The Washington Post, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times have three different takes on the same riots which are taking place in Osh, Kyrgyzstan. The thing that really got to me was what The Washington Post said about President Bakiyev , a “self-imposed exile in Belarus” :
“Bakiyev issued a statement denying any role in the violence and blaming the interim authorities for failing to protect the population.”
Basically he said the situation isn’t his fault and that it should be blamed on the newest government in power. Interesting. The reasons for his parting can be found here in The New York Times topic page:
Also, Russia made a decision to not help interim President Otunbayeva’s request for military aid because it’s an ‘internal’ conflict.
When a government that needs helps asks for it and is denied, it sounds wrong and completely unjustifiable. But then if the country is capable of running a government, it should figure out a plan B if the Russian government gives them a slap on the hand, right?
What do you think? Read the articles. Something to keep in mind, check out how each paper shifts the header to show their take on what’s happened in Osh, Kyrgyzstan. Feel free to comment below.
Read all three versions of the story here:
The Washington Post:
Mobs burn villages, slaughter Uzbeks in Kyrgyzstan
The New York Times:
Kyrgyz Rioting Spreads in Apparent Ethnic Violence
Los Angeles Times:
Russia rejects Kyrgyzstan plea for help on riots