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."
And in America... (Score:5, Insightful)
This whole thing is just a matter of degrees.
0% of any country's news must be proven factually accurate from what I can tell. Can we get some journalistic standards in the house? Anybody?
No enemy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Many Russian textbooks of the same era, however, took this approach (again, paraphrasing, not quoting anything): "There is one world superpower, and they mean to oppress us..."
During that time, just as afraid as we were of Communism, they were afraid that we were going to nuke them if the blinked twice.
Now, it appears, that Russia is reentering the thinking that there is one world superpower, and that they must fight against it. The problem with that, of course, is that our propaganda is currently directed elsewhere. I wonder what they'll fight against when the supposed enemy isn't fighting back?
I might actually pay attention... (Score:5, Insightful)
American news THRIVES on depressing and horrifing scenarios. It's, well, depressing.
The world isnt a kind and gentle place, but must it be a manufacutred hell?
tag: backintheussr (Score:3, Insightful)
Putin (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And in America... (Score:5, Insightful)
As is anything for someone with a brain. But it is fairly obvious that the matter of degrees difference here is like a Siberian winter vs Phoenix in the summer. Remember what they have done, forced the media to demonize one country and idolize themselves. This is nationalism at its worst. And with Putin's changes like appointing governorships (versus elections), Russia is becoming a totalitarian state.
It is always wise to be very careful about a rabidly nationalistic totalitarian state. Over 100,000,000 people died in the last century from those entities.
And before someone wants to criticize me by saying that the US is just as bad, I suggest you understand the meaning of the degrees of difference. Bush has abused the laws and now has a ~30% approval rating and is now a lame duck. Putin has abused the laws and has a >70% approval rating and the power to do anything he wants. If you don't see the difference, you are blind.
Re: No enemy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem for them is, they may now be #3 rather than vying for #1.
Re:And in America... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Um, Didn't you just commit treason? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And in America... (Score:2, Insightful)
At least it took some degree of force to get the Russian media to comply. The American mass media was voluntarily willing to "demonize one country and idolize themselves". Except in the American case, "one country" has ended up being many: North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Libya, just to name a few.
Re:Is this such a bad thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
China more realistic enemy of Russia (Score:5, Insightful)
Although the United States is an increasingly unpopular country, China is a more likely enemy. The greatest points of conflict with the United States would be over Russian business deals with "anti-American" countries. The United States is unlikely to invade any more countries in the near future given the numerous complications of the Iraq war. Iraq was one of the biggest business partners of Russia and the countries did not come to blows over it. A great number of the conflicts that Russia has with the West are also with Europe. There has been a great number of conflicts over oil. As far as the "War on Terror", the US and Russia are natural allies. With Russia's occupation of Chechnya (which makes the Iraq war look like a visit to the playground http://http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_ War/ [http]), they have had repeated attacks by Muslim terrorists.
Russia has a lot of land and massive natural resources. China has a thirst for natural resources, severe internal conflict and a huge disproportially male population. If the effectiveness of Russia's nuclear arsenal was thought to be limited (perhaps by the development of new missile defence technologies), then China may invade Russia. The Chinese may be willing to lose ten million men to take a substantial part of Russian territory. A war for territory may move many of the disgruntled young Chinese men to the frontline.
I think the US is chosen as an enemy because America bashing is very easy right now. If the Russian government were to look at its most likely enemies, it may compromise it's business agreements.
Re:The USA doesn't have freedom fo speech either (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In Soviet Russia (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And in America... (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a big difference. (Score:1, Insightful)
Crap like this is why freedom of the press is a stupid idea; money-grubbing whores who will cross any line in order to make money. Gotta have the shock value, hey?
Enforced vs. voluntary censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
Then could you explain what the difference is between censorship laws and censorship by the back door because the press don't want to loose their privileged access to the president? At least with censorship laws you know that you can't trust the press. I find the voluntary censorship of the US press far more insidious.
The approval rating argument just doesn't carry weight...afterall it was only a few years ago that the candidate with the highest approval rating in the actual polls lost the election in the US. I've yet to see that happen in modern Russia.
Re:Putin (Score:3, Insightful)
It may be that the only way to hold Russia together and keep order is Putinism.
China is doing well without democracy, and theocratic Islam is expanding. Democracy is fine for the West and countries heavily influenced by it, but for some cultures it may not be of use.
Re:reporting standards (Score:2, Insightful)
And they're all owned by the same five media conglomerates. Those five media conglomerates have the same customers (advertisers), same business model, same conflicts of interest, and on most topics the same political bent. Those five companies also control most radio stations. With recent deregulation, they are starting to buy up newspapers as well. 95% of all media the average American is exposed to comes from those five companies.
Re:tag: backintheussr (Score:5, Insightful)
Once people have an enemy they believe in, you can blame all kinds of crap on them, and claim that you are trying to save your people from those evil people.
Interesting, it's exactly the same tactic the Nazi's used, although they picked the Jewish community.
Probably a Good Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I argue not. Most "news" is heavily slanted to doom and gloom. Why? Probably because doom and gloom sells. People have a voyeuristic tendancy to be drawn to shootings, car crashes etc. In reality, 99.99% of were not in a car crash, got raped or any such mishap. Many had a good time.
The media is not interested in truth, they are interested in what attracts eyeballs, and thereby ratings and advertising, and need to compete with comedy shows and other entertainment.
Re:China more realistic enemy of Russia (Score:3, Insightful)
Ahh, but one thing stands out: China and the USA are business partners. Sometimes unwilling business partners, but partners nonetheless. Every once in a while you'll hear about some (relatively) minor trading dispute. Put a tariff on Chinese-made Afghan (ha!) carpets or plastic buttons and someone complains to some international trading council.. But in the end, the goods continue to flow; mostly from China to the USA, but a little the other way too. This does not even mention the billions of dollars that China has in the USA. Yup. There's a lot. Enough so that when China mentions selling off some of their US holdings, the US currency hiccups. And hiccups loudly.
This relationship is something that the Russians don't have. And whatever the current (and past) administration says, money does trump all. The USA (and Russia) will look the other way when serious money is at stake. This has been the way of the world since the British Empire started sailing their wind-powered little ships on the blue seas.
So Russia and China duking it out? Perhaps. But an attack on China by the Russians put US interests at stake. Now the USA might want to sit back and let Sino-Russian relations batter each other down (thus increasing the value of a US alliance) but this is not really best for everyone.
My point in all this? I think capitalism has its virtues, and its ability to thwart outright war is rarely seen (we more often see its ability to cause outright war).
KLL
Re:And in America... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Probably a Good Idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Hm, that's a good point. The media report too much doom and gloom. That would justify this change:
at least 50 percent of the reports about Russia must be 'positive.'
Next up: justifying these changes:
--opposition leaders could not be mentioned on the air
--United States was to be portrayed as an enemy,
Re:Are you sure we don't have a 50% rule here in U (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:tag: backintheussr (Score:2, Insightful)
Wasn't Litvinenko the guy who was assassinated with that mysterious poisoning a few months ago?
Re:Enforced vs. voluntary censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Democracy isn't just a Rich White Folks thing. (Score:3, Insightful)
The level of force required to break down social barriers is that we used in WWII. We cannot use that level of violence against civilians nowadays, so we cannot "break" countries as was done to Germany and Japan.
"certain types of people are somehow genetically exempt"
None of the example countries that became modern democracies were Islamic. Religion that demands theocracy cannot tolerate democracy. That isn't a genetic barrier, but a deep, superstitious cultural barrier.
Russian Communists did the right thing in attacking superstition, but the alien goal of personal rights in a culture that never valued individuals was of course overlooked. That's not genetic, but it's real.
No, you shut up, moron (Score:5, Insightful)
Confusing the two is sloppy, but it's certainly not moronic, as the practical differences were comparatively small.
Your over-the-top reaction, on the other hand...
Re:tag: backintheussr (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In Soviet Russia (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: No enemy? (Score:1, Insightful)
Of course, on the other hand, France is still convinced they're a major world power...
Re:Democracy isn't just a Rich White Folks thing. (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate to break it to you, but the lines dividing secular from religious power in Islamic society were broken by the Umyyad Dynasty less than a hundred years after the death of Muhammad. You may want to spend some time with Wikipedia on the history of Islam and Arab culture... and no, the two are not the same thing.
Theocracy is no more inimical to Islam than it is to Christianity... and it's plagued both. Theocratic rule can be justified by fanatics cherry-picking verses from scripture, and used as an excuse to do scary and psychotic things, no matter what your religion. (See: Spanish Inquisition, Forced Conversion in the Americas, 30 Years War, Hugenot suppression, etc.) Given their respective histories, I'd be more suspect of Mormons seeking a theocracy than mainstream Shia and Suuni. The problem is, the mainstream is being marginalized by the fanatics these days, and this seems to be a global issue not limited to Islam.
Also note, Bosnia is now a modern democracy after a rough start, as is Kyrgyzstan and Albania, all of them Islamic. Might as well toss in the Autonomous Regions of Iraqi Kurdistan and Kosovo... two stable and progressive Islamic democracies.
SoupIsGood Food
Re:No, you shut up, moron (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, you shut up, moron (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And in America... (Score:1, Insightful)
Pardon me what? There's little difference between that and having your politco's in the pockets of big business, or rather economic warlords of modern america.
Re:And in America... (Score:0, Insightful)
Maybe it's the rabid (seen Olberman lately?) hatred of Bush. Not just disagreement, but pathological, frothing, hatred. Bushitler, etc. Almost the Antichrist (except, of course, that doesn't fit into an atheistic world-view). Such hatred, that failure in Iraq, along with all the deaths and resulting Talibanesque killing fields, such that Bush's policies (wrongheaded or no) are shown to be a failure, are preferable to a stable successful secular state, which I would have imagined the hand wringing bleeding hearts would have wanted. The irony of these folks effectively providing support to religious fanatics, who would (will?) have them summarily executed, is rich and stinking. Easier to shout down political rivals than overcome in a reasoned debate? Well, ever read Herbert Marcuse [marcuse.org]? Basically a revolutionaries how-to...sort of explains the tactics of a lot of radicals.
I have to agree with you. To compare what is happening in Russia to the policies that the current administration is pushing, is so intellectually dishonest, it's breathtaking. The same idiotic rhetoric that compares B to Hitler as a moral equivalent. I may not care for the current President either, but for f*cks sake, don't be a useful idiot sockpuppet.
Watch Russian Censorship in the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
Compare RT to Deutsche Welle Television [germantv.info] (DW-TV). The Germany government funds DW-TV, and it broadcasts German news to the USA and other countries. DW-TV sometimes broadcasts news that is highly critical of the German government.
These attempts at censorship by the Russian government are very disturbing. Check your local PBS television programming. Many PBS stations air both RT and DW-TV.
If we have investments in Russian companies through global depository receipts (GDRs), should we be concerned? Will bad news about corrupt business practices in Russia now be censored? How can I judge the value of my investments if the only information that I can get is falsified to be "positive"?
Re:And in America... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is sort of a mutually contradictory statement. If he really was an autocrat who could do anything, he wouldn't be a lame duck -- he'd just dissolve Congress and install himself as President-for-Life. That he is going to walk out of the White House in a few short months, and in the meantime is basically restricted to whining and doing what he can to make Congress miserable, shows that he is in fact not very powerful at all -- it shows in fact, our system working pretty well.
There are a lot of valid criticisms of our government; heck I'm generally the first to haul off with them. But I don't think that you can use the fact that Bush is both a lame duck and somehow all-powerful at the same time.
Re:Probably a Good Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
If there's no problem, then there's nothing to report. It doesn't affect anybody. There are a million things that are *not* going wrong with society. How about the news only report everything that goes well, and let us deduce from the process of elimination what went wrong? Instead of the obituaries page, make a list of people who are still alive! If you don't see a relative's name on it, then, well...
I'm just taking the conservative stance that freedom of press has always worked, so we ought to maintain it. The press points out problems, we decide what are actually the pressing concerns, and fix them. Putin's plan is not only scary from an international perspective (the possibility of Russia becoming an enemy dictatorship again), but from the perspective that it's a backwards step for a good part of the civilized world. Certainly freedom of press is a scary thing for a corrupt government and it ought to be. It's almost a litmus test for how corrupt the gov't of a state is.
The press can be annoying, but it pretty much does its job when it's allowed to do so.
Re:China more realistic enemy of Russia (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:tag: backintheussr (Score:3, Insightful)
The 'War on Terror' is big on rhetoric, but short on facts. The UK is dropping the term, because it's misleading.
Where is this global organisation of evil people bent on destroying the west? Seems to me their more interested in killing each other, and it's not the majority, just a scattered set of minority groups with a lot of nasty weapons.
Personally I think what is going on is an Islamic Civil War. They're never good things, wars, and I find it very upsetting, but to my knowledge there never has been a good Civil War.
Re:No, you shut up, moron (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oil covered glasses. (Score:2, Insightful)
Let me make my stance very clear - even though you will never believe me: I have already put my money where my mouth is with my comment about freedom. Very few people in the US are willing and ready to possibly die for someone they don't even know. I have done so, survived, and the two people I helped are moving on with their lives. And I would do so again without a moment's thought. The point I made was not from some idealogical high school kid with a penchant for self-abuse (and commenting on
This nation of ours is filled with spineless yokels unwilling to do anything but whine or turn a blind eye towards the realities of the world around them.
To answer your question: Say one day the U.S.A. becomes a true dictatorial regime and a foreign power liberates us, but my family dies as a result. How would I feel, you questioned. I would feel grateful to the foreign power that liberated us, but extremely sorrowful that my family died in the process. Why should I hate the foreign power because they did not save my family? Why should I be mad that they meddled in our nation's affairs? The only reason I would have to be angry with that foreign power is if I wanted the life that the regime had offered.
But who am I kidding? I'll be lucky if this doesn't get marked -1 flamebait, or my favorite, off topic. I don't hold popular opinions.
Re:tag: backintheussr (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, here it is just about locking in a permanent Republican majority. Totally different.