In Russia, 50% of News Must Be Happy 551
Several readers sent us to the New York Times for disturbing news on Russia's vanishing press freedoms. The story tells of how one of the few remaining relatively independent radio outlets in Russia recently acquired new managers, reportedly loyal to Vladimir Putin. Quoting: "At their first meeting with journalists since taking over Russia's largest independent radio news network, the managers had startling news of their own: from now on, they said, at least 50 percent of the reports about Russia must be 'positive.' In addition, opposition leaders could not be mentioned on the air and the United States was to be portrayed as an enemy, journalists employed by the network, Russian News Service, say they were told by the new managers, who are allies of the Kremlin."
Re:And in America... (Score:2, Informative)
Here's a video clip from MSNBC showing an clear example of at Fox News.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oulh6_lOif0&mode=r
It shows a "daily editorial memo" dated Nov. 9, on how and where to slant the news--the memo is followed a few hours later by "news" that surprisingly matches the memo.
They found an internal memo that instructs the Fox News to "be on the lookout for statements from Iraqi insurgents who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress" and just a few hours after the memo, Fox News airs "The Live Desk" news saying, "Some reports of cheering on the streets of Bagdad on the behalf of the supporters of the Iraqi insurgency, that they're very pleased with the way things are going here and also with the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld"
Re:And in America... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:tag: backintheussr (Score:3, Informative)
Are you sure we don't have a 50% rule here in US? (Score:1, Informative)
It was evident that the national media had conferred with each other, and for whatever reason -- perhaps based upon a paternalistic decision that the American people could not handle the truth, and needed at least 50% of their presidential elections to be honestly decided -- reinvented the facts.
Democracy isn't just a Rich White Folks thing. (Score:4, Informative)
Democracy starts slowly, and gradually improves itself... in early-stage democracy, it's more about the promise than the actuality. The United States had a small issue with slavery, as you may recall, and with its treatment of the indigenous peoples. Still, it's a lot better today than it was even forty years ago. Democracy, with it's partners Human Rights and Rule of Law, allows progress to happen.
I harbor contempt and distrust for the mindset that certain types of people are somehow genetically exempt from modern forms of self-government... to my ears, it sounds suspiciously like "Democracy, Human Rights and the Rule of Law only applies to rich white people, because they're the only ones intelligent and enlightened enough to benefit from it."
(That said, forcing change from the outside at gunpoint seldom works well - for any governmental system imposed. See: Iraq. Engagement in the form of clever political pressure, applied covertly inside the nation and through geopolitical maneuvering, works somewhat better. This is the best course of action in Russia's case.)
SoupIsGood Food
Re:The USA doesn't have freedom fo speech either (Score:3, Informative)
In the USA, all speech is protected, because (a) the constitution prohibits any restrictions on speech, and (b) the constitution has not been amended to say otherwise. Without such an amendment, any law that says anything different was not made with authority that descends from the constitution, and that means that the law is based upon coercion - use of force and threat of use of force - and that is the very definition of treason, the illegitimate use of force against the citizens of the country.
If the government feels there are categories of speech that can be suppressed, there is a mechanism provided to change the constitution to allow that, and they should get after using it. In the meantime, any restriction on speech whatsoever is the act of a government out of control.
For your reference:
This is in no way ambiguous or subject to "interpretation." No law. NO LAW.
The 14th amendment applies the bill of rights (amendments 1...10) to the states. That means the same applies to the states. NO LAW.
You cannot argue that the courts or any other government entity can "interpret" this amendment. There is no authority for any such act given in the constitution; therefore, they don't have any such authority.
Don't confuse the actions of an out of control government with legitimate law. That way lies dictatorship. Or worse.
Re:The USA doesn't have freedom fo speech either (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Probably a Good Idea (Score:4, Informative)
If an event is 'happy' then it is probably not news. News is a deviation from the norm, and the debate on what constitutes the norm is the frequent cause of bias. Its real purpose is to give people information they can use to adjust their own actions so as to maximize their livelihood (or however you want to say it). The Economist, for example, contains what is most appropriately termed news, because all of that information is reckoned to affect money markets and anyone with an interest in those markets. Most news that actually affects people gets drowned out either in gossip news, mostly inconsequential public tragedies (like earlier this week) and day-to-day crime.
The problem is the focus on the wrong kind of doom and gloom, not too much of it. If you want 'light' or inconsequential news, then what you're asking for is not news, but entertainment.
Re:No, you shut up, moron (Score:4, Informative)
No. Seriously, you have absolutely no idea what are you talking about. USSR was a federation, so position of USSR member was similar to US state, with slightly less autonomy due to Executive branch of the government participating in the Union-wide management of industry.
Warsaw Pact countries had more political and economic connections than NATO, however members were independent countries with no participation in anything that even remotely resembles a federal structure within USSR.
Re:Enforced vs. voluntary censorship (Score:3, Informative)
I'm old enough to remember Senator Gore speaking at my high school - and old enough to remember Tipper Gore as a huge advocate of age labels on record albums.
I remember a general disdain for Gore in Tennessee leading up to the 2000 election - a feeling that he had abandoned his roots. We'll see what happens in days ahead.
Re:And in America... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No, you shut up, moron (Score:4, Informative)
Living in the USSR you had the KGB, living in GDR you had Stasi. Indeed there were some differences, Stasi was generally considered slightly worse than the KGB, the dictatorship in the GDR slightly harsher than that in the USSR. (Or at least West Germans felt this way, I don't know if everybody agreed.)
Now contrast this with the huge differences between living in a Warsaw-pact country versus living in a NATO country. Freedom of expression, freedom to create and join organizations, high productivity, wealth. A completely different experience.
Lots of people in the West didn't know much or care much about the differences between living in the GDR and living in Estonia.
Note also how Czechoslovakia was invaded in 1968 when it deviated from approved policies. In this regard the Warsaw-pact countries were not really independent.(*)
Being careless about the differences is certainly sloppy, but not moronic. Or do you have difficulties struggling to understand the meaning of the word moronic?
(*) -- Of course arguably the same could be said about the countries where the US stopped socialist governments that were democratically elected by the people.
Re:Enforced vs. voluntary censorship (Score:2, Informative)
Well, I have.
But while we're here, I'll just point out that ABC(.au) has re-released a great interview of Kurt Vonnegut by Phillip Adams [abc.net.au]. I recommend it to anybody - a great man as well as a great writer.
Re:Probably a Good Idea (Score:3, Informative)
This is a good point, and is especially driven home by the ridiculous coverage of the recent Virginia Tech shooting. Every pundit and talking head is now discussing what can be done in colleges, etc to prevent this in the future, when in fact 68 people have died in the last 40+ years in college campus shootings, and most of those were from just 3 incidents. They are obviously horrible, disturbing incidents, but in the long run are responsible for less than 2 deaths a year, which is not even noise among the various types of homicides, let alone overall causes of death in the United States.