The article investigates the issue of expert neutrality in the example of the Karabakh conflict. It interrogates the notion of neutrality. The expert publications are studied using the following methodology: first the information included in the text is analysed; second the silences of those texts are considered. In most cases, the experts rely on comparisons of two sides that present what appears to be a balanced picture. Two types of silences were revealed: experts practically always ignore the wider context that could upset the equilibrium of their analysis; expert analysis avoids considering those facts that do not fit the paradigm of bothsidesism. The article argues that this approach produces a normalization of the conflict for the international audience, which creates a dangerous precedent, whereby it successfully conceals a potential genocide in the making from international scrutiny.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arsène Saparov (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: