Cyprus-Forum.com

[-mikkie2-]

Haravgi is the mouthpiece of AKEL. What do you expect?

[insan]

Haravgi is the mouthpiece of AKEL. What do you expect?

There are some who strongly oppose Tassos-Akel partnership but it seems Tassos convinced Christofias to silence the mouths of Haravgi collumnists for the sake of so-called "national unity".

"National Unity"? Aren't we two communities?

[metecyp]

mikkie, if that is the case then why did none of your so called free press let tony anagonistos(spelt wrong no doubt) documentary be seen on television and now the man and his family live in fear and are called traitors, is this the freedom of speech you talk about.

Exactly but you won't hear an answer for that because "it's different"

Anyway, if anyone is in interested in Antonis Angastiniyotis' movie, here it is. It's about 100MB in size and you need Real Player to see it.

http://www.atcanews.org/movies/atrocities.rm

[antonis]

About free press and Angastinioti's documentary. By definition, if a country has a free press, its newspapers, magazines and television and radio stations are able to express any opinions they want, even if these criticize the government and other authorities. Press in Cyprus is more than free, in that any journalist can write whatever he wants and there's no screening by a single organization. There's "polyphony", a mosaic of opinions and critiques. There are also several libel acts against newspapers, which adds to the argument that the press is free. Of course there are newspapers that are one-sided, are controlled by certain parties or organizations, but at least the people that read them are aware of this fact.

This aspect of the press in Cyprus causes frustration in certain circles. For example, you will read in Hannay's book that "the media (were) most definitely part of the problem, not part of the solution". And that "... watching from the depths of one of Denktash's sofas as a gaggle of Greek Cypriot journalists called in to cover one's call of Denktash, put offensively worded questions to him and then scribbled out feverishly the equally offensive worded replies, was to feel that one was in the presence of two of the most prominent obstacles to reaching a settlement". Of course the press was critical of Hannay's "services" for solving the Cyprus problem, and Hannay was obviously not happy about that. The general opinion is that the UN was following Hannay and Weston, not the other way around.

As for Angastinioti's documentary, for people that watched it, it presents facts but only one-sided ones. This is the major disadvantage of the documentary. So in order to get a bigger picture you need to watch say Attila 74 and then immediately afterwards this documentary and draw your own conclusions. Personally I think the time that the documentary was produced was not the right one, and if a more spherical view of the problem was projected then it may have been more welcome, with the danger of course of a grand conclusion that living together is impossible. This conclusion is definitely wrong, but it's the easiest to reach watching this documentary, compared to, say, disgust for the way a few people acted and that we can live together if we corner these individuals and make sure that such actions do not take place again. Because these attrocities were not organized, they were the result of a group of extremists. I do hope it will be aired sometime in the future, but not now. I think that people that are prepared to find out how the other side thinks and what has happened in the past, have already done so. The rest will always stick to what they've been told thus far, unless an objective documentary is produced that is endorsed by people in both sides. Such a thing does not exist right now.

[Viewpoint]

Excuses excuses, what if the shoe was on the other foot you would have claimed its accuracy and authenticity. somethings never change??????

[insan]

As for Angastinioti's documentary, for people that watched it, it presents facts but only one-sided ones. This is the major disadvantage of the documentary. So in order to get a bigger picture you need to watch say Attila 74 and then immediately afterwards this documentary and draw your own conclusions.

The GC mass media have already been screening the totally one sided documentaries like Atilla 74 for 30 years. So I guess all GCs know one side of the story wery well. The question is do GC administartion want GCs to see the bigger picture?

[antonis]

Excuses excuses, what if the shoe was on the other foot you would have claimed its accuracy and authenticity. somethings never change??????

Do any of you read before you write? Where did I claim that the documentary may not be accurate or authentic? You are the second person in this forum that likes fireworks and creates confusion.

[Viewpoint]

antonis your not reading correctly, I said "if the shoe was on the other foot" if the documentary showed TCs in the same light you would applaud its accuracy and authenticity.

and not analyse the documentary as

As for Angastinioti's documentary, for people that watched it, it presents facts but only one-sided ones

thats why i said excuses excuses.

[Saint Jimmy]

Of course the press was critical of Hannay's "services" for solving the Cyprus problem, and Hannay was obviously not happy about that.

Dude, what is that? I didn't get it... 'Of course'?!?!?! Why would the press be 'of course' critical? Does any of the journalists know for a fact that Hannay has no intention other than the destruction of the RoC?

The general opinion is that the UN was following Hannay and Weston, not the other way around.

The general opinion, more often than not, is the result of the press's attitude, not the other way around...
And what's this distinction between the persons and the organization? It's just technicalities, to me.
De Soto, Hannay and Weston were the people involved.
The UN, Britain and the USA are the ones who can work to mediate.
They are represented by those people. What's with 'following'?

[antonis]

So I guess all GCs know one side of the story wery well. The question is do GC administartion want GCs to see the bigger picture?

The same question goes back to you. How much does your side tell you about what happened in Cyprus, the Turkish invasion, the attrocities that occured during that time etc? Or was it really a peace operation? As for us, was what happened in 1963 a "turkish retaliation"?

Really, what should we teach at school? What is the minimal our children should know? Do we stop emphasizing our viewpoints, at the danger of creating a youth that has "diluted" patriotism (whatever that means) while the other side doesn't do that, so as to prepare them to make compromises with the other side when the time comes? Or do we keep teaching them our viewpoints, and wait until a solution is found to tell them that we were both wrong at some point in time...?

Personally I think the safest thing to do is to hint that whatever is told is not the complete story (not that it is the wrong story, but just only part of it). Then whoever feels that he's ready to learn the whole story, he can go ahead and look for himself. That's why in this forum most people understand each other, 'cause whenever someone tries to sell his own version of the events, we are sceptical and through our general knowledge we are capable of filtering the essence out of the exaggeration.