Most of the time I refrain from nonsense such as decoding newspapers. It's a waste of time and it usually sounds a bit silly. Anyways, a piece on the @nytimes caught my attention, thus I decided to delve a bit into it. Here's the article I talk about nytimes.com/2019/12/17/wor… 1/n
@nytimes It's the story of Andrea Rocchelli, a photoreporter who was killed in Eastern Ukraine back in 2014, and the trial that led to the conviction of Vitali Markiv, an Italian-Ukrainian guardsman arrested three years later in Bologna. As far as I know, it is the first time 2/n
@nytimes people at the NYT cover this story. It doesn't take a lot to figure out they lack even basic informations about it. They state Rocchelli was killed "along with other journalists". He died, indeed, along with ONE other journalist, Russian national Andrei Mironov (3/n) 
@nytimes A third reporter, William Roguelon, got badly injured that day, but he luckily survived. His detailed deposition to carabinieri, a couple years after the events, was essential to start the inquiry anew and get to Markiv. Unfortunately, the NYT fail even to mention his name (4/n)
@nytimes This must be clear: no Roguelon, no inquiry. The NYT indulge, instead, on the idea prosecutors built the whole case on a Google research that led them to a interview published on Corriere della Sera portraying Markiv as the commander of the unit responsable for the attack (5/n)
@nytimes Let's go on. It looks like the real problem for the NYT is prosecutors in Pavia presented videos and reports produced by Russian media outlets, such as RT and Russkaya Vesna. "It raised eyebrows", states the author. Whose eyebrows? There's a good chanche it's only her own (6/n)
@nytimes You evaluate reports according to their reliability and accurancy. You do not exclude them a priori because of their source. Ruptly was the only network to record the arrest of Julian Assange. So what, you do not broadcast it because it comes from a Russian outlet? (7/n)
@nytimes In order to support its own definition of information and disinformation, the author comes up with a classic: the "experts say" moment. In this case "experts say" the inclusion of videos produced by Ru outlets raises questions on the extent fake is now penetrating courts (8/n)
@nytimes There is a problem. None of the "experts" quoted here refers to the case we discuss. The first one says something extremly generic about the philosophical idea of "contamination". Thanks, Sir. The second one explicity refuses to address to Markiv. Not bad (9/n)
@nytimes Next point. According to this piece, the Ukrainian government "said" that material "was fase". They did not prove it. They said it. It may be enought for the author, but I wish it was not for the Court. Anyways, who do we talk about, when we say "the Ukrainian government"? (10/n)
@nytimes I think in this case it is worth reminding everyone we refer to Ukraine's Interior minister, Arsen Avakov, who surpevised the case and even showed up in Pavia during the trial. Not to testify on Markiv's role, God forbid: just to put some political weight on the process (11/n)
@nytimes Avakov is a big political sponsor of neo nazi corps such as the Azov Batallion. He also showed compassion for a hacking team ironically called Mirotvorets (meaning "peacekeepers") responsable for spreading contacts of journos who worked in Donbass nytimes.com/2016/06/01/opi… (12/n)
@nytimes Andrea Rocchelli is not the only reporter killed in Ukraine since the revolution started, in 2013. Another outstanding journalist, Pavlo Sheremet, died in 2016 when his car exploded in Kyiv. Since then, many linked his death to Russia's Secret services (13/n)
@nytimes This week, anyways, the authorities in Kiev arrested five Ukrainians citizens in connection with the killing. As a result, far right groups entered the Court to blackmail prosecutors, and Avakov pushed to move the inquiry to UKR Internal security (14/n)
@nytimes So that's what we have in the end: eyebrows well-raised in front of Russian media outlets (wow!); "experts" who refuse to take side; and a minister known to have deep ties to the the far right back home in Ukraine. Do I forget anything? You bet I do! (15/n)
@nytimes Indeed, the NYT point out the trial has raised alarm with "some politicians". A humble reference to +Europa, here translated into More Europe, whose stance against Russia is strong and well founded by international donors, but failed to obtain any electoral support so far (16/n)
@nytimes By the way, on one thing I agree with the author of this piece, Anna Momigliano, which is what she called the "Italian journalism's usual lack of rigor". You totally nailed it, Anna (17/17)
