Just when I thought that the feverish and exaggerated reporting from the recent protests on April 29 and May 27 had died down, particularly in terms of the extreme inflation of attendance figures, comes a so-called field report entitled “Second Peaceful Rally Organized in Kyrgyzstan”from the last issue of Central Asia Caucasus Analyst.

I say so-called, as I am at an utter loss as to how, if the author in question was at the rally, he concluded that there were 30,000 participants. Even the more exuberant media reports only gave figures of up to 10,000, and simple logic dictates that 30,000 would mean that the main square, Ploshchad Ala-Too, would be full to overflowing – which was clearly not the case.

Mind you, a slightly sensationalist style appears to be characteristic of the author, Nurshat Ababakirov, judging by his previous report on the 29 May meeting:

On April 29, Kyrgyzstan experienced a significant and at the same time unique rally, organized by the burgeoning opposition for fundamental political reforms. This was one of the biggest rallies seen since independence in 1991. In spite of worries that the large protest would deteriorate, the situation, partly owing to heavy rain, proved to be peaceful and well organized.

On this occasion he quoted a figure of 10,000 participants, which ironically was at the low end of the figures quoted (see previous post).

The remainder of the article concerns apparent efforts to create a “counterweight to the burgeoning opposition” in the form of “dozens of pro-presidential parties”.

I am left with a slightly unnerving impression that the author is far from “objective” (if such a thing is possible) in terms of presenting events. I’d like to know who he is and what his background is, at least, but unfortunately no biographical information is provided. My sense of disquiet is compounded by the fact that the Central Asia Caucasus Analyst is an internationally-respected source of information and analysis on the region.

Unlike the mass media, where certain agendas are expected and readers are more likely to “read between the lines”, academic publications are often less subject to critical scrutiny as people rely more on their reputation and “objectivity”. Thus, such reports similarly carry more weight, especially outside of the region, where people have relatively less access to information and news on events, especially if they are not speakers of Russian and/or local languages.

Morals of the story: firstly, just because something is written by a local (and this is an assumption based on the article being included as a “field report”, seeing as we don’t know if Mr. Ababakirov was actually at the rally or even in Kyrgyzstan) it is not necessarily accurate. Secondly, and more importantly, information provided by “specialists” should not be taken as gospel solely on the reputation of the provider. Context is essential to getting as full a picture as possible. Critical reading is vital anywhere, and nowhere is this more true than when trying to follow and understand events in this paradoxical region of the world.