Among the more jaded cliches trotted out is that one that runs: the first casualty of war is truth. Yes, media outlets can often be guilty of untruths about conflicts - sometimes, some would say, as a matter of necessity.
However, distortion of the truth may also occur in the interest of trying to give a simple explanation of what are very complex political situations.
Where is Kosovo? Indeed, who is "Slobba"? And why on earth does Bill Clinton care?
All three questions have answers which could be described as multiple choice.
Where is it? if you are an ethnic Albanian, it's an independent nation bordering Yugoslavia; it's a region of Yugoslavia if you are Slobodan Milosevic - known in tabloid-speak as Slobba.
Milosevic is the President of Yugoslavia, which since its break-up in the early 1990s is mainly a Serbian country. In 1989 he ordered harsh repression of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo and stripped it of its self-rule. By 1996, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), an armed group of ethnic Albanians, had emerged.
Last year, with escalating reports of human-rights abuses against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, NATO issued an ultimatum to Milosevic to stop the violence in Kosovo or face air strikes. Earlier this year peace talks were held. They broke down, and on March 24th, the order for air strikes against Yugoslavia was given. Why has Milosevic such a problem with ethnic Albanians? Between 80 and 90 per cent of the population of Kosovo is of Albanian origin. But Serbs regard it as part of their historical heartland. Perhaps more significantly, part of it is an area rich in natural resources; that might also explain Milosevic's grim policy. Meanwhile, there is a frightening number of human-rights abuses being perpetrated across the globe on any given day. Why is NATO so interested in this particular atrocity?
Again, that depends on who's answering the question.
NATO has been involved in peacekeeping in Yugoslavia since 1995. NATO says it is concerned with the escalating conflict between Serbian military and ethnic Albanian forces in Kosovo, its humanitarian consequences and the risk to stability in the entire region. After trying negotiation, the only option, it says, is these air strikes, aimed at hurting the Milosevic regime and its ability to attack people in Kosovo.
However, according to many people opposed to the NATO bombings, violence shouldn't be used to end violence; they point out that there has been an increase in atrocities committed against the ethnic Albanians since the bombing started.
When these opponents look at NATO's reasons, many of them see this offensive as a "low risk" initiative (i.e., not a lot of body bags being flown home to America) designed to establish the US military as a global police force to be reckoned with; as a sort of muscle-flexing adventure which reflects well on a scandal-ridden presidency. While space is given to all sides of the arguments through analyses columns, the news stories - what most people see or hear - are restricted to "facts". As it happens, many of the facts about any war are disseminated through highly controlled press releases and press conferences. The weekend bombing of the Chinese embassy, which left four people dead, threw up contradictory "facts": it was a deeply regretted intelligence error, says NATO; it was a deliberate affront to China, say the Chinese, many of whom have taken to the streets of their cities, attacking the British and US embassies. The function of news is to report the opposing views without comment. But has comment been detectable as the media sorts out these two positions? Now, a couple of days later, and many weeks into the war, the Irish editions of the British tabloids don't tend to carry any news of Kosovo on their front pages at all - apart from the arrival of refugees in Ireland.
The front pages of both Irish and British broadsheets have had to assess Milosevic's offer of a partial troop withdrawal and NATO's rejection of the offer.
In this case, the only facts on offer are statements of intent from both sides; how can the media balance its coverage when the story is the existence of two contradictory positions? What was this war about again?
NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation): set up in 1949, it committed 12 nations, including the US, to each other's defence. Today it comprises 19 countries; in this conflict it is widely regarded as an instrument of US policy.
