our
organizations provide? We have to reach out to the media more.
But our shotcomings aren't the whole story. The March 1, 2008 tragedy
got coverage, as did the scheme run by Armenian consular officials in
LA to enable some immigrants from Armenia to remain in the U.S.
illegally. Where is the `good news' coverage of Armenia? I'm not
even sure now, but I think the Times covered the Armenia Fund Telethon
all of once. Forget about reporting what the money collected has
achieved!
Finally, while the ill-begotten soccer diplomacy and it's even more
illegitimate offspring, the Protocols, were front and center, the
coverage has been skewed to toe establishment/state
department/pro-Turkey positions. A somewhat poor light was cast upon
the Armenian side in reporting on demonstrations when Turkey's
president, Gul, went to Armenia in the summer of 2008. An October 4,
2009 news piece about protests against the protocols claiming that
`both sides' opposed these documents leaves the impression that
`Armenians oppose' them. Just two weeks ago `The truce in need of a
rescue' sang the praises of the `opportunity' presented by the
protocols. All of this had been preceded by Hugh Pope's `Soccer-match
diplomacy' from September 16, 2008. You don't have to imagine how
this Turkophile's commentary read. To be fair, he attempts to
palliate his pro-Turkey bent, but ultimately, he is true to his
Turkish friends.
Clearly we have a lot to do on the media front in general, and the
LATimes, in particular. Our previous successes (with the Times
itself, or more recently with KFI and the inappropriate `joke' about
the Genocide) indicate that we can and know how to proceed. This is
an important arena, though not the only one, where ideas and mindsets
are formed. Let's get our advocacy organizations on this. I suspect
other major newspapers need the same kind of attention from us, too.
All our communities have their work cut out for them.
http://www.asbarez.com/77680/the-la-time s-and-armenian-coverage/
By Garen Yegparian on Feb 19th, 2010
We were all pleased when the LA Times finally left the dark side by
terminating its use of the word `alleged' every time it referred to
the Genocide. We were also pleased when the paper dumped Douglas
Frantz, a clearly biased, Turkophilic former editor. But is that it?
Is that all we want from the preeminent newspaper serving the region
with the second largest Armenian population outside of Armenia?
The LATimes covers our Christmas celebrations every January, but
that's about it for coverage of local issues of Armenian interest.
Occasionally, Homenetmen's Navasartian Games will elicit coverage. I
suppose thousands of people, largely kids, getting together
constructively don't merit interest more than about once every
half-a-dozen years. Part of this is our fault. Communities smaller
than ours get more visibility. Why shouldn't we be pushing more human
interest stories? Vartivar anyone? Wetting each other sanctioned by
one of the oldest churches around sure seems like an interesting story
angle, not to mention its origins back in pagan times. How about our
political activities? Or the social services and support our
organizations provide? We have to reach out to the media more.
But our shotcomings aren't the whole story. The March 1, 2008 tragedy
got coverage, as did the scheme run by Armenian consular officials in
LA to enable some immigrants from Armenia to remain in the U.S.
illegally. Where is the `good news' coverage of Armenia? I'm not
even sure now, but I think the Times covered the Armenia Fund Telethon
all of once. Forget about reporting what the money collected has
achieved!
Finally, while the ill-begotten soccer diplomacy and it's even more
illegitimate offspring, the Protocols, were front and center, the
coverage has been skewed to toe establishment/state
department/pro-Turkey positions. A somewhat poor light was cast upon
the Armenian side in reporting on demonstrations when Turkey's
president, Gul, went to Armenia in the summer of 2008. An October 4,
2009 news piece about protests against the protocols claiming that
`both sides' opposed these documents leaves the impression that
`Armenians oppose' them. Just two weeks ago `The truce in need of a
rescue' sang the praises of the `opportunity' presented by the
protocols. All of this had been preceded by Hugh Pope's `Soccer-match
diplomacy' from September 16, 2008. You don't have to imagine how
this Turkophile's commentary read. To be fair, he attempts to
palliate his pro-Turkey bent, but ultimately, he is true to his
Turkish friends.
Clearly we have a lot to do on the media front in general, and the
LATimes, in particular. Our previous successes (with the Times
itself, or more recently with KFI and the inappropriate `joke' about
the Genocide) indicate that we can and know how to proceed. This is
an important arena, though not the only one, where ideas and mindsets
are formed. Let's get our advocacy organizations on this. I suspect
other major newspapers need the same kind of attention from us, too.
All our communities have their work cut out for them.