The Guardian blows

This article in The Guardian on the Ukrainian elections is ridden with errors and is absolutely terrible. Let's look at some parts of it and see why:

The US statement will increase the tension between Moscow and Washington, which have seized on this election to back the rival candidates. Washington has sent a series of emissaries, including George Bush Sr and Henry Kissinger, to Kiev to call for fair elections.

What on earth are they talking about? While I'm sure that most in Washington would prefer to see Yushenko win the election I have yet to see any official statements saying as much. All I've seen are official (and numerous) calls for the election to be conducted fairly. Last month I actually had the opportunity to hear the U.S. Ambassador speak at a town hall meeting off the record, and when he was asked who the U.S. supported in the elections, he explicitly said that the U.S. has no problems with either leading candidate, and that official U.S. policy was only that they wanted to see the election conducted fairly. If Yanukovich wins and the vote itself isn't rigged, I don't know if the U.S. is or isn't going to impose any sort of sanctions on the new Government, neither does The Guardian. In fact, I'd wager that the U.S. doesn't 100% know what they'll do if Yanukovich wins in a completely fair election, which, based on numerous credible news reports I've read (check any of the links I've previously posted, or just do a google news search on Ukraine and start reading) strikes me as being a possibility.

He (Putin) also attended an army parade on Thursday, during which a Soviet-style show of military strength prompted the opposition to say that they were trying to frighten the electorate.

This is patently absurd. The only thing Soviet-style about this parade was the Soviet equipment, Soviet uniforms, and Soviet veterans that were marching in it. There were no brigades of Ukrainian or Russian soldiers backed up by BMPs and T-72s going through the streets of Kiev on Thursday and the entire parade passed my location in 5-10 minutes. It's been reported (and I've anecdotally heard) that troops have been positioned outside of Kiev, and the parade was given as the reason for this by the Government. Positioning troops outside of town is hardly a "soviet style show of military strength."

Earlier this week journalists of Kiev's independent TV5 staged a hunger strike, accusing the government of cracking down on the media.

Actually, they were on a hunger strike to protest a decision to revoke their station's broadcast license. The strike lasted a couple of days before the decision was reversed.

A lot of this story is true, such the parts about the T.V. journalists from State Owned 1+1 resigning because of their unwillingness to take direction on their reporting. But when I read things in the same article that I know are false, having seen the falsehoods with my own freaking eyes, it really detracts from the story as a whole. What's the Guardian going to do next, hold an "Operation Kiev Oblast?"

Lastly, if the Guardian is so concerned about Yanukovich winning the election and Ukraine consequently coming further under Russian influence and losing their independent identity, why are they posting Ukrainian election stories in their "Special Report: Russia" section?