Slashdot Mirror
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."
freedoms vanish you?
In Russia... crap.
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?
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.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
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?
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
They are trying to compete with the US media!
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.
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?
America viewed as an enemy? I know relations could be better, but enemy?
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
Who leaked this script of this season's 24 to the Russians?!
Putin is putin' the USSR back together again. Bastard.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Putin is starting to lose it, he's on a return to his KGB tactics and training. Say goodbye to democracy Russia!
If the US begins enforcing it again, how are we any different? "Oh, your broadcast was pro-X. You've got to give equal to the pro-Y guy." Who decides when timeX == timeY?
They are mandating happy thoughts because their population must be staggeringly negative against their own government - Where as in America its just regular vanilla fearmongering for no apparent reason ... It's worse what they are doing because it is aimed at population control and supressing their (free?) election process....
I guess Slashdot is now illegal in Russia as it has nothing good say about Microsoft, Apple, DRM/RIAA, Anonymous Cowards, and Martha Stewart.
Or whatever the crime is that covers threats against the president's life?
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
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.
I guess it's possible to turn bad news into good news, but then everything will start to sound like The Onion.
Note that I am not trying to make light of any of these issues but to show how idiotic the new Russian stance is.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Isn't part of this what a lot of people say is required to have a "fair and balanced" discussion? No matter that there is a preponderance of evidence in one direction (global warming, evolution, Russian chaos) there must be a "fair and balanced" accounting.
I find it interesting we are quick to criticize other countries for their supposed failings while we engage in pretty much the same thing.
This about USA in 2006
http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639
The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002. Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of "national security" to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his "war on terrorism." The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media's right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism.
and whos company do you keep
Botswana, Croatia, Tonga, Uruguay
now Russia is at 147th but then Russia has never said "we are leaders of the free world" or "we want nations to be free" and other such propaganda.
Its troubling how far USA has fallen in such a small time, people once respected you, now they just laugh at you.
for shame, for shame.
backintheussr putin tag YOU
In the U.S., staions choose the news according to what they think will get us tuned in.
..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)
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
Moscow couple protests atop Lada (NSFW)
At least they look like they're happy...
What does reportedly loyal means exactly? Ann Coulter loyal? Rush Limbaugh loyal? Rupert Murdoch loyal? How is this different from the rest of the world, except that is happens "in soviet russia"? I'm seeing a new trend on media, slashdot and comments of reporting the other side mistakes that happen to be the exact same things that are happening on this side too, for instance, Unmaned vehicles on Venezuela (happens on U.S. and U.K. too), Cuba, Russia, Venezuela, China, Brazil ...
Is this some kind of feel good measure, to help you people to feel better about the current situation of your countries? Because it will not help. Because that's the blind leading the blind situation, people over there publish about your errors, you people publish about their errors, everybody is too busy pointing fingers that nobody is left to fight for the country they are living in.
That's pure media distraction, get over it, fix your country first (whatever it is) and then help other countries to find the path to nirvana. Don't buy everything media feeds you, that's exactly what you are pointing on this very article that is happening in the "other side". And specially U.S., while you are letting your government to play World Police, you are losing both the respect the rest of the world had for you and the very freedoms and values that generated that respect in the first place. Get your act straight first.
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.
Stephen Colbert is funny TOO
"If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all."
Let's see how long it takes before he starts whining that nobody gives him any attention whatsoever.
will be one of the "happy news" :)
I realize it's for censorship purposes, but otherwise it sounds like a great idea. The world looks bad if every report is a school shooting. Give us something positive. I wouldn't end up so damn depressed after watching the news then.
100% of the news must be happy!
_Vishal www.squad9.com
You've got to wonder, with all that effort into finding good news, why not simply put it into making something good happen? If there's a depressing story of an earthquake, send record breaking aid and show pictures a grateful, rapidly recovering people! Not only would they get good news, it might improve the country's (and the world's) opinion on Putin and keep him back into power without censoring details of his competition.
Anyway, it's not all bad (yet). If they were in true censorship, Russian News wouldn't be able to tell people (the American media no less!) that they're being told to do all this. There's some freedom there at least. And if all else fails they can always go on air with "Unfortunately we're now unable to tell you about the recent successes of the West against famine in Africa. Here's Vladimov with details of what exactly it is you're missing."
Die, Bush.
Yep, looks like I have freedom of speech.
I agree that 50% of the reported news must be positive. Not only is it healthier psychologically, but there is just as much happy news out there as there is negative news. The reason we are fed a predominance of negative news: It makes the rich people out there more money. Yes, it IS that simple. End of line.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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/), 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.
Or just a good idea, or at the very least a good social experiment, and it's nice that someone has the brains and guts to try it.
It's known that the media shape public opinion, which in a republic (even more so in a democracy) means the media have an unfair control over society and therefore government.
Balance of power, as in "checks and balances", is good in all areas of any society.
I totally agree with this. The state of affairs in the world sucks at the moment. Back in my day things were much better. We knew who the enemy was, it was those commies in the USSR. And they were just as clear on who their enemy was. With that kind of clarity we all got on with our lives and things were simple.
If they want to portray the US as the enemy, I completely understand that. The best part of that is...we're not really their enemy. It's a safe ruse that could do a lot of good. I suggest we do the same and pretend Russia is an evil empire again.
Let's return to the concept of a cold war. Not as many people died in the last one. We didn't shoot each other as much either.
As for the requirement for 50% of the news to be happy: why the hell not? I realize that might require reporters and editors to actually do some work, but the stories are out there.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
Buffalo Anchorman: Our top story Tonight, Four-alarm rages through Downtown Buffalo. Also in the news, Lunar Shuttle heads for the Sun, and certain disaster.
Tokyo Anchorman: Our top story Tonight, Four-alarm rages through Downtown Tokyo. Also in the news, American Lunar Shuttle locked in death struggle
Moscow Anchorman: [with a gun pointed in his head] A four-alarm fire in Downtown Moscow clears way for a glorious new tractor factory. And on the lighter side of the news, Hundreds of Capitalists are soon to perish in Shuttle disaster.
> 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)
Come on! This one was so easy.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
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 press. The informal limits of the press such as a newspaper holding a story for potential national security issues are decided by a newspapers editors, not the government. While there can be repercussions, such as reduced access to officials, there is no formal state sponsored policy and actions deemed against one administation can buy brownie points with the next administration. Issues such as the Judith Miller affair was checked by the judicial branch and reviewed by the legislative branch through ad hoc committees. In Russia, on the other hand, it is a policy implemented and enforced by the executive branch of government, without checks and balances. It s a policy that instills fear on reporting the truth. Can someone threaten George Bush here? No. But can someone report on the incompetence of his administration? Absolutely!
Social liberal, fiscal conservative, always sarcastic.
Here in the west, studies have suggested that people who don't watch/read news regularly tend to be happier and healthier. Here in the west, most of the news is negative. Major newspapers I've read tend to average up to 1 death story per news page, and most TV news programmes have at least one death/violence story per bulletin.
This might be an popular position, but I feel that there could be some good in the '50% good news' requirement. It could have an uplifting effect on a population. If a newspaper really wants to cover a given amount of negative material, they can do so, just print more pages, and find enough good news to balance it out and meet quota.
But as for rules requiring no mention of opposition politicians, or perception of the US as an enemy state, that is something I do find completely unacceptable.
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
but in the united states, 100% of news reports about russia must be negative.
OKay.... there's no question that this is a disturbing development and really brings into question whether or not freedom and democracy are words that can possibly apply to Russia. BUT let's not compare them to US media. That which brings us the great institution of journalistic integrity like Fox News and CNN. What a load of horseshit!
If there's anything that you can say about US media it's that it's sensationalistic, fearmongering, and generally devoid of any parts of the story that aren't going to create a visceral response. The job of the media is to provide an objective and balanced account of whatever the story or issue may be...and American media does a pretty crappy job of it. Don't agree? Try paying attention to other media sources around the world. It's not to say that all the others aren't using the same techniques to sell their papers or their stations but US media is to worst of the bunch. They are deliberately engineered to instill fear and panic in the population and keep them glued to the very sets that are causing their panic in the first place.
So before we start pointing fingers at Russia (and make no mistake... fingers MUST be pointed) let's maybe consider what we can do here at home to improve our media.
What I'd LOVE to see is a news analysis program. Someplace where you can actually get both sides of the story... someplace that reveals the bias in the various media sources and makes people FINALLY think critically about what's being presented to them as facts.
Caskets? If you believe that should be shown, fuck you - and any who believe what you do. Cover the debacle that is the War on Terra all you want, but show some fucking respect for the dead.
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?
"the United States was to be portrayed as an enemy"
The last thing anyone wants is another cold war, but maybe Putin thinks differently.
Hopefully Kasparov and Other Russia can make a difference over there. Kasparov and
his supporters are risking their lives and their futures to take a stand for freedom.
At this point, we can only hope to succeed. It sounds like Putin has aspirations of
restarting the cold war, which scares the shit out of me.
At least in russia they get to keep it.Censored.
Chavez just decided to close it here in Venezuela....
Of course you do ... hey, someone's taking over my key....
Hello, this is the U.S. Service. We have recorded your IP address of 127.0.0.1 and are coming to arrest you for threatening the President -- immediately.
Thanks,
Agent Smith
U.S. Secret Service
My blog
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.
I guess this means we'll still have AllOfMP3 for the foreseeable future. I wonder if Putin is in bed with Paula Jones?
Mostly because if he leaves office with a horrid approval rating then being the sheep we are we will thing, "Ungh! Republican bad! Democrat good!" And vote a Democrat into office, or something like that.
It does get a little more complicated than that but general trend is when a high profile member from party X is doing that bad the only other option is to put vote in the guy from Y to see if he can do any better.
Sorry for the heavy dose of cynicism but we are talking politics.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
Yep, looks like I have freedom of speech.
Yeah? Try posting some Scientology text.
What?
Posting under Anonymous Coward isn't exactly free speech. Close though. If you really want to impress us, go ahead and try that using your real account.
"No Russian citizens were poisoned by plutonium today"
"Organized crime killings fall below recent monthly average"
"Murdered businessman left money for charity; disabled will benefit"
"Russian elections considered somewhat freer than Chinese elections"
"Gary who? Better, younger Russian chessplayers rising through ranks"
No you are not looking at this from a Russian point of view. America going down the tubes is good news there!
As we are aware, in the last decade or so, a lot of Russians have come into a lot of money and a lot of them live outside of Russia. However because Russia has moved from a command economy to a capitalist economy, they are now heavily dependant on money, jobs, and import/export from abroad. If Russia keeps rattling its sabre and anti Western stance, it will drive away investment in the country because it will be seen as too high a risk v returns and then they will probabily blame the west for taking the obvious decisions.
http://www.writeitfor.us - Writing IT for the IT generation.
Yep, looks like I have freedom of speech. For now, anyway.
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
Vote the guy out while you still have the chance!
There is so much violence in any large country, that if you have to report every murder or assault, then the newspapers will be nothing but. Balance is required and it seems that the owners insist on that. Which party line should be supported is a matter of which people they are targeting - sitting on the fence is worse.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
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.
If you accept the notion that to be "great" you must "do as I say," the communists have won your mind. We are hearing from a lot of the same kinds of people in Washington these days. They talk about sacrifice, struggle, security and other unAmerican nonsense.
If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom. - Eisenhower
Two bit tyrants pushing around their broadcasters are anything but great and their country will be anything but respected. Feared and avoided, perhaps, but never respected.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Several readers sent us to the Fox News for disturbing news on America's vanishing press freedoms. The story tells of how one of the few remaining relatively independent radio outlets in America recently acquired new managers, reportedly loyal to George Bush. Quoting: "At their first meeting with journalists since taking over America'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 Iraq must be 'positive.' In addition, opposition leaders could not be mentioned on the air and the Iran was to be portrayed as an enemy, journalists employed by the network, Air America, say they were told by the new managers, who are allies of the Whitehouse."
Since the gov't is paying the salaries of the gov't owned media, isnt' this the equivalent of your boss handing out a reporting assignment? I see no danger to the freedom of the press, I see capitalism at work.
It's all Bush's fault... somehow... where's my Koolaid...
Every time i turn on the news, including this site, i'm bombarded by negative stories, and usually i end up finding out at least 3 new things to get annoyed, pissed, or down right fall into despair over.
Despite how i try to avoid it it affects my mood and general outlook.
I'd like to think there are equal numbers of positive things happening in the world, but i have no proof, and will never get it without such a regulation because happy doesnt equal ratings.
america has other regulations, such as the regulation that tv stations not have dead airtime, which led to infomercials (yeah i kind of prefer the dead air) and regulations requiring certain numbers of hours of educational and news programming from every tv station. This would not be very different.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
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.
All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.
Bush has been a lame duck for years. He doesn't have to run for election again...
Half the Russian "news" will now be plagiarized puff crap from "perky" Katie Couric.
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
Okay, it's bad for the govt to tell the press what they must report and how.
Still, there is something clearly left unsaid in TFA, and that is whether the new management is actually acting under direction by the govt. It seems clear that the govt is trying to force the media to portray it in a positive light and side with its ideology, but it is not clear whether this particular act is actually caused by the govt or just by some PHBs.
Either way it sucks but there is a difference:
A. Freedom to be stupid: PHBs like the govt and want to control what they can to support it
B. Freedom sanctioned: Govt controls PHBs through ideology law and forces trickle down effect
There is a big difference between the two in my way of thinking. One is something I support: freedom to be stupid, and the other is something I condemn for all the obvious reasons: force by govt to be stupid.
You could look at my personal life and say that I don't deserve the freedom to be stupid, but I have it and wouldn't want it any other way. In the same way, if it's PHB stupidity then I'm for it (the freedom that is, not the actual choices made with it,) but if it's govt forced stupidity, I'm against.
There is plenty of innuendo in the article, but where is that particular clarification?
Key: govt=government; PHB=Pointy Haired Boss, aka clueless management; my personal life=shamblesB) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
Censorship is bad, but the recent requirement allows us to look with a fresh eye at the nature of the newsmaking.
The most profitable media are tabloids, because they supply the bottom-feeder news - catastrophes, celebrities, scandals. The more negative the better. And that is the nature of this profession. You won't sell the news "man lives happily ever after with his wife". Heck, it is not even "man is bitten by the dog" news, it HAS TO be "man bites dog" nowadays.
News is not "news", it is not "information" (science in the peer-reviewed journals COULD be qualifies as information, but not "news"). News is ENTERTAINMENT. Period.
For that matter it can be "truthful and unbiased" like Fox News, it can be soon becoming a tabloid, like CNN, it can be fake like Onion, it can be humorous like Daily Show. And it can be controlled by the fascist regime of Putin. As soon as you start relying on news as your source of information, you are screwed as the lamb at the slaughterhouse. 'Cause you will be Nancy Pelosi's (or whoever) sheep.
So stop being so hypocritical about "news". Just stop watching them.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
News lives and dies by it's content, if you "don't have access" to something then you can't report on it. In doing so your news is less worth watching and hence less watch, which leads to you losing more and more people until you basicly get run out of the game.
So you cannot claim "limiting access" is not a repercussion when you live in a country based on "The winner takes all" concepts.
Either America is the land of the free and fair or it's dog eat dog. You cannot have a culture of one and claim it is the other.
I like muppets.
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.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Oh, if only I had friends in the FBI.
And whoever modded this troll? You're delusional. Off-topic? Yes. Flame-bait? Certainly. But not trolling.
Anyway on subject: Although silly and pointless, the regulations do contain one decent idea! Half of all news should be positive. Now, I'm not advocating ignoring the bad news. No, that is why the idea is insane. No, I mean find some positives. Those stories we used to see about how the blind woman with the ironically blind seeing eye dog found love in a deaf man with no sense of touch? Although typically nauseating, are a wonderful, and necessary break from the rest of the world. To be honest, if you have such a bleak point of view that you think happy news doesn't matter? Why bother living?
You're thinking of Germany. In the US, Scientology texts are perfectly legal.
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
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The GP is probably referring to this case; the Church of Scientology issued a DMCA takedown notice asking Slashdot to remove a comment containing Scientology texts, and Slashdot complied.
Bít, zabít, jen proto, ze su liska!
"The United States must be portrayed as an enemy"
I thought the Cold War b.s. was over with? Aren't we allies with the Russians? I mean, we use their space station, joint ventures in science and medicine, etc wtf happened so suddenly they now want to paint us as an enemy?
Aw Frell this
In the Soviet Union, there is freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
In the United States, there is freedom *after* speech and freedom *after* thought!
I wonder who is controlling Putin..... Dogbert, maybe?
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
I plan to kill George W. Bush Junior.
Hmm... yep, everything seems good from here... just me, my pets and those blokes from ASIO across the road... hi guys! Sure I'll come over for a coffee.
BRB my country calls...
Me failed English...
FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
The last free radio station in the US disappeared a long time ago.
American government, Russian government, Chinese government... they use both overt and covert tactics to control the media output.
One thing NONE of them do is encourage proper journalistic standards.
The whole 0% thing is in reference to the mandate that 50% of Russian news be optimistic.
Regards.
I'm sorry, but that's asinine. A personal triumph (or a personal tragedy) should get no coverage when compared to something that's affecting 300 million lives.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Poland, Romania and Eastern Germany never were part of the USSR in the first place. Some former USSR republic are NATO members now, but I am sure, you can't even name them, so please shut up and never talk about geography or history again.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
...literally!
Did you know that "FTW" ("for the win") is a direct translation of "Sieg Heil"?
I have an American friend who moved to Australia a few years ago. She was shocked at just how much more she has learned about world news and affairs while living here.
Meanwhile, her friends back in New Mexico have no idea how badly the war in Iraq is going, and still think Bush is wonderful.
I find it depressing that Australia is a lot more free than the US seems to be, and the US consider themselves to be the beacon of freedom.
at least it's balanced.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
I see these claims all the time, but EVERY TIME it's taken to court, or investigated by the media, there isn't ANY proof of disenfranchisement. On the other hand, we have CONVICTED Democrat party members sent to jail for slashing van tires, trading coke for votes. We have documented PROOF of election malfeasance and outright voter fraud in heavily Democratic Seattle and nary a peep from the media...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
"Yelling fire" isn't a good example anyway. You're allowed to "bear arms", but except in extreme circumstances, you aren't allowed to kill or injure people with them. This is constitutional: the laws against murder are independent of whether you did it with a gun. Similarly, you aren't allowed to kill or injure people with words, which is what happens if you yell "fire" in a crowded place.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
Heck, they could even report positive real news stories like opening of new hospitals and power plants in Iraq, or expanded free trade - bidirectionally free trade - between the US and Chile. And on and on... Of course, that would paint the current Administration in a positive light, and we simply cannot have that...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I wonder if the next time Iranian President Ahmadinijad visits the EU he'll be arrested for his Holocaust denial. Probably not, that wouldn't be tolerant of his alternative world viewpoint...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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...
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
Hmmmm, I think you're listening to too much air america :)
Russian firemen will now be lighting fires. More at twelve.
Kharma is like a boomerang. Mine is broken.
Either you follow the law (legitimate or not) or you will almost certainly be called to pay with some combination of your freedom, possessions, friendships, community standing, employment, employability, and state of mind. Consequently, if you decide not to follow the law, you had better be very certain the course you choose results in something worth all of that.
And of course, that also goes for the legislators, courts and executive branch as they violate the constitution left and right.
Nothing of the sort happens. Words do no harm at all. Actions (such as trampling) do harm. Actions are where laws should concentrate under the current constitution. If you'd like me to completely demolish the "fire in a crowded theater" falsehood, I'm willing. It'll just take a few short paragraphs. Do you want to go there?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Hey, on Slashdot, 50% of stories must praise Linux or OSS. What's the big deal?
Is this actually true? It does come from the New York Times what if the opposite has actually happened and the US press is now forced to say 50% good things about the war in Iraq and has to portray anyone else in the world as an enemy? What if it is the opposite what if the freedom of press actually got away from US and they are now tricking us! Oh no!
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
I neglected to include "health" in there. It is important that it be there. Please accept this correction as the original intent:
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I feel that in America much of the news is sugar coated! Epically my local news. Every Real story has to be followed up by some feel good crap to make you forget the real issues. National news will not show the true side to the war where people die, instead they just show how an American soldier who now is missing a hand will be OK because he is in America. Thats a load of bull! How about showing him on his down days instead! Or the grieving families who have lost their sons in the war. News should NEVER be censored or edited in anyway way, if you are to squeamish then too bad turn to the Disney channel. I for one am sick and tired of everything having to be dumbed down, sugar coated, politically corrected to such a degree that what comes out the other side is nothing but government fed Prozac. Looks like Russia is just following the American Dream?
1. I guess you didn't read what I said. I was there. I'm a witness.
2. I guess you don't read much, or get around much. See, e.g. this, this, this, this, this, this , this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this about the Ohio 2004 election, for just a few samples of the voluminous material on the subject.
3. Now tell me what proof you have that it didn't occur. That what I witnessed and what millions of people in Ohio witnessed didn't happen.
4. How dare you let your partisanship excuse your misrepresenting the truth about something so important as the right to vote. A lot of people have given their lives for that freedom.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Seriously, Fox News guarantees 90% favourable coverage for the great dictator and his party, without even an order.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Point ES...shutup, other than Western slime suck...your govSPEARmint sucks...our gov...SPEAR...mInt sux...I eat your grAss?!?!? NO!!! YOu eat my grass!!! I hate you and your high calorie diet!!!! I get NO fiber! No fiber protein...no fiber glutein...what do I get...??? Rather, ask VLAD the AMPLE COCKED IMPALER Putin what I get in my orifices today...it isn't my nourishment....HEH HEH HEH...No..your hollywood villianous stereotypes of vampires don't liberate me from Putin the flick shitter...oh flick shitter....how far up the intelligence chain will this post go...do you think flick shitter will get past the first level filters at KRemlihen? Will the agents drop their package?!? What will be waiting in utero when they come home? Stay off!!! Tokyo Rose, indeed. No really...prove yourself.........Have fun!!!!!
.... I have friends in russia and we both know the enemy are those in power enough to screw things up for the rest of us. Most people just want to raise their family and enjoy what they can of their life. A small part of one percent have other ideas, a need to feel power over others.
Muzzling the press, protraying the US as an enemy, if Russia didn't have such a massive amount of nuclear weapons at its disposal, I would say its almost funny how people slip into old patterns so easily.
[with a gun pointed to his head] A Four-alarm fire in Downtown Moscow clears way for a glorious new tractor factory. And on the lighter side of the news, Hundreds of Capitalists are soon to perish in Shuttle disaster.
What?
Is it just me, or is the Russian media fscking nuts? Pravda is claiming Imus was fired for threatening to reveal 9/11 secrets! I guess when you're not allowed to tell the truth, you have to pull stories out your ass instead.
- 0
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/89728
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Ok, we elected a president who has ran up a massive deficit. He inherited the economy in a so-so state (solvable by playing with interest rate, not tax cuts). He spent his time lying to accomplish his goals. He invaded nations that NOTHING to do with keeping this nation safe. He takes credit for accomplishments that were not his. He passes the blames for his mistakes to everybody else. He gave amnesty to illegal aliens. Was that W I just described? Nope. It was Reagan AND W. We made that mistake very recent. We will do it again.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
In Russia... happy!
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
BLINK This is what SCIENTOLOGISTS really believe!
Obviously. Have you noticed the apathy of the people around you? I understand your lack of understanding on this if you are not American... but I am American, and I cannot get any sort of decent dialogue going on this issue outside my immediate group of friends.
The other people just repeat what they saw on the news or roll their eyes when the subject comes up.
If people want to confine their thinking on a subject to what they see on the news then let them see American caskets.
The war will be going on long enough as it is... only public attention beyond the headlines can get the oversight we need to keep the situation from turning into our very own little waterloo. Failing proper public attention we need shock value.
Regards.
Have you sent your documented proof to the State Attorney? Anything good enough to actually take to Court? Because barring that, all you have "witnessed" is a lot of whining over the phones, by your own account. You didn't "witness" anything - you HEARD about supposed problems.
I have yet to see one HARD FACT to support the Left's claim of disenfranchisement. Not one. Nothing that's gone to trial, nothing worth even filing charges. Meaning there's a lot of noise and hubris, and little else...
2. I guess you don't read much, or get around much
Oh, I get around plenty. Again, I see a lot of railing against disenfranchisement and the like, and I see ZERO actual facts other than hearsay and "well this person said they know someone..." Unlike HARD CASES where we have CONVICTIONS of Democrat operatives slashing tires, stuffing ballot boxes, buying votes with crack cocaine and the like.
3. Now tell me what proof you have that it didn't occur. That what I witnessed and what millions of people in Ohio witnessed didn't happen.
Nice illogical statement! Can't prove a negative. Besides, you're the one CLAIMING all this election malfeasance - YOU provide the proof. Barring that, it's just so much hot air...
4. How dare you let your partisanship excuse your misrepresenting the truth about something so important as the right to vote.
So far I see ZERO truth to your claims. None, nada. Your personal testimony is admittedly just "I heard over the phone of this problem". Hearsay.
On the other hand, we have documented CONVICTIONS of the Democrat party's election crimes. Here in Washington we have documented PHOTOGRAPHIC PROOF of multiple votes, illegal/non-existent registrations, and a County (Democrat) election's office that "finds" votes weeks after the election "went the wrong way", just enough to swing it the other way. And a state DEMOCRAT-DOMINATED Legislature trying to make it illegal to provide this very proof...
No, sir, I offer that YOU are spitting on the graves of all who gave their lives for ou right to vote. Wild baseless claims with ZERO proof while ignoring the COLD HARD FACTS that just happen to go against your political bent...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Oh, and I'm sure you're ALL FOR the ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that allows laws requiring proof of citizenship prior to registering to vote. Right? Or is that disenfranchisement, too?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
--
forgive my english. being trilingual takes hard way as an asian.
1. 50% normal (unhappy) news
2. 50% happy news
3. US = Enemy
4. ???
5. Profit!
"To be is to do." --Socrates
"To do is to be." -- Aristotle
"Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
Back to the topic. Fascinating stuff. Russia actually does something heinous, and people start saying America has already done it. Therrrrrrefore, perhaps Russia is Americanizing itself? No, just kidding.
I think Russia wants to make America out the be the enemy so that when it invades Europe, it will look like it was saving Europe from the American influence. Now draw all the comparisons you want, but we've had plenty enough reason to invade Mexico in order to solve their economic woes and create jobs in an effort to curb the mass of illegal aliens coming north. (no, I don't personally think this way, I'm speaking in the abstract. So please, do go ahead and post a reply to me saying that as if I honestly think we should. I know someone will. Heck all you have to do is twitch the wrong way, and people around here go ballistic)
Bah, I forgot what I was going to say, but it was along the lines of "Pfft, it's Russia. Did you really think this wouldn't happen again?"
Karma: Bad is the liberal way of saying this guy won't drink the kool aid here on slash dot. I wear my Karma with pride
Compare RT to Deutsche Welle Television (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"?
it's better than the US saying at least 80% of the news must be a tragedy involving at least 100 civilians' lives.
Who is that masked man?
I think requiring news stations to report positive items 50% of the time is a good thing.
Good things happen in the world too, and I'd like our media to reflect that.
I'm fed up only hearing all the bad news in the world when I turn on the TV or radio. Its enough to make you depressed all day, and I'd also like to learn more about the good things that happen.
Nothing of the sort happens. Words do no harm at all. Actions (such as trampling) do harm. Actions are where laws should concentrate under the current constitution. If you'd like me to completely demolish the "fire in a crowded theater" falsehood, I'm willing. It'll just take a few short paragraphs. Do you want to go there?
That's one of the most pedantic and silly arguments I've ever heard.
By that logic, if I shoot someone, I didn't hurt the other person, because the bullet did the damage not me. If I build a bomb, the chemical reaction/etc killed people, not me. What if tomorrow a major media outline ran a story on you--whoever you are--and said they had absolute 100% verifiable proof that you embezzled money, were a pedophile, kicked dogs, blah blah blah whatever. Those are words--do they, as you say, "do no harm at all" ?
Lets play out a hypothetical situation, step by step.
a) crowded theater
b) someone yells "fire" (falsely)
c) trampling ensues
C would not have been reached if B had not first happened. Are you claiming that the B actor has no responsibility for the outcome of his ACTION?
Where does it end? Would you be allowed to kill people if you can trick them using words only? Trick them into eating poison? etc. I just can't get over how ludicrous your assertion is.
Actions--be they physical OR verbal--have cause and effect.
In addition, back to the point at hand... You'll notice too the amendment says CONGRESS shall make no law... there are other sources of law than congress.
Don't bring up Gore's house. A home that consumes 10 time the average amount of electricity in a country of 300 million people is so beyond irrelevant as to be ridiculous. If you want to make a point about hypocrisy, fine, but I don't think he's asked people to use less electricity in their homes. And anyway, to the extent that global warming will be solved through new technology and higher efficiency rather than voluntary altruism (which never works I might point out), I don't really care whether he heats his house to 82 in the winter or 68. If Gore came out and said people need to stop using so much energy in their homes, I could understand your annoyance. But since he says things like "let's implement a carbon cap and trade system (which albeit has its own problems) his house's energy consumption isn't really an issue.
And to the jet, if I had to pollute 10 times as much as 1 guy to convince 10,000 people to pollute half as much, I'm very obviously doing the planet a service. It might rankle you that he gets to enjoy all the benefits of high consumption and pollution in that scenario, but since there aren't really any other viable alternative for touring the world to promote a cause, I don't know what you would prefer he do.
Anyhow I felt like I needed to clarify that, the rest of your insights are quite good.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
It won't be long until Russia might catch up to us.
I wonder if Russia fails to show the truth coming out
of Iraq also?
Sincerely,
Paul
1. I guess you didn't read what I said. I was there. I'm a witness.
For a lawyer it's somewhat shocking you wouldn't understand the difference between something having legal standing and being a passive observer--or as it seems you may/may not be, a 2nd and 3rd hand observer at that.
2. I guess you don't read much, or get around much.
I see you HAVE however mastered the tactic of ad hominem attacks.
Typical lawyer double speak...
Is it bad that the only reason I clicked on this article was the hope of reading some good Russian reversals?
In Soviet Russia, rich oligarchs that are hiding in Britain are not allowed to use their money to overthrow the government by sowing and supporting dissent?
I didn't know that Vladimir Putin had an account on Slashdot...
Let me be the first to welcome you, and also, advise you that here, we settle our disputes by bragging about our technical prowess, and not by injecting each other with radioactive isotopes. It'll take some getting used to, I'm sure.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
So Fox News started its Russian subsidiary?
There's a lot of KIDS here posting what they believe are funny comments. A lot of people bitching about Bush. But take a second and remember/think about the fact that you can bitch about Bush. The press can and does go after him and with good reason. But if you think what's going on over there is as bad as the US you're fooling yourselves..
I grew up at the end of the cold war. I was in High School when the Wall came down in Germany. Even more importantly; but not given as much credit the people of Poland taking action. We don't want to end up there again. You think Iran scary????? Think again. There was REAL fear then. Russia can nuke the continental US. And a considerable amount of it. If you are in your teens or even early twenties you don't understand; you didn't have to live with it.
Putin is a old/hard line throw back. KGB. That's why we've been walking on egg shells with Russia since he came to power. For the last few years he's been taking back every freedom that the people of Russia gained. And his agenda is to go even further.
I'm calling it now and you can look back in 4 years. This is only going to get considerably worse.
END RANT
That at least is fact. When the soviet union fell, russia was supposed to enter a new age of capatalism helped by the west. Did it?
Offcourse not, if you track back it almost seems like the US tried everything it could to make sure Russia would NOT succeed.
And why should it. Post WW2 the US helped its former enemies Germany and Japan back on its feet and gained two powerfull rivals in business. And no, that is NOT good news when you are an export nation. But luckily both germany and japan are heavily depeneded on foreign natural resources meaning trade routes wich they have no hope of securing on their own so they need the US to remain powerfull.
China is ever worse but at least they got that huge population to feed and while less resource dependent then Germany and Japan still, hopefully, can be controlled.
But just imagine Russia pulling a economic recovery ala Germany or Japan. It got the people, it got MORE then enough land and is swimming in every kind of resource you could want.
It is even worse, even under the heel of dictatorship it managed to be suprisingly inventive, just what would happen if it became "westernized"?
A western russia could be the deathblow to the US dominance over the world through economics.
The west LOVES putin. He is sure to keep Russia down, and relatively harmless. Well apart from that pesky russian mafia and the risk of the spread of nuclear weapons. But hey, at least the market is safe.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The argument that people lie during exit polls is unfounded FUD.
Erm, no, it's not, it's pretty basic sociology. It's why we have secret ballots for the real election in the first place.
Imagine I'm some guy, and as I walk out of the polls, some cute 20-something, female reporter asks me who I voted for. I'm probably going to give whatever candidate I think is most likely to get me in her pants -- even if it's only a very, very long chance. People do stuff like this all the time, and it's completely irrational behavior. It works the same way in more subtle ways, too; if the pollster is black, you're probably going to claim you voted for the candidate who isn't a flaming racist, even if that's the lever you pulled a minute prior. If it's an old person, you're probably not going to admit voting for the guy who wants to axe Social Security.
People who get pulled aside for exit polls are undeniably being put "on the spot," but they're also being put into a position where they know they can say whatever they want with relative impunity, even if it isn't the truth. They're going to say whatever they think makes them look best to the people asking the question. (Unless, of course, they don't like or have a strong bias against the person asking the question, in which case they might say the opposite just to be antagonistic.)
There's a good section on this sort of behavior in Freakonomics, and it's probably covered in any political science textbook. Bottom line is that people lie if they think it'll be advantageous to do so, and the perceived advantage often isn't exactly logical or rational.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
To be honest, if you have such a bleak point of view that you think happy news doesn't matter? Why bother living?
Schadenfreude?
How bout the all positive network on TV. Wheres that?
It's called the Disney Channel.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Nonsense. By my logic, if you say you're going to shoot someone, you said something, and have caused no harm. If you actually shoot them, then obviously, you've shot them and that action is what caused the harm. If you say you're going to build a bomb, you're talking. Nothing more. If you build it, you've built it, and if you set it off, you're complicit in the damage the explosion causes. In either case, society has penalties linked to your actions.
If a newspaper runs a story on me, it has printed a bunch of words. It hasn't done a thing to me. If you, however, take action (such as some vigilante action) because you were stupid enough to believe a newspaper story's words, then you have taken an action, not the newspaper, and I have something to complain about with regard to you, not the newspaper.
And by the way, newspapers and other media sources publish untruths all the time. (Just watch FOX news for an hour!) They do it directly, they do it as "spin", they do it subtly by publishing something wrong and then publishing a retraction on page 900 in type so small you couldn't find it without a magnifying glass. Your logic here is just pitiful -- what I said, and what I clearly meant, was that words are not actions, and it is actions that cause problems. If you knee jerk some incorrect action based on words, you've caused the problem. Not the words.
You are the point of failure, because you have free will and you can choose what to do. Words don't force choices upon you. You make them as an aware and intelligent human being. You can't blame the words for your screw-ups. Those screw-ups are yours, and yours alone.
Let's look at this honestly. The scene is a school. Someone pulls the fire alarm. That someone is the principal, but no one knows that. We call this a "fire drill." Everyone - teachers, students, guests, books salesmen - are expected to file out of the building in an orderly fashion. No one will blame the principal for effectively "yelling fire." However, should one person trample another, they will be admonished, because - obviously - we have to behave rationally during a potential fire situation, and anyone who doesn't is causing a problem. This is (very) basic socialization. You don't trample your fellow human beings, and you also don't panic, you use your head. Because later, perhaps in a theater, perhaps at school, this is going to really, really matter because there will be a fire. Trampling isn't OK if there's a real fire, you know - the fake fire scenario is only valid if that was the case. But it isn't, and it never was.
Now, in your theater example, person in step B has called a fire alarm. No big deal. We should all file out. However, someone is an antisocial, panicky idiot, and tramples someone else. Obviously, this person hasn't taken his grade school education to heart and cannot be trusted in an emergency situation. The consequences here - in a non-fire - are that someone got trampled; that's only because this wasn't a real fire. If it had been a real fire, there would have been people trampled and burned to death because they were crippled
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Try doing a search on NYT articles about Russia. Theirs is a mirror-opposite censorship. They never print anything nice about the place, and anytime there is something relating to good news, they'll go out of their way to downplay it.
To me, it smacks of ethnic prejudice, as well as Cold War bias masquerading as "liberalism".
There are certain ethnic groups that the NYT hates, even while it heaps adoration on others. Any NYT article on Islam and Muslims invariably features them holding teddy bears, flowers and fluffy bunnies. Any NYT article on Russia invariably shows some old lady moaning about how Putin stole her pension money after ass-raping her. Conspicuously, the NYT will never report anything negative on the European Union (because Brussels is filled with saints, no doubt.)
The NYT is an EU embassy on US soil. They are an Atlanticist bastion.
People don't run newspapers like that to report the news. They run them to promote a particular political agenda. The NYT was originally derided as being "owned by Catholics and run by Jews." Now the Jews have been kicked out -- except for the docile ones, naturally -- and thus its remaining agenda is quite obvious. You'll now never see a positive article from NYT on Israel. Take a look at old articles from NYT on Israel, and you'll see a glaring difference.
I'm a longtime NYT reader, and it's excruciatingly obvious where their biases lie.
If bad news cannot be mentioned because of some silly quota it is censorship.
If opposition leaders cannot be mentioned any more it is censorship.
If positive views of the U.S. cannot be published it is censorship.
Censorship - 3
Freedom of press - 0
I completely second the Russian policy, because http://onepass.blogspot.com/2005/08/no-sarcasm-or- hypocrisy-please.html
Slashdot = Sarcasm
Good news should be reported if it does matter, of course - but it should *matter*, instead of just being some irrelevant tidbit or heartwarming story that's only reported to meet some quota (whether it's set by the state, the network's CEO, or whoever).
In other words, for the purpose of determining what news is reported, those who make that decision should be agnostic as far as the "goodness" of the news is concerned. It simply shouldn't matter at all; disregard whether news items are good or bad, then rank them by importance, and report them in order until you run out of time. (A rather simplified algorithm, of course, but that's the gist of what it should be like.)
As soon as you start arguing that news should be more positive, or less depressing, or whatever, you should ask yourself what news are supposed to accomplish. Do you watch news to keep up your illusions about the world and avoid the cognitive dissonance caused by seeing that the real world is not the way you want it to be, or do you watch it because you want to know what the real world is really like, and do you think that the news should accurately report that?
You do have a right to not be interested in the real world, of course, and to keep your illusions, but I'd say it'd be better if you just didn't watch the news at all in that case; stick with comedy shows, cartoons, movies and so on, and pretend that everything's fine. But don't attempt to subvert the news to match your bias instead of reality.
butter the donkey
They aren't communists, and that's all that ever matters. You can feed children into a coal-fired plant, as long as capitalism wins the day. All that guff about freedoms and habeus corpus is all so pre-911. Why should they fight for something we don't even want for ourselves.
Actually they on All-Russian State TV Channel #7 read /.'s comments daily at lunchtime as a proof of imminent death of Western civilization
...is usually not very pretty. Glossing over the reality of the world is not going to make it so. I agree that the American Media is full of crap, but we still have freedom of speech over here. In Russia? Not so much. Kinda like China. I am glad that when the USSR fell, all of the eastern block countries got free of their bullshit and tyranny. My family is from Latvia, so fuck the Russians. My family was slaughtered/imprisoned by Stalin. Putin sounds like he wants to heading towards a Stalinist ideal, just not as obvious and in your face. If they want to go back to their fascist/communist delusional way of life, then let them. It is not like it did not fail miserably before right? It will fail again.
So the Tunnel's out, big plans for moose and squirrel back in?
Caveat Utilitor
Fuck the Russian Government, not the Russian people(unless they really did support the Communist/Fascist way of life, then fuck them too)...sorry...just to clarify that one....
Defends the USA: -1 Troll
Asks tough but honest question about another country: -1 Flamebait
Suggests that there might be worse places to live than USA: -1 Troll
Bashes the USA: +1 Insightful
Declares USA is destroyer of the Universe: +1 Insightful
Use of the word "fuck" more than 9 times: +1 Insightful
Blames Bush for all the world's ills dating back to the Miocene: +1 Interesting
Snarky guide to modding: +1 Funny
Your "proof' is your own yammering blog? What fucking law school did you attend? University Of Dumbass? It's people like you that cause lawyers to have pretty much zero respect in this country. Nice going, fucktard. You're just another ideological zombie. Another anchor on human progress. My god, please kill yourself.
That's silly. No one listens to Air America.
S'why they went bankrupt...
Is the Russian world so much different from the western world ? I see many similarities. the world isn't divided east-west but vertically : people in power / people not in power.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
about all the wonderfull new freedoms they have
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.
I think the need to explain the difference shows how warped your world view is. Even the President has freedom of association, and he can use that freedom to not invite or stay away from members of the press who piss him off.
'Freedom of speech' does not mean 'free from all consequences of speech.' It only means freedom from prior restraint, from imprisonment for protected speech (not firing and inciting a riot), and freedom from polonium 210 posioning if your speech is critical of the government.
Whosoever pisses off the president and gets kicked off the whitehouse correspendant list can still go on national TV and say pretty much whatever the hell he wants.
He just has to make a choice- does he want the prestige of being in the whitehouse press corp, or does he want to say what his conscience dictates?
That's a pretty easy choice for any man or woman with a shred of character, and in the US it doesn't end with you being posioned at some foriegn hotel with some 'hot' tea.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
And how does preventing illegal reproduction of copyrighted material contitute freedom of speech violation?
This time against stupid mafia fuckheads who think that one of the 2 biggest countries on the face of the earth can be run like a local strip club.
Read radical news here
I'm sorry, it just popped out, honest...
The news has to reign in viewers too to make money. If it's more of a soap opera, or if every time you see an update for the news you have to stay tuned because there's something really really horrifying and important, you'll probably be too scared to ignore it and miss being made aware of the crisis and be told how we can avert it.
Twinstiq, game news
Consider the case that Adam is an internationally-renowned authority on mushrooms, and Bob is a friend of his. Unbeknownst to Bob, Adam has come to believe (incorrectly, let us assume) that Bob is sleeping with Adam's wife, and therefore wishes to kill him. Now, Bob has just gone out and picked some mushrooms. He gets home, sits down in front of his PC, and starts a video-conferencing session with Adam; he holds up one of the distinctively-shaped and distinctively-coloured mushrooms to his webcam, and asks whether it's safe to eat. Adam instantly recognises that it is poisonous, but, since he wishes to kill Bob, he tells him it's safe. Bob eats it and dies.
I think we'd all agree that Adam is responsible for Bob's death. Bob did not act irresponsibly: before eating a wild mushroom, he took responsibility for ensuring that it was safe to eat by checking with an internationally-renowned expert. It was totally reasonable for Bob to expect an expert on mushrooms to be able to say whether a mushroom is safe to eat or not, or to reply that he doesn't know if he can't tell. It is not normally considered necessary to double-check the utterances of experts on such matters, since experts do not gain international renown if they are in the habit of bluffing or lying.
So, how did Adam cause Bob's death? By the act of saying that the mushroom was safe to eat. With words.
Consider: what act did Adam perform other than with words?
- He was not present, so he could not have physically prevented Bob from eating the mushroom even if he had wanted to, so your curious concept of a "failure to intervene" is irrelevant: the only way he could have intervened would have been by saying that the mushroom was not safe, i.e. by using different words in his speech act, i.e. with words.
- It was not his act of deciding to kill Bob that led to Bob's poisoning; he had already performed that act, but Bob remained alive and unpoisoned thereafter right up until the point that he ate the mushroom, an act which was directly caused by Adam's expert advice that the mushroom was safe to eat.
- It was not the act of lying that killed Bob; there are an infinite number of other lies that he could have told him ("I don't know because I can't see the mushroom because my monitor just broke", for example) that would not have led to his death. It was the specific lie that was fatal - the words.
Sorry, but the plain and simple fact of the matter is that words can kill, and a speech act is an act like any other.I, for one, am happy to welcome our new censoring overlords.
I believe Israel has similar policy. I am not sure if it is official.
Slashdot = Sarcasm
Its way too easy to view the situations of others through the lens of our own conditions, experiences, beliefs.
Not saying I agree with this 50% happy stuff, just that its not reasonable to expect Russia to transform itself into a full western-style democracy in a few short years.
I'm curious, what's your feeling about Iraq, do you still think it was the correct thing to do?
There are two possibilities, either you were blind because the hundred thousands of death caused by the US induced chaos was totally predictable or you consider that those death are a good price to get Iraq's oil (bleach)..
I would say the blind ones are those that can only see one or two sides of any given situation.
I can't say why this administration went into Iraq. Maybe it was for oil, perhaps they honestly thought there was WMDs, or maybe Bush had a grudge. I can't and won't speak for them. Nevertheless, one thing is very clear to me: The people of Iraq have an opportunity, however small, for a better life than they did before we got rid of Saddam. There are radical groups that want to destroy that and return Iraq to what it was before. However, we have at least given the citizens of Iraq a slight chance of having a real democracy. How much blood is that worth?
I believe that there is no price too high for freedom. Even if that freedom is not my own.
If you have access to a satellite receiver or DVB-S card in your PC, you can find Russia Today on the Galaxy 25 satellite (formerly known as Intelsat Americas 5, or IA5) in the 97W orbital slot. It's an English-language news show in a format similar to CNN Headline News. It used to be a pretty decent news source, too, but it's been quite a while since I watched it (over a year, I think). Since it's beamed free of charge to English speakers and financed by the Russian governemnt, I always assumed it was a sort of propaganda tool, but on issues the Russian government didn't care about they seemed to do a reasonable job of reporting.
How is that different than in the US?
Low profile murders, rapes, aggrevated assaults, gang activities, etc. are becoming common-place and are never reported on television in the US anymore. Some have restrictions placed by the city... some have the restrictions based on low profile bad news being unprofitable... But the outcome is no different than what Russia is now starting. I am personally amazed that Russia did not have such restrictions up till now.
No. It isn't. Words do not kill. You make my very point; here you are, spouting words, but if I accepted what you are saying I would be irresponsible, because in fact, the words you are saying are not an accurate portrayal of reality. It would be my fault if I accepted your position, because I am responsible for my own choices, regardless of where I collect the information I base those choices on. And it is your fault that you are wrong, because you are responsible for your own state of mind. The world is chock-full of misinformation. That I have no problem with; I'm well aware that this is the normal state of affairs. What I have a problem with is people who have decided this is not the case, and they can run trippingly through the tulips without a care in the world.
That food, by definition, has not been "poisoned"; you're conflating the idea of something that was intentionally changed from safe to eat to unsafe - "poisoned" - with the idea of something that is naturally poisonous. All this means is you don't know how to use English very well; it doesn't in the least invalidate my statement that foods don't poison themselves. They don't. Any item that is naturally poisonous isn't food in the first place. When something is poisonous by nature, we don't categorize it as food, we categorize it as poison, plain and simple. You should have paid more attention in English class.
No, there's no particular reason for me to forgive you. You're just regurgitating the ideas the mommy government and its spineless minions have jammed into you, and as such, you don't deserve to be forgiven. I'll consider forgiving you if and when you begin to think for yourself and abandon the thesis that trampling on other people's rights is a good thing. And yes indeed, failing to intervene is an action - as the Rush lyric goes, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." You can always provide information to assist others in making a choice you know to be sub-optimal; if you don't when you could have, you're complicit. It isn't your job to make the choice for them, but you need to ensure that your actions are not harmful. That doesn't mean that you can assume, under any conditions, that others are acting in the same way, just as you cannot assume that the fellow who just broke through your door is a cop.
The responsibility still rests with the layman. Eating unknown plants is a clear risk. Here, you have the layman compound that risk by being hugely irresponsible. What if the expert couldn't see the mushroom well enough? What if the "expert" is a blowhard? What if the "expert" is simply wrong? What if the "expert" has never seen this particular mushroom before and it just looks like it is safe? And of course, what if the "expert" has it in for the guy? Any or all of these things are possible; which makes eating the mushroom under the specified conditions stupid. If one were really intent on eating some random member of a family of foods that is well known to contain high levels of toxins, one would go to a set of information sources that cannot be biased towards one's self. After consulting these, one would have not one, but multiple identifications of the item to a high
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Old habits die hard, huh?
I think most freedom of speech laws in any society are based on the principle "do not incite to inflict physical damage to objects of culturally depended value".
You may be joking / trolling, but I'll bite.
How does preventing illegal reproduction of criticism of the Bush/Putin regimes contitute a freedom of speech violation?
That's German for "The, Bush".
You seem to be very stubbornly clinging to a very strange worldview, so I'll try to be as clear as possible here.
Most humans are not omniscient. They do not have instant access to full information on the entire state of the world. As a result, they often have to trust information from sources other than their senses. Frequently, such sources are other humans. This is true even when life and death hinge on the information being correct. Some people, such as doctors, chemists, engineers, police officers and soldiers, give out such information on a daily basis. For others, it happens less frequently, but it can still happen to anyone ("fire!", for example).
Because they're not omniscient, most people's actions depend on the information they're given, if they have any reason to trust it, or if the risk of disregarding it is great. This is called "rationality." Most humans are approximately rational. This is a fact of life, and not a side effect of oppressive governments.
Humans who know each other almost always have some degree of trust. Humans also trust random strangers who they don't know. For instance, when asking a stranger for directions, one usually assumes that the stranger will give directions to the correct place, rather than a part of town in which one is likely to be shot. Similarly, one trusts waiters at restaurants ("this doesn't contain peanuts"). We also trust machines under the partial control of other humans, from stoplights to elevators to bridges. People who believe that others are likely to deliberately give them lethal misinformation are called "paranoid," and they tend to be put in mental institutions. Paranoia is not rational: the probability that someone is trying to screw you over is, in most circumstances, vanishingly small, and compensating for it is difficult. Naivete isn't rational either, but in most circumstances it is closer to rational than paranoia.
Actions that are intended to cause rational agents grievous harm are usually classified as crimes. This is the case whether the harm is direct (strangling them), semi-direct (sabotaging their car), or indirect (giving out lethal misinformation).
A society in which non-contractually-provided information is disregarded, as you suggest, would be terrible. Imagine that I'm a chemist, and am running a dangerous experiment in my lab. Clearly, this should be legal, or else chemistry wouldn't get done. If I take reasonable precautions to prevent people from wandering into the chem lab and being killed, I should have no liability if they do it anyway. That is, setting up such an experiment should be legal if appropriate information is present. On the other hand, if I put a sign on the door which says "free soft drinks in here!", and someone walks in, then I have set a deathtrap and should be jailed (or should deathtraps be legal?).
On a related note, you seem to be under the impression that only direct responsibility for a crime is possible. If you walk in to a room, and I block the door while my buddy beats you to death, I am certainly culpable for your death even though I never dealt you a blow (my buddy is also culpable, and possibly more so). This is because I intentionally took actions which helped to cause your death. Why is speech any different?
Finally, I still don't understand how failing to intervene when someone is about to accidentally injure himself can be a crime, but giving someone misinformation that causes him to injure himself is not. Maybe I'm just brainwashed.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
This is the same New York Times that told us there were WMDs in Iraq?
This is the same New York Times that tells us today that Iran is making nukes?
Right.
Let's hear from the Washington Times - owned by Reverend Moon - first, okay?
Oh, wait...
Maybe the Washington Post? Uhm, the one with the columnist whose wife is a neocon? The paper that said "Scooter" Libby didn't do anything wrong?
Wait, wait... I seem to recall a remark by CIA chief William Casey...something about the CIA either owns or controls ALL the US mainstream media...and a Mother Jones article (IIRC) about how even most of the alternative publications hire ex-CIA analysts as writers...
Maybe the Onion?
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I wish that we had at least 1% good news, but alas... all news in America is bad news.
Because speech can't block a door, obviously.
Look, really - we're not going to agree here. But it doesn't matter anyway; the bottom line is drawn by the fact that there is no constitutional basis for restricting speech whatsoever, and so any law that does so is, of course, unconstitutional. If you want that changed, by all means, see if you can make any part of the political process work like it is supposed to. If you can get the constitution amended with a replacement for the first amendment that allows for your ideas, then you're all set.
In the meantime, the government cannot censor speech without employing coercion, which is the illegitimate use of force or the threat of the use of force. The reason it has to use coercion is because it has no authority - the only authority it ever had descends directly from the constitution, which provides no authority whatsoever for the suppression of speech, and further, explicitly forbids such laws.
As the government re-invents itself as a coercive force, it is stepping outside its charter, and that means the citizens are entirely within their rights to take the government to task using any mechanism they see fit. Just as we don't care if you deliver newspapers correctly if we catch you murdering old ladies, we don't care if the government is properly toeing the line with regard to maintaining parks if we catch it using coercion with regard to issues covered by the constitution. In both cases, the antisocial behavior justifies destruction of your whole ball of wax. You lose your job and go to jail, someone new is hired to replace you; the government gets taken down and something presumably better is put in its place.
This means every part of the government from the Supreme court at the top to the most menial, minor functionary at the bottom. Remember, the people who resisted the king were patriots. Not traitors.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
1. Make High Risk Comment ...
2. Watch Search Engines Suck Up and Analyze Content
3.
4. Profit!!!
There's a joke in there somewhere...
Your reply was very good. I doubt it'll have any impact on fyngyrz, but good attempt nonetheless.
RTFA... matter of fact RTFS. Article doesn't mention anything about freedom of speech. Its about freedom of press.
... and in the DRM, bind them.
In Soviet Russia.. ah.. oh forget it
Make SELinux enforcing again!
I'm thinking the joke is on the guy who modded me flamebait... obviously I don't plan to do anything of the sort! The example was relative to freespeech.
Someone modded me funny because they saw that. Good to know there's some insight still left on slashdot.
Me failed English...
FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
Because speech can't block a door, obviously.
... the bottom line is drawn by the fact that there is no constitutional basis for restricting speech whatsoever, and so any law that does so is, of course, unconstitutional.
So? By blocking the door, I'm not physically interacting with you at all (unless you try to force your way past me, but suppose you don't). How directly do I have to interact with you to give me agency? Am I allowed to hire people to murder you? The line you're trying to draw doesn't make sense: any place you draw it is dogmatically arbitrary.
This is only true if you think that the Constitution isn't subject to interpretation. But the USA inherited the British common law on slander and libel (though it interprets them less favorably for the plaintiff). So even the Framers didn't intend this section to be taken as literally as you say.
I'll agree that the current government has overstepped its mandate, and I'll oppose to the degree that's practical, but don't tell me that fraud, slander and reckless endangerment should be legal.
This means every part of the government from the Supreme court at the top to the most menial, minor functionary at the bottom. Remember, the people who resisted the king were patriots. Not traitors.
They were traitors as well as patriots. That's sometimes the price you pay. Some of them were also thieves, adulterers, and spies. None of them were gods.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
Haha, thanks. I don't really expect it to have much effect. I have a friend who's a radical libertarian, and it took me a whole summer to convince him that private citizens shouldn't own Stinger missiles, and that deathtraps are the same as murder. I didn't even try on free speech...
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
resource...like China.
First and foremost--your theories work GREAT if everyone is 100% rational and reasonable and acts EXACTLY as you tell them to. Oh yeah--they also need to be able to know everything in advance.
Thanks for the ad hominem attack btw--classy.
I agree with the later poster who said basically, we're not going to convince you.... but I'd just leave with a couple thoughts.
What about if someone calls in a bomb threat. Now, seeing as we are human and have imperfect knowledge, we CAN'T know if it's real or not. Do we act? Do we shutdown business/governemnt/evacuate/whatever? Or do we do nothing. If we ACT and it's false, a huge amount of time, money, and effort has gone to waste. Has the bomb threat caller done anything? Is he responsible for what he has DIRECTLY caused? I don't see anyway you can deny a direct causal link there, even though nothing was actually done. Should the people who had to act be responsible for fake bomb threats? Is absolutely nobody liable in this situation? was no wrong done?
If you had to make the decision to act or not to act on a bomb threat--can you really tell me that you would not act?
1) Your worldview seems to completely remove "trust" as something that should exist--no one should ever trust another for any purpose, instead they should investigate everything on their own, scientifically, whatever. I don't think the world can work like that.
2) If you're fine wityh people being able to slander, libel, and defame others at will--with no consequences!--then, well, good for you--I think the world would be pretty terrible, and I think 99% of people out there would agree.
3) re: your pseudo legal response--there's that little thing called the Supreme Court that plays a role in how these matters are defined. There have been some big cases in the area...
On the national front there are stories about relief operations, successes at bringing peace in war-torn nations, free-trade summits and other international meetings.
At the local level you can have stories about new businesses opening up, festivals that are up-coming, concerts, sports, the arts.
The gloomy news isn't necessarily more important than the happy news. It just sells ads.
I mean, is the story about another shot drug dealer 75 miles away from where I ever go really somehow more important than the story about a new restaurant opening up in the next town? Personally, knowing about the restaurant would probably have more effect on my life than knowing about violence between drug addicts.
That said, I wouldn't watch the local news, happy or sad, if you paid me. Pure gossip!
Funny :) I actually have a libertarian bent myself, but sadly the Libertarian party is full of extremists.
It doesn't. I was responding to the assertation that there aren't any issues with reproductions of scientology texts in the US, not the earlier discussion about violations of freedom of speech.
Bít, zabít, jen proto, ze su liska!
The constitution also states quite clearly:
/. at a time that this great document is ever more reduced to a quaint piece of paper kept as yet another obsolete oddity in a backrooom shelve next to the Geneva convention.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
But such details hardly stop this administration as the Padilla case nicely illustrates.
It amuses me to see such constitution parsing efforts here on
It exposes the principal reason behind copyright. It's a business solution to a government problem of being able to control speech. If you can't allow it directly, have it copyrighted to prevent widespread distribution. Very convenient. Every bit as effective as Chinese government censorship. And the government here is off the hook. Win-win...
What?
It doesn't.
Ah, but it most certainly does.
What?
"Why They Behave Like Russians" by John Fischer, is an interesting book on the subject, and it goes into how the *embedded culture* generates its own choice of government. Russian gov't hasn't really changed much over the centuries, just who gets to play the game. Frex, as some have pointed out, the KGB didn't go away, they just changed their uniforms.
f iscmiss
http://www.archive.org/details/whytheybehavelik00
Pretty damned insightful for a book written in 1947.
(I'm glad to see this in the archive; damned if I know where my dead-tree copy is.)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
First and foremost! Russia is not america!!!!!! Why do people burn our flags and bomb us!?? because we won't leave people alone!!!!! get the freakin' point poeple! also for all of you who are not so offended that you have just stopped reading my second point is, seond look at our news, to americans it is not news unless someone is dead or close to dieing or if God forbid some contry across the ocean decides to make at least 50% of their news happy!!!!! our news sucks! its all who died and how and how the world is going to end! unfortanaly in this country you have to be prefect! if you are depress we give you a drug! if you are to happy your manic! if you aren't just bland your are an extremist! what's my point? we are no better! at least they are tring to curvwe something besides emtion, and besides when colimbin happened isn't that part of the reason the kids went off? how depressing and morbid our media is... Maybe a few fluffy kittens being rescue from trees might just be a bit better fot the childrens!
Do people read anymore? Why was this modded flamebait? It's not even rude.
Relax I just want some peanuts.