#MartyrsForTruth ⚡️ The Russian Union of Journalists has published a report – Inconsistencies in the Public Accounting of Killed Journalists in 2025:: A Comparative Analysis of CPJ, UNESCO and IFJ Materials. 📄 FULL REPORT (PDF / Telegraph) ❗️ The report is based on open sources and addresses a fundamental question: why do some cases of journalists being killed receive full international visibility, while others – despite being publicly recorded by international organisations such as #UNESCO, the International Federation of Journalists (#IFJ), and a number of international bodies – are effectively omitted from the statistics? The analysis reveals inconsistencies between the Committee to Protect Journalists' (#CPJ) public reporting for 2025 and a number of cases involving Russian journalists whose deaths were recognized by other international bodies. 👉 This raises questions not only about the integrity of the record, but about the credibility of the entire international system for documenting journalists’ deaths. The analysis was prompted by the observed discrepancy between the CPJ’s overall reporting on Ukraine for 2025 and a number of cases involving Russian journalists and media workers, whose deaths were recorded and commented on by other international organisations. More specifically, on February 25, 2026, the CPJ reported that 129 journalists and media workers were killed worldwide in 2025 – the highest figure in the organisation’s history. In the same review, the CPJ stated that four journalists were killed in Ukraine in 2025. The organisation’s public materials lists a number of Ukrainian journalists and French photojournalist Anthony Lallican among those cases. ❗️ At the same time, several cases involving Russian journalists and media workers killed in 2025 do not appear in the CPJ’s open-source materials, despite public statements by the IFJ and UNESCO, and, in a number of instances, reporting by Reuters. They include: ▪️ Alexander Martemyanov ▪️ Alexander Fedorchak ▪️ Alexander Sirkeli ▪️ Andrey Panov ▪️ Anna Prokofyeva ▪️ Ivan Zuev 👉 The key question is not about disputing the figures or removing names already included in international lists. It is whether all comparable cases are being recorded publicly, consistently, and by the same standards. That is why the focus of professional discussion should not be the slogan of “double standards” as such, but the specific gap between the CPJ’s published methodology and what can be observed in its public reporting on a number of 2025 cases. When that consistency is missing – or left unexplained – it raises questions not just about one report, but about the credibility of the entire international system for documenting threats to journalists.