In Russia, 50% of News Must Be Happy

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."

In Soviet Russia

freedoms vanish you?

Probably a Good Idea

While many may argue that this supresses truth, is it really so? Does American-style "free" journalism really give a balanced view of what is happening in society?

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:Probably a Good Idea

Most "news" is heavily slanted to doom and gloom. Why? Probably because doom and gloom sells.

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:Probably a Good Idea

They may be true to some extent, but there is still positive news of substantial import that goes unreported.

For example how often do we hear that the murder rate in the US is the lowest since 1966?
Or that the robbery rate in the US is the lowest since 1968?
Or that the rate of vehicle theft in the US is the lowest since 1968?
Or that the rate of rape in the US is the lowest since 1977?

It must not be reported very often since most Americans seem to believe that they are living in some kind of unprecedented Mad-Max dystopia that requires their children to be on lockdown 24/7.

Stats from: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm [fbi.gov]

Re:Probably a Good Idea

Most "news" is heavily slanted to doom and gloom.

That is what I enjoy the most on TV are the commercials. Everything is wonderful, lasts forever, makes live better. If you buy this product, you will be much happier, just like these nice folks how are willing to share their experiences.

Really, nothing like a good commercial to boost your mood :)

Re:In Soviet Russia

In Putin's Russia, the In Soviet Russia joke writes itself

Watch Russian Censorship in the USA

If you live in the USA or another country to which "Russia Today [russiatoday.ru]" (RT) is beamed, then you can see Russian censorship in action. RT is a news service funded by the Russian government. RT broadcasts news about Russia, and nearly 80% of the Russia-related news is positive. I have yet to see any news that is critical of the Russian government. RT never interviews anyone who criticizes the Russian government.

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"?

oblig

In Russia... crap.

And in America...

No pictures of caskets coming home from the mideast...

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?

Re:And in America...

This whole thing is just a matter of degrees.

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:

What does it matter if Bush's approval rating is 0% or 100%? He can't run again, so he might as well do whatever he wants. It's not like he has anything to lose.

Re:And in America...

He can't run again, so he might as well do whatever he wants. It's not like he has anything to lose.

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.

Enforced vs. voluntary censorship

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...

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:Enforced vs. voluntary censorship

What facts specifically do you think Gore is "fast and loose" with? I'm asking because I am not a climate scientist, but my wife is doing climate research at the moment. I haven't heard anyone in a position to know say anything other than it was pretty accurate for a powerpoint presentation by a politician. Also, he's been working on this for a long time, that makes him opportunistic how? Also, what is the "other side" of the story? That we had carbon levels like this before there were modern humans on earth? WTF?

Re:And in America...

They key difference is that NBC, CNN, CBS, the New York Times and so on aren't bound by it. That's why you have Administration mouthpieces trying to blame the New York Times for their mistakes. Even the President of the United States does not have the power that Putin has grabbed to essentially turn Russian media back into a state-controlled resource.

A nice thing

While I realize that censoring or controlling the news networks in any way is definitely a bad thing, I with that more news in North America showed positive information, whether then just all bad stuff. This is the reason that when I do watch the news, it's usually the morning news. They tend to put positive stories on, while still putting on the important stories so that we know what's going on in the world. I haven't watched evening news in years. It keeps getting worse and worse.

No enemy?

From what I remember of American Military History, during the Cold War, many American textbooks kicked off the discussion with something to the effect of "There are two world superpowers, the US and Russia, locked in a struggle..."

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?

Re: No enemy?

Now, it appears, that Russia is reentering the thinking that there is one world superpower, and that they must fight against it.

I think the real issue during the cold war wasn't communism vs. capitalism, but rather who's the biggest kid on the block. I was skeptical about the proclaimed end of the Cold War, because that issue will never go away, and no country will willingly accept the loss of status that Russia did. It's hardly surprising that they would want back in the game.

Problem for them is, they may now be #3 rather than vying for #1.

The problem with that, of course, is that our propaganda is currently directed elsewhere.

Which makes it an ideal time for them to play a weak hand.

US must b presented as a enemy..

They are trying to compete with the US media!

Is this such a bad thing?

We in the western world (either the states, or the UK where I currently live) might be much better off if the media were reporting some good news once in a while. The culture of fear is increasingly pervasive and it's fueled, in part, by the media scare-wagon, which cannot help but tell us about a new thing that is going to kill us or ruin our lives every week.

Enough is enough. Let's do the Putin thing.

Re:

Out of business. People don't want an "Everything is OK" alarm. You can start one if you'd like, but nobody will watch.

I might actually pay attention...

If the news featured more positive stories.

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?

Re:I might actually pay attention...

Oh, come one. Just yesterday I tuned on to Fox just to catch a report about two cutest little kittens abandoned behind a dumpster and then rescued by some good people. I am not joking.

Who leaked!?

Who leaked this script of this season's 24 to the Russians?!

Re:

while you could be joking, who knows what countries can't figure out that it's a television show (hell, even some American citizens) - one of these days North Korea, China, or any of the other shows that American TV uses as the target of some world dominat

Putin

Putin is starting to lose it, he's on a return to his KGB tactics and training. Say goodbye to democracy Russia!

Re:

Russian culture may be unsuited to democracy. Russia never had it, never had the cultural traditions to make it work, and has always been a harsh and brutal place.

It may be that the only way to hold Russia together and keep order is Putinism.

China is doing

Democracy isn't just a Rich White Folks thing.

Most of Europe never had Democracy. It came to pass as all national conflicts were being won by liberal democracies... or as close to a liberal democracy as was possible in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. It's only come to the Eastern European powers... Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia... in the past 15 years. They seem to be doing OK with the concept despite only Czechoslovakia having any experience at all with democracy. South Korea and Taiwan have all moved from authoritarianism to democracy with great results.
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

Oh Heck...

I guess Slashdot is now illegal in Russia as it has nothing good say about Microsoft, Apple, DRM/RIAA, Anonymous Cowards, and Martha Stewart.

Examples

I wonder if these would count as examples of good news:

Blue Angles Jet Did Not Kill Anybody on the Ground And Five Pilots Are Alive and Well [yahoo.com]

Bush's Ratings Above Zero

At Least One Person Says Gonzolas Should Stay

Fallujah To Get Another New Chief

Space Engineer Will Not Get Any More Mediocre Job Reviews

Street Evangelists Rescues 300 Souls [theonion.com].

I guess it's possible to turn bad news into good news, but then everything will start to sound like The Onion [theonion.com].

Note that I am not trying to make light of any of these issues but to show how idiotic the new Russian stance is.

reporting standards

In the U.S., staions choose the news according to what they think will get us tuned in.
In Russia, editors choose according to whether they will keep their job or not.

Fortunately, in the west we have 100 cable news channels to choose from...In Russia their are 2 ..both with majority ownership by the Government or it's right arm, Gazprom (the largest oil company in the world...and majority owned by the Government)

Martial Law in Beijing...

Reminds me of a cartoon shortly after the Tiananmen Square Massacre that depicts Premier Deng saying, "Smile, martial law in Beijing has been lifted... anyone found not smiling will be executed."

This news from Russia makes me wonder whether USSR isn't dead, but, as Calvin and Hobbs liked to say, "transmorgrified". If so, then Americans have been deceiving themselves that they have somehow "won" the Cold War.

Re:

The Cold War was not a clash of two opposing ideologies. That was only a convenient excuse. The Cold War was a method in the continuing struggle between Russia and the USA.

The USA sees Russia as a competitor and wants to "divide and conquer" it by all

China more realistic enemy of Russia

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.

Something to smile about

> at least 50 percent of the reports about Russia must be 'positive.'

"Slow News Day in the Bureau today, Dimitri. We've only got one story: Another Russian Dissident mysteriously dying of radiation poisoning. I say let's split it: Dissident Dead, Putin under investigation, Polonium Stocks Up, KGB hiring"

"Ivan, I think you meant FSB. The KGB no longer exists."

(Hearty Laughing)

The long road to democratic fee market

One thing we always forget about Russia is that the jump from a communist system to a western-style democracy is far far greater than we think. While Russia has made great strides in the past, there is a long ways to go. Putin may or may not be the despot you think he is. Some of my Russian friends, while they don't like the man, understand some of why he rules the way he does.

The biggest problem in Russia is that things like Agriculture have never bee privatized. Privatizing agriculture would seem to be a great idea to us in the west, but if Putin were to do it in Russia, it would destroy the country. Many industries have been privatized in Russia, with disastrous results. Basically the government divvied up the cooperatives and companies by distributing stock to citizens, hoping that citizens could take ownership and make a profit. What happened is that organized crime and other opportunists saw an ideal opportunity for a grab. They went around and offered citizens much less than the face value of the stock. Since the stock had no value to the average person, most people happily sold their stocks for pennies on the dollar. This has led to major problems with monopolies and even crime organizations. Remember, these people have never had any experience with a western-style economic system, let alone a democracy. They were just no match for the wits of the opportunists. Hence agriculture in Russia will not be privatized anytime soon. Can you imagine the massive land-grab?

Anyway, this is the major reason why Putin is reluctant to allow Russians to experience this great thing we call Liberty. It's not that he wants to be a dictator or stalin, but that he recognizes Russia can't transform herself all at once. I think it will take at least 2 generations myself. Along the way, Putin has drawn the ire of the western world and many critics at home.

I am not going to condone his actions. I just want to make sure we all understand the underlying situations and conditions that exist in Russia and the former republics of the Soviet Union. If they move to quickly to western-style economics and politics, chaos will ensue. Think 1930's mob rule in America, but only with 21st century technology, money, and power. It's a precarious situation, and very delicate. If Putin allows media too much power, and allowed them to print too many doom and gloom, down with the government stuff, not only will his government fall, but the entire country will fall into anarchy and mob rule. Is there another way? I'm sure there is. But let's make sure we have a full understanding before we spout off on this subject. Reacting prematurely is the very thing that leads to the fallacies that Bush used in justifying the Iraq war

tag: backintheussr

Putin is putin' the USSR back together again. Bastard.

tagged

backintheussr putin tag YOU

Example news report - 50% positive.

Today in the news, War has broken out between Eurasia and Oceania, with billions dead in the initial fighting. On a positive note, a mandatory survey taken earlier this week shows that people believe kittens are cute. More at 11.

Re:tag: backintheussr

Most of the Western USSR states became part of NATO. That is about a big a hint as I can think of that the USSR as we knew it isn't ever coming back. Getting back places like Poland, Romania, and a good chunka Germany mean risking nuclear war. There's other real estate on their frontiers that won't get our panties in nearly as much as a twist. As an added bonus, it'd give some of these islamist nutjobs another target to play with.

No, you shut up, moron

The practical differences between being part of the Warsaw pact and being part of the USSR were small, if you contrast them with the differences between being part of the Warsaw pact vs being part of NATO.

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:No, you shut up, moron

The practical differences between being part of the Warsaw pact and being part of the USSR were small, if you contrast them with the differences between being part of the Warsaw pact vs being part of NATO.

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:No, you shut up, moron

You're talking about the formal differences. I'm talking about the practical differences, the differences that the average Joe perceived.

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:No, you shut up, moron

Even back when we were guarding their borders, we had zero involvement in BRD's government after its establishment. Comparing our presence in West Germany to the the Soviet presence in East Germany ludicrous.

Re:tag: backintheussr

The first step in establishing a dictatorship is to define an enemy, preferably one that you know either cannot or will not defend itself. America will never attack Russia, Putin knows this, so they are a safe bet to be the enemy he needs.

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.

Re:tag: backintheussr

The first step in establishing a dictatorship is to define an enemy, preferably one that you know either cannot or will not defend itself.

Like terrorism?

Re:

This is like comparing oranges to watermellons (go banana!) You can't compare non-protected speech, such as yelling fire in a crowded theatre. The issue here is not freedom of speech, which this country predominantly has and defends, but freedom of the p

Re:Um, Didn't you just commit treason?

In democratic countries, threats against the functionaries of democracy are seen as threats against democracy itself. This is because the functionaries should act according to their own convictions and the promises that they have made to their voters. If instead they are forced or swayed by threats, democracy is subverted.

Re:The USA doesn't have freedom fo speech either

Yep, looks like I have freedom of speech.

Yeah? Try posting some Scientology text.

Re:The USA doesn't have freedom fo speech either

The GP is probably referring to this [slashdot.org] case; the Church of Scientology issued a DMCA takedown notice asking Slashdot to remove a comment containing Scientology texts, and Slashdot complied.