Author: Ashley Olenkiewicz

In July, Russia withdrew from the Black Sea Grain Initiative, a wartime deal that ensured the safety of Ukrainian vessels passing through the sea shared by both nations. The collapse of the deal thwarted Ukraine’s ability to export its grains without fear of Russian retaliation.

Yet, in September, two vessels safely arrived in Ukraine’s ports without any response, violent or otherwise, from Moscow.

Now, even more ships are headed towards Ukraine, despite the looming threat that Russia might intervene with missiles at any time.

On October 4, Ukraine’s navy announced that they expected 12 more cargo vessels to arrive at Ukrainian ports. These ships are utilizing a new maritime corridor set up by Ukraine after Russia withdrew from the Black Sea Grain Initiative in July 2023.

Russia’s withdrawal from the grain initiative didn’t come as a surprise, as Putin had voiced discontent with it for months prior. But now that Ukraine has found a way to circumvent Moscow’s attempts to hinder their exports, new questions arise. Is this a new phase of the war? How will Putin react to the unsanctioned corridor? Scholars at Princeton University suggest it signals Putin’s resolve to wage a more aggressive trade war, and that it’s only a matter of time before Moscow forcibly puts an end to the new corridor.

History of the grain deal

The Black Sea Grain Initiative, formally known as the “Initiative on the Safe Transportation of Grain and Foodstuffs from Ukrainian ports,” was an agreement brokered by the United Nations and Turkey between Ukraine and Russia in July of 2022. The deal guaranteed Ukraine a corridor in the Black Sea to continue exporting their grains across the world despite the war.

The deal highlighted a positive development in the war and proved a rare moment of consensus in an enduring conflict. The initiative stabilized grain prices worldwide and was lauded as a “beacon of hope” by the UN Secretary-General António Guterres. It also provided Putin with the leverage to negotiate Russia’s uninterrupted exportation of agricultural goods and fertilizer. Putin expressed that he felt this part of the deal wasn’t being upheld by the West, and despite Guterres’ efforts to meet his demands, the deal fell apart. Notably, levels of Russian exports of food are higher than they were last year, and the amount of agriculture and fertilizer exports are also significant, in contrast to Moscow’s stated grievances.

Now that Ukraine has established a new corridor for exporting their grains without Russia’s assistance or approval, it raises the question: how will Russia react? Putin’s track record of flagrant disregard for the rules of war probably won’t stop in light of this new corridor. Especially since his withdrawal from the grain deal can be thought of as both a manner of “influenc[ing] international policy” and of “blackmail[ing] the rest of the world to get what they want,” according to Yana Prymachenko, a Ukrainian research scholar in Princeton University’s Department of History.

This new corridor deal between Ukraine, Romania, and Turkey is in strict opposition to Putin’s two likely reasons for denying the corridor: establishing international influence and blackmail. Additionally, Russia itself is an exporter of grains, making it more likely that Putin will try to put a stop to this corridor.

Why a new grain corridor is important

Ukraine has long been known as the ‘breadbasket of the world.’ The renewed export of Ukraine’s grains is imperative for not only domestic economic stability, but also worldwide famine relief.

“It’s quite an interesting position… on the one hand you possess this great resource. But on the other hand, it puts you at the center of a lot of mass violence,” says Luliia Skubytska, an associate research scholar in the program of Judaic Studies at Princeton University.

Ukraine’s crops account for 30% of the world’s supply of sunflower oil and 4% of the world’s wheat. Some countries are even more dependent, like Libya, where 44% of their wheat originates from Ukraine. Such dependence has been the source of conflict in not just Russia-Ukraine, but historically, in World War I and World War II, according to Skubytska. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 made wheat prices soar globally, and the same thing happened again when Russia withdrew from the grain initiative in July 2023.

Although many celebrated its creation, some Ukrainians were more critical of the grain deal, believing it to be a “very colonial approach from the West,” explained Prymachenko. To its critics, the grain deal merely signaled how quickly Western powers could resolve a problem (two days, in this instance) when it directly affected their own economic interests. In the Ukrainian perspective, people wonder, “Why couldn’t the war end in two days?” said Prymachenko.

A new kind of war, a trade war

Although the grain deal did benefit Putin in that it allowed Russia to export agricultural goods despite Western sanctions, it was probably not his sole motive for the deal, according to Prymachenko. Turkey served as the orchestrator and moderator between Ukraine and Russia on this grain deal. During this time, there also happened to be an election underway in Turkey.

Many observers believe that Putin signed this deal to support the presidential campaign of Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Once these votes were in, Putin reasoned it was okay to back out of the deal, says Prymachenko. Erdogan is a “convenient partner” for Putin because of his similarly authoritarian politics, Prymachenko explained.

Alternatively, Putin may have initially signed the deal to appease Western powers and avoid burning any bridges, according to Prymachenko. The outcome of the war was “not so obvious” in July 2022, says Prymachenko. Once Putin decided to change his course on the war, he leaned into a trade war. When the West didn’t meet his expectations, he essentially used the grain corridor, or lack thereof, as provoked, and therefore justified, blackmail, says Prymachenko.

Observers point to the arrival of unharmed vessels in Ukraine’s ports as a sign of a positive development in the nation’s counteroffensive, and that Ukraine’s offensive is stronger than previously thought.

However, it might not be that Putin doesn’t want to do anything about these vessels, but rather that he can’t just yet, explained Skubytska. Several artillery bases in Crimea have been destroyed by Ukrainian special forces, effectively wiping out the long-range missiles Russia needs to attack these vessels in the new corridor.

“The question is, how long will it take Russia to replace these things [missiles]?” says Skubytska.

Until Russia has replenished their long-range missiles, restoring their ability to impede the routes of these vessels through the new grain corridor, it may be too early to say whether the corridor is truly a success or not.

Shruthi Bharadwaj

We started our second day in Nuremberg with a plan and a lot of ambition. My roommate, Uma, had found a refugee women’s support group event at a community center just a bit away from the train station, from which we would depart to Berlin in the afternoon. Over breakfast, we devised how the day would play out. We would travel to the Nuremberg Academy, but one small group would leave early from there, taxi to the community center, and get incredible interviews with attendees and organizers of the event. From there, we were to get on the Nuremberg metro and make our way to the train station by 2:00 p.m.

Our morning at the Academy went without issue. We spoke with Emma about the International Criminal Court, bringing accountability to Russia’s war crimes against Ukraine, and about the future of international justice prosecutions. After an engaging two hours at the Academy, we stopped by Gregory’s Coffee for a snack and to regroup before heading to the community center. Though most of the class was interested in our excursion, we decided it may be best to keep the group going to the center small to not overwhelm participants or distract from the event’s purpose. Sara, Marilena, Uma, and I ultimately decided to make the trip.

Upon arrival at the community center, I was immediately shocked by its beauty – a far cry from the nondescript brown brick blocks that made up the social services infrastructure of my hometown. Villa Leon was a large castle-looking structure with an adjoining glass annex, all settled on a little lake with a path that guided visitors to the entrance. The side of the building, against the lake water, was adorned with a mural of happy people from around the world on a boat rowing into the community center. It seemed to be painted by the town’s children, and I smiled particularly wide at a crudely drawn woman in a sari standing at the helm of the boat. With renewed enthusiasm, the group and I marched over the bridge into the great snag in our plan for the day. After yanking on the front door to no avail and pleading our case with the door’s intercom speaker, we were informed that the center was closed on Mondays and that we would have to visit another day (which we did not have).

Disappointed but undeterred, we decided to give a building across the way marked “familienzentrum” a try. The door to the familienzentrum swung open right away to reveal a bustling kindergarten, and walls decorated with the same bulletin boards that lived in the halls of my own elementary school thousands of miles away in New Jersey. The board was filled with smiling photos of the school teachers, each from a different country and fluent in different languages – I quickly spotted a Tamil teacher and a greeting in Tamil script under her name. Clearly, they take representation in social services seriously in Nuremberg, which I found incredibly encouraging. I didn’t grow up with teachers who understood anything about immigrant culture, and I can only imagine the world of difference it would make for a young refugee child to have adults at school they could identify with.

After getting some names and numbers to follow up on for future stories at the familienzentrum, we decided that it was best to make our way back to the train station to meet with the rest of the group. We were still well ahead of schedule since we didn’t make it to the support group, so as we were walking into the train station, we decided to chat with the taxi drivers milling outside. Unexpectedly, it was the best set of interviews I’ve had so far on the trip. The men we met, Hussein, Umar, and Umar (there were two Umars), were so excited to speak to us about their lives in Nuremberg. Originally from Pakistan, Hussein spoke to us at length about his time in Italy, then in Nuremberg, and his experiences with appendicitis and the German healthcare system. Overall, he had glowing reviews for Germany (and the affordable appendicitis treatment). Umar, a refugee from Syria who walked to Italy, lived in Greece and then came to Germany, had some complaints about the understaffing of social services and was a little less pleased. Still, he laughed and cited his biggest complaint about Nuremberg life as the poor tipping habits of German cab customers.

Though things did not exactly go to plan, I give Nuremberg the same glowing reviews Hussein does, and look forward to what Berlin may have in store for us!

Biden to give long-range ATACMS missiles to Kyiv

U.S. President Joe Biden has agreed this weekend to send a “small number” of long-range missiles known as the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) to Kyiv in the coming weeks according to NBC News and the Wall Street Journal.

Meanwhile, in Geneva, a U.N. inquiry into human rights has revealed that substantial evidence has been collected to implicate Putin on human rights violation. In less than two weeks, Russia will run for reelection to the U.N. Human Rights Council.

Although initially hesitant to ship long-range missiles to Kyiv, Biden’s decision comes in response to the U.S.’ “realization that Russia is gaining more ground and aligning itself with other alliances to make its position stronger than before,” according to Princeton Professor Mahiri Mwita.

The U.S. and NATO have displayed caution in their assistance to Ukraine and in their rhetoric towards Russia throughout the past year and a half of conflict. Many people are concerned that the use of U.S.-made missiles could aggravate Moscow and bring the U.S. closer to direct conflict. Whether Ukraine plans to use these U.S.-supplied missiles to “strike further within Russia itself” dictates whether this is “an escalation that could be dangerous” as opposed to only “us[ing] them in occupied Ukraine,” according Peter Singer, Australian moral philosopher and Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University.

There is “a danger” without the “assurance that they [long-range missiles] won’t be used inside Russia itself,” says Singer.

Despite U.S. qualms, Russia has stuck to the narrative that actors in the West have been the true aggravators in the war. In a press conference on Saturday, September 23, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told journalists that the U.S. was directly in conflict with Moscow rather than in a proxy war as others have claimed, reports CNN.

“We can call this a hybrid war, but that doesn’t change the reality,” said Lavrov in CNN.

Should it be true that American missiles are killing Russians inside their country, then the idea of direct conflict and war “would be verified in the eyes of Russians” which “could lead to dangerous escalation,” says Singer.

On Monday, September 26, 8 U.S.-made M1 Abrams tanks arrived in Kyiv, amid concerns doing so would bring NATO more “directly into war.” Two months earlier, the U.S. agreed to send Ukraine cluster-bombs, despite protests from human rights groups concerned about the dangers of undetonated bombs left behind after the end of the war.

Russia “campaigns aggressively” to rejoin UN Human Rights Council, says BBC.

On Monday, September 26, a U.N. -mandated investigative body stated it had collected evidence that Russian military in occupied Ukraine has inflicted “widespread and systematic” torture “with such brutality that is has caused the death of the victim,” reported Reuters.

Over 15 months ago, Russia was expelled from the United Nations Human Rights Council after invading Ukraine, with “93 votes cast in favour…24 against it and 58 abstentions,” according to The Independent.

No Russian representative attended the U.N. hearings this past week, and thus no response was given to the allegations. In March, the U.N. commission announced that the crimes of Russian forces in Ukraine “may constitute crimes against humanity,” including “the use of torture.”

“Russia is trying to reestablish its credibility,” says Mwita, amid recent news that Russia prepares to run for reelection to the U.N. Human Rights Council in an upcoming vote on October 10th.

Moscow is circulating a position paper at the U.N. campaigning its intention to “promote principles of cooperation and strengthening of constructive mutually respectful dialogue in the council in order to find adequate solutions for human rights issues,” reports BBC.

“They’re trying to refuse to be labeled, and maligned by the USA,” says Mwita.

The Russian position paper being circulated purports its primary focus is to prevent the “increasing trend” of weaponizing the HRC for punishing rivals or rewarding allies of its member nations.

Mwita points to the fact that the U.S. has continued to have a spot at the HRC despite their own atrocities committed in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq as rationale for Russia’s scrutiny towards the HRC and its removal from the council.

In the eyes of Russia, Moscow has a “right to rejoin the HRC” if the U.S. continues can continue to sit on it despite their own human rights violations abroad, says Mwita.

Moscow has reportedly begun seeking votes from smaller countries in exchange for the promise of goods such as “grain and arms,” writes BBC. Russia only competes against Albania and Bulgaria for two remaining seats on the council.

“Rejoining the HRC is a way of them [Russia] showing their force,” says Mwita.

I found the chapters we read in “The Beekeeper: Rescuing the Stolen Women of Iraq” particularly emotional and impactful, without relying on sensationalism to grab a reader’s attention or garner empathy for the Yazidis. I wasn’t familiar at all with Daesh, or their genocide of the Iraqi Yazidis before reading these chapters and the corresponding article. Yet, even with zero context, the authors wrote in such a fluid manner, interweaving interview dialogue and personal anecdotal context, to make what was happening explicitly clear to the reader. The horrors experienced by thousands of kidnapped Iraqi women, men and children under the Islamic State were told throughout the book without hiding behind euphemisms, but also in a way that was balanced precariously between focus on the people undergoing the tragedy and on the focus of what was happening.

I also thought it was interesting how the article in AL-MONITOR explicitly mentions that Germans warmly welcomed Yazidi refugees due to their Holocaust stained past, the Yazidi’s special circumstance of having “truly suffered,” and the “added bonus” of the asylum seekers comprising mostly women and children. I think this is a theme constant among the people of all nations who accept refugees, and obviously of those who don’t. I’m not sure how to explore this problem or articulate it clearly, but I do often think about why it is that the people of countries as economically privileged as the US or Germany feel they have the right to measure the suffering or plights of others as “good enough” or not. The result of which is that the more economically powerful and privileged countries get the last say on whose life is worth saving.

Like the article mentions, an asylum haven country’s warm embrace only lasts so long. In the US there’s a rampant public anti-immigration attitude among conservatives, and a less vocal one among liberals, but the result is the same: survivors of cartel violence, political persecution, or poverty in Central and South America are no longer welcome here. This is evidenced by the immigration policies of both Trump and Biden’s administrations, as well the violent policies and rhetoric of politicians like Gov. Abbott and Gov. Desantis. What’s worse, the immigration system is so backed up it forces many would-be legal migrants to try the illegal route, in many cases completely ruining their chances of a legal immigration later on. 

In the case of Germany, like the AL-MONITOR article writes, “the welcoming atmosphere of 2015 is no longer there” for the Yazidis. So, when thinking about the moral imperative of a journalist to produce works like “The Beekeeper,” or to not, remembering how quickly public memory fades, along with its corresponding generosity and empathy, should be reason enough to support continued coverage of tragedies worldwide. Of course, I also think that such coverage should be approached with the level of care and caution seen in “The Beekeeper,” as any sort of journalistic coverage of tragedy should be done with the intention to help, not to exacerbate their pain.

I thought Azmat Khan’s two part series did a spectacular job of not only showing in great detail how flawed the US’ air warfare in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan is, but of also writing it in a way that would make a US audience care. After reading the comments on the NYT for the first part, it became clear to me that even to non-military people in the US, civilian casualty is viewed as morally okay and actually even as a necessary consequence of war. One comment even asked why articles like Khan’s were needed, if it’s already acknowledged, or well-known, that casualty is a necessary part of war.

It’s somewhat unnerving that a reader could finish reading Khan’s article and walk away thinking that the US military shouldn’t change its air warfare methods, particularly in Iraq and Syria, moving forward. I think that shorter breaking news articles that reveal civilian casualty counts are more easily dismissed by a reader as a necessary result of any war, no matter the precautions taken. But Khan’s article interweaves actual military personnel dialogue, along with the words of the military spokesman, Urban, to put a face to the all-encompassing “military” that’s supposedly making calculated, thoughtful, and ethical decisions in these wars. 

Not only did Khan use their words, but he contextualized them effectively. I was particularly struck when he described the atmosphere of the actual buildings that the soldiers were calling for and executing these airstrikes. Khan writes that “soldiers can sound as if they are playing video games, in one case expressing glee over getting to fire in an area ostensibly “poppin” with ISIS fighters – without spotting the children in their midst.” Comparing the chat logs and the soldiers’ dialogue to the kind typically seen or heard by people playing combative video games, and contextualizing it within the detailed stories of real families devastatingly impacted by the airstrikes, a reader can more easily understand the gravity of what it means to have soldiers who sound like they’re playing a video game, yet are calling very real fatal strikes on civilians.

Additionally, the comparison to a video game further elucidates why these “mistakes,” or inaccurate strikes could be happening so often. Without actually being on the ground, facing the same danger as the civilians you’re standing feet away from, and basing your war decisions only on what you see through a computer screen, then the task at hand does become all too much like a consequence-less video game you play for fun. Khan even writes about how this change in attitude, a seemingly direct result of the transition to a remotely controlled air warfare, is reflected in the shift from “deliberate” strikes (those that require extensive planning and vetting) to the now much more common “dynamic” strikes that can be called “within minutes or hours in the flow of war.” 

Finally, I want to also comment on the exact kinds of human stories that Khan centered on. What resonated with me most throughout the article were the anecdotes, informed by both documents and actual survivors of the civilian airstrikes, that placed these supposedly necessary and expected casualties of war in relatable settings. I specifically think of the three families who were eating breakfast when two separate strikes hit, the man who waved to his friend in the car beside him at a stoplight and witnessed his friend’s wife be incinerated by an airstrike, and then also the man who was eating fruit below a tree before being killed. 

The abundance of anecdotes like these in the article, along with the documents, do a great job of highlighting just how unnecessary the civilian deaths were. Although Urban tries to push that this idea that due to a lack of time and the “fog of war,” soldiers, or “targeteers” are forced to make decisions that result in civilian harm, these human examples of civilian tragedy show that it was really moreso a lack of care or concern, rather than time, for the people on the other side of the airstrike.

Lia Opperman’s Can-do and her Candor

Ashley Olenkiewicz

September 12, 2023

JRN 449: Student Profile

It’s often thought that you “can’t have it all,” but that’s simply not true for Lia Opperman, a junior at Princeton University studying Public and International Affairs and Journalism. Her can-do attitude is accompanied by extreme candor, a combination that allows her to find success in her academic pursuits while maintaining close relationships with her friends, family, colleagues, and partner.

At around 9 p.m. in Princeton, New Jersey, Lia quickly found Nana’s contact in her phone and pressed “call.” Moments before, she had been editing articles for The Daily Princetonian alongside other editors in the newsroom. Wearing blue jean shorts and a white top decorated with small blue flowers, Lia explained that she had tied a white ribbon around one of the belt loops but wasn’t sure how it looked. After some back and forth discussion, she ended up wrapping it around her low ponytail, seemingly content with the placement.

After only a few rings, Nana (also known as Dorothy Rothery, Lia’s maternal grandmother) picked up. Lia explained she had called only to let her know that a colleague would be reaching out to ask questions for a journalism project. “What should I say?” inquired Nana, “just be honest… but be positive!” replied Lia, followed quickly by a nervous giggle. “Just kidding, say whatever you want! I love you, good night.” Their casual conversation and playful joking perfectly encapsulates their close relationship.

One of Lia’s favorite television shows is “Gilmore Girls,” and for those who aren’t familiar, the premise follows a young single mother, Lorelai, and her academically talented daughter, Rory, from high school through adulthood. The show is marked by playful banter, Rory’s best-friend-like relationship to Lorelai, and Friday dinners at her grandparent’s house. Lia resonates with this show for all those reasons, and more. Lia describes her mother as “her pillar” and admires her for her strength in difficult times.

Lia was raised primarily by both her mother and grandmother after her father passed away when she was five years old. As a child, Lia spent many evenings after school playing baseball and practicing for plays at her grandmother’s house. Nana describes Lia as the “sunshine of [her] life” and explained how they “did anything she wanted.” Lia’s mother and grandmother’s goal was always to make Lia happy.

It’s a common trope that sibling-less children are spoiled to a fault, leading them to grow into entitled adults. Yet, the extra attention devoted to Lia had quite the opposite effect. Lia’s upbringing in a household of strong women is exactly what fostered her driven attitude, empathy for others, and ultimately is what inspired her service-oriented pursuits. In the words of her boyfriend, Maguire Sholette, Lia has a “big personality, big passions, and a really big heart.” All of that “intertwine[ed] is someone who is really an experience.” Indeed, people seem to be drawn to Lia for her personable and open disposition.

A conversation with Lia is certain to be filled with positive affirmations, like “it was worth a try!” or “good job!” and every word is spoken with genuine encouragement. Perhaps Lia’s “all-consuming” (as described by Maguire) personality can be traced back to her origins in theater. Acting requires one to play a role larger than themselves, and her short stint in a college improv group also taught Lia the skill of appealing to the considerations of a larger audience.

Lia is a self-declared “English” kid, and her strong suits always fell within reading, writing, and acting. Although acting was her primary gig before college, a chance opportunity with the Princeton Summer Journalism Program got her hooked on journalism. From there, her passion for journalism only grew until it became her “thing” on campus and subsequently the career she has decided to pursue.

Beginning as a news staff writer for The Daily Princetonian in September 2021, Lia quickly became more involved. From assistant news editor, to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) board member, then associate news editor before becoming the head investigations editor. Much of her work involves careful research into uncovered news on campus, but Lia’s unique drive and her “good eye for uncovering previously unknown things,” as described by her boyfriend, allow her to shed light on marginalized voices with compassion and skill.

Lia pursues her journalism with vigor, not in an attempt to gain fame or garner appreciation, but rather because she is truly “dedicated to service in her own community, others’ communities, and communities of people who haven’t been listened to,” according to Maguire. Lia studies policy to understand the technical aspects of issues like mass incarceration and nonviolent drug offenses (two of her most recent focuses), but ultimately she plans to pursue journalism as an avenue for highlighting the voices of those most greatly afflicted by such policy problems. Modeled after the strong and independent women in her life, Lia navigates balancing her passions with prioritizing her relationships with a dexterity that is rare, but admirable.

The readings for this week reminded me of the difficulties I face when conducting sensitive interviews. Even though I approach interviewing victims and families of victims with empathy and consideration, I still struggle to ask questions because I often feel a moral quandary about stirring up emotions in people who have been affected by a harmful event. However, with war reporting, and also more generally migration reporting, these questions are crucial to writing a fully representative report about all aspects of the war. The NPR piece on the silence of rape survivors, and the rareness of prosecutions, illustrates just how important it is to highlight victims’ voices. Of course, only on the victim’s consent should their story be told. But when, and if, they do consent to sharing their stories then it is the job of a journalist to sensitively navigate sharing their perspective.

The first article on the Ukraine war was particularly interesting to me because I wasn’t aware at all of the history behind the war before it began, beyond the fact that Putin had justified his invasion as an attempt at “reunifying” Ukraine with Russia. The author draws a comparison between the complacency of both the West with regard to Russia, and Russia to the West. The author calls back to a similar war between Serbia and Bosnia in 1992 where, just as Russia doesn’t recognize Ukraine’s autonomy, Serbs disregarded Bosnian identity. While reading about the Ukrainian war, I have often thought about the strong allegiance to their nation that is required of Ukrainanians right now. Since the war began without violent provocation by Ukraine, it must have been especially fearsome for a smaller nation to go up against a larger firepower, with greater manpower and financial resources as well. Yet, the strengthening of nationalism is evident, especially when one looks at how previously non-militant Ukrainians continue to sign up to fight the war. I remember reading in the WaPo about a young and recently married Ukrainian couple who signed up for the army at the beginning of the war, even against the pleas from their families. They ended up passing away in war, but they were regarded by their families as an example of the strong affinity that Ukrainians felt for their nation and its independence, particularly in the wake of Putin’s invasion.

“Letters from Ukraine” shocked me in its details about the terror of the war in Ukraine. I was particularly horrified by the anecdote of how the Russian occupants allowed evacuations in one of the cities, only to shoot those who tried to leave. I was equally as horrified by the lack of prosecution of war mass rape by the Russianss at the end of World War II. As a SPIA major, I’m very interested in international affairs and the efficacy of international organizations such as the International Criminal Court and International War Tribunals. I’m extremely surprised by the limitations of the ICC, and especially by the fact that the US is a member. I hope that continued reporting on the devastation brought by the Russian invasion and personal journalistic accounts like those in “This American Life” will have the power to move international leaders, and citizens to pressure those leaders, to take the steps necessary to see that justice is found. Namely, that the top figures in Russia are arrested and prosecuted.

In “Journalism’s Essential Value” A.G. Sulzberger explains why he believes it is imperative that journalist continue to uphold the value of “independence” in their reporting, also contentiously known as “objectivity.” His essay is arguably a response to a movement in journalism to “own up” to human bias and acknowledge that individual perspectives are, and should, be reflected in journalistic reporting. Those who espouse this belief claim that it is actually beneficial to include a journalist’s moral perspective in their writing and additionally, is only logical as humans are intrinsically biased and informed by their backgrounds. Sulzberger writes about his long history with the New York Times and how his great-great-grandfather founded the modern NYT on the principle of independent impartial journalism and against the popular (and more lucrative) sensationalist publications of the time period. He recognizes the mistakes and controversies that the NYT has found itself in, citing examples from their coverage of the Soviet Union to Iraq, but ultimately credits the publication’s dedication to independence as the value that has upheld its integrity through tumultuous times.

The press, Sulzburger writes, plays an important, and uncomplicated, role in society. It disseminates true information to the public. He cites correlation between “the world’s healthiest democracies and maps of the world’s freest press environments” as evidence of the press’ role as ensuring a free society. Therefore, there is all the more reason to continue the NYT’s position as an unbiased, truthful, and nuanced fountain of knowledge. When the NYT’s coverage is criticized, it is not so much that it was inaccurate, but rather that readers are concerned about the misuse of its published information. The NYT investigation in Rosenstein, and the subsequent pushback from the left about how this gives Trump the ability to fire Rosenstein, and end the Mueller investigation, is a perfect example of how a journalist’s role as disseminator of knowledge to promote a free society can be conflated with the fictional role of enforcing a free society.

It is not, and under no circumstances should be, the responsibility of a journalist to ignore a verifiable, independent, and important truth to achieve an ulterior goal. Journalists should not police how readers interpret or utilize the news. The consequence of such journalism leads to echo-chamber writing and preferential coverage that would not contribute to a free and democratic society. That form of journalism would only serve to further the agenda of whoever has the last say on what can and can not be published. Journalists should be on a mission to uncover the truth, and relay the truth to their readers. Doing so ensures that society can have a “shared reality” in which productive debate is possible.

Of course, this “shared reality,” promoted by objective journalism, can be made impossible to achieve if readers do not trust the publication. This is what the US has been experiencing for a few years. Both the right and left politics disbelieve what media that appears to promote or support the others’ politics. In this case, reality is not shared between readers which leads discourse to become a lofty goal, while democracy begins to become less stable.

Additionally, journalists and readers will argue that publishing the writings of, for example, terrorists or Nazis, can be dangerous and result in real harm. Also, that their publication, without explicit condemnation, basically equals an endorsement, or at least legitimization of those ideas. Sulzberger pushes back by saying he believes the censoring of unpopular ideas could also result in harm to a society.  Ultimately, it is Sulzberger’s belief that a society is better off if there is greater freedom of the press, more objectivity, and less censorship.