All week I have been closely following developments in the Balkans. That's my job. In order that we folks on the news team can present a balanced picture to our listeners, my company thoughtfully provided us with a variety of sources. So rather than just getting coverage of the war as perceived by CNN or the BBC, we also have all the major (and some minor) news agencies, the internet, and access to various 'experts' willing to share their wisdom in a 20-second sound-bite.

I can honestly say that if Mr. and Mrs. Average America confine themselves to coverage presented by one or perhaps two of the major networks, they are not getting the complete picture.

For example: an item carried by some news agencies on Thursday told of how the Kosovo Liberation Army had set up checkpoints both inside and outside Kosovo where they were stopping and ordering men up to the age of 50 to report for military training. Those who refused were warned that the KLA Military Police would carry out unspecified 'reprisals'. I haven't seen this used on CNN or the BBC. Perhaps editors thought it might detract from the popular impression of a noble crusade for freedom being fought by the KLA. Freedom fighters don't force middle aged men to desert their families, pick up Kalashnikov's and send them as cannon-fodder into the guns of a well trained army. Do they?

As I write, another correspondent told the camera: "Ethnic cleansing on this scale hasn't been seen since the end of the Second World War." I don't disbelieve him -- and the pictures coming from Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro are truly horrifying. But journalists are fond of 'tagging' their stories with some well known event in order to provide some sort of frame of reference -- in terms of time and importance. After the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton, for weeks we were treated to "...this is the first time the President has....since the impeachment trial."

Up to now journalists have been saying: "This is possibly one of the worst cases of ethnic cleansing in ten years of Balkan conflict." I don't recall one of them ever saying: "This is the worst case of ethnic cleansing since half-a-million Serbs were forced out of Krajina by the Croatian army." That sort of statement might trigger thoughts of: "Hey, so the Serbs have been victims too?" To think that journalists are doing this on purpose would be just too terrible to contemplate. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and accept the fact that while I am safe and sound in my air-conditioned studio in Hong Kong, they are on the ground with terror and destruction all around them. For sure, their perceptions will be influenced.

But there are editors back home in Atlanta and London who should be monitoring this sort of thing. Every broadcast I have watched today (Friday) tells the global public that 'credible evidence' exists to prove the video footage of moderate Albanian leader Ibrahim Rugova meeting with Slobodan Milosevic was actually shot before the current crisis. Could be, but the announcer has consistently failed to tag the statement with the provision that details of the so-called 'credible evidence' has not been revealed. My impression is that this 'credible evidence' is a suspicion that has been elevated beyond its status.

Earlier in the week we were also told there was 'credible evidence' that Rugova's home had been burned by Serbian security forces and that Rugova himself was missing -- 'probably' dead. Again no details. His appearance at a news conference in his un-damaged Pristina home mid-week scotched that piece of 'credible evidence'. So one can't help wondering just how credible so much more of the 'credible evidence' really is.

As a confirmed conspiracy theorist and out-and-out cynic, being presented with so much 'credible evidence' that later turns out to be baseless, is, well, unhealthy. Every broadcast so far today has also carried Pentagon spokesman Ken Bacon warning Milosevic that he should treat the three captured American soldiers as POW's in accordance with the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Protocols (1977) expressly prohibit attacks on targets indispensable to the civilian population. I would think that the bridge over the Danube -- while possibly not indispensable -- was definately a civilian target. So far we have not been informed of the military value of striking the bridge.

My confidence in the great and good who are leading this offensive against Yugoslavia took a further beating with the assertion by British Defense Secretary, George Robertson, that while the Serb offer of talks brokered by the Russians was utterly worthless, it did show that Slobodan Milosevic was beginning to crack. It proves, Robertson claimed, that the air offensive was the right thing to do and it was having an effect.

Hello! Anybody home? The framework for new talks offered by Milosevic were hardly different from the terms his team presented in Paris. I don't know, but this doesn't look like a crack to me, rather, it suggests a hardening of resolve.

Any journalist who raises the idea that NATO air strikes are at least in part responsible for the humanitarian disaster is dismissed out of hand. Indeed, these suggestions have been described as 'obscene'. The primary reason for the air strikes was to stop and prevent further Serb aggression against the civilian population in Kosovo. During and after the Paris talks journalists and OSCE monitors reported widespread cases of violence and ethnic cleansing. But these cases of violence were no where near the level they are today.

As a consequence it is impossible not to draw the conclusion that the NATO strikes have failed in their primary objective. People make mistakes, misread a situation. After all, politicians and generals are only human. But it was widely predicted that air attacks against Yugoslavia would trigger a violent backlash against the very people NATO claims to be so concerned about. Therefore it was crucial that if strikes were to go ahead, they would have to be massive, overwhelming and decisive. And supported by ground troops.

What I find obscene is NATO's stubborn resistance to any suggestion they may have got it wrong and their even more worrisome determination to maintain their current policy.

I don't often agree with State Department spokesman James Rubin, but if there is a prize for understatement, he'd be a clear winner. Reacting to news that Russia was sending warships to the war-zone, Rubin opined: "This is not a healthy development." You don't say.