What happens when journalists don’t do their homework when reporting on a genocide denial scandal? Such journalists then hand their platform to fellow travelers of genocide denial, turning an enormous social problem into a softly glamorized stage for its perpetuation.
Thread
Conversation
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="48" height="48"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Replying to
Let's unpack. This NYT article claims to examine the controversy around Handke & genocide denial. Titled "Genius, Genocide Denier or Both?", it is written by and , with as the editor of the NYT culture section.
![Peter Handke, left, receives his Nobel Prize from King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. He has criticized news outlets — including The New York Times — for asking questions about his writings on the Balkan wars.](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="679" height="382"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
2
17
103
After noting the storm of arguments around Handke's writings on the Yugoslav Wars & some biographical filler, the journalists state it was that Handke's 1995-96 texts—"Winter Journey" + "Summer Addendum"—that launched the controversy over his relativization of genocide in Bosnia.
1
3
68
But almost half of the actual substance of the article—on the subject of 1990s Wars & genocide denial—is based around quotations & claims of three authors: Scott Abbott, Zarko Radakovic, and Malte Herwig. Who are they? Why are these choices so problematic? What's missing?
2
5
74
Let's look at Scott Abbott, described as "an American translator who accompanied Handke on a visit to Serbia," and Zarko Radakovic, "a friend who has traveled in the region with Handke, and who has translated his work." This is a deeply misleading framing stripped of key context.
1
3
73
In 1990s, it was Scott Abbott & Zarko Radakovic who accompanied Handke *in texts* at the heart of the controversy! Open the intro to "Winter Journey," the text that kicked off the genocide denial controversy. You'll find Handke with Abbott & Radakovic in a buddy road movie
![Image](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="426" height="680"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
![Image](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="381" height="680"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
1
3
72
This alone is a massive blind spot. The article omits (intentionally or unintentionally) key information about the much-quoted Abbott & Radakovic. They are not detached "experts," but literally the fellow travelers in the texts charged with genocide denial. Why omit this?
1
5
99
But it gets much worse. Friends for over 30 years, Abbott & Radakovic even wrote a book together about their shared Handke fandom: it's called "Vampires & A Reasonable Dictionary" (Punctum Books, 2014). Abbott's blogs have many photos from these trips. punctumbooks.com/titles/vampire
1
4
69
Abbott & Radakovic's book is full of gems. They describe Handke on another buddy road trip to genocide country in 1998. The gang is back together—Handke & A&R—but this time joined by Thomas Deichmann, a freelancer denialist who claimed the Bosnia concentration camps were lies.
![Abbott, Zlatko B, then Bajina Basta host, Thomas Deichmann, Peter Handke, the hostess, the historian, and the owner of the bus firm--photo by Zarko Radakovic.](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="640" height="442"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
read image description
ALT
1
5
76
As the first war crime trial began at the Hague in 1996, Thomas Deichmann became an avid "media expert" on behalf of Dusko Tadic, a Serb politician turned camp guard. Tadic was found guilty at the ICTY on charges of crimes against humanity. icty.org/x/cases/tadic/
1
3
69
But Deichmann then entered another losing battle against the facts. In a notorious case, he accused ITN, inc , of deliberately fabricating stories & "lies" about the Trnopolje concentration camp. ITN sued LM & Deichmann & won on libel charges.
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="680" height="357"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
1
3
75
But Deichmann found friends & fellow-travelers in Handke, Abbott, and Radakovic, the trio at the heart of the NYT article. Here is an excerpt by Abbott & Radakovic in their book repeating Deichmann's claims that can be only described as genocide denial
![Image](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="360" height="329"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
![Image](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="680" height="464"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
2
3
70
These are easily verifiable facts. The focus should be on the NYT journalists & editors, , , . They have serious questions to answer:
2
7
84
Did they do background research on genocide denial, as it is a difficult topic? Why did they omit crucial information about the key interviewees in their article? Aside from Handke's fellow travelers, did the NYT journalists reach out to other writers who criticized Handke?
1
4
86
Was Salman Rushdie busy? Or did they not even ask? Or Johannes Anyuru? Or Hari Kunzru? Or John Erik Riley? Or Oyvind Berg? Or Gun-Britt Sundstrom? Or Sindre Bangstad? Or PEN America? pen.org/press-release/
1
7
85
(Btw I know it'd be too much to ask the NYT culture section to talk to those of us who made it out of the 1990s alive—people like Faruk Sehic, Aida Hozic, Sasha Hemon, Svetlana Slapsak, etc—to NYT we're all too biased by existing—so I'm just going to keep asking questions.)
1
13
121
In a piece on contested pasts, why were no historians interviewed? In a piece on genocide denial, why were no actual experts who research genocide denial interviewed? Is NYT willing to remedy these crucial problems? Willing to ask more searching questions? If not, why not?
1
13
100
Let's recap. In an essay on genocide denial, the NYT journalists chose to uncritically repeat the same worn-out talking points by the very people involved in the denial scandal, omitting key information about them and making no effort to challenge their claims.
1
13
88
As a result, the NYT article on Handke is fundamentally, devastatingly misinformed & dangerously positioned to further spread the unchallenged views of the Handkes, the Deichmanns, and the many fellow travelers of genocide denial in this world.
1
12
93
The absolute least that NYT should do is revise their article — in a profoundly critical way. By publishing this piece, NYT has brushed off genocide denial, a deadly serious and traumatic problem, as an ultimately irrelevant little matter of quaint literary taste.
8
10
115
This Tweet is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Show replies
New to Twitter?
Sign up now to get your own personalized timeline!
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="240" height="135"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="120" height="80"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="24" height="24"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)