Fisk might argue that (a) he doesn't get to see Serb atrocities and (b) he is under tight censorship. But other Western correspondents in Serbia do a far more balanced job. So why is Fisk allowed full rein? I believe his writing(I won't call it reporting) is a disgrace to himself and to The Independent.Reuse content
Sir: Robert Fisk appears unwilling to distinguish between the savage slaughter deliberately inflicted by the Serbs and the accidental suffering caused by Nato. He contents himself with perfunctory mention of Serb atrocities while dwelling in great and grisly detail on victims of unintended Nato action. Did I imagine it or was his penultimate paragraph in Saturday's contribution implying, however faintly, that a Nato pilot might have killed civilians on purpose?