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."
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?
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.
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?
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!
Most definitions of "free speech" don't actually include the freedom directly threaten someone with death, bodily harm, etc. The fact that you can't legally threaten the president's life in the USA protected by "free speech" clauses is not actually caused by that being a position of power; you can't legally make any death threats. Of course, some death threats are taken more seriously than others, and those being made against the president are probably taken pretty seriously. This could be seen as a failing of the American legal system, but it has nothing to do with free speech(and it is far from unique to America).
Out of business. People don't want an "Everything is OK" alarm. You can start one if you'd like, but nobody will watch.
ResidntGeek
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.
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.
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?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
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?
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.
And they're all owned by the same five media conglomerates. Those five media conglomerates have the same customers (advertisers), same business model, same conflicts of interest, and on most topics the same political bent. Those five companies also control most radio stations. With recent deregulation, they are starting to buy up newspapers as well. 95% of all media the average American is exposed to comes from those five companies.
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.
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!
"That said, forcing change from the outside at gunpoint seldom works well - for any governmental system imposed"
The level of force required to break down social barriers is that we used in WWII. We cannot use that level of violence against civilians nowadays, so we cannot "break" countries as was done to Germany and Japan.
"certain types of people are somehow genetically exempt"
None of the example countries that became modern democracies were Islamic. Religion that demands theocracy cannot tolerate democracy. That isn't a genetic barrier, but a deep, superstitious cultural barrier.
Russian Communists did the right thing in attacking superstition, but the alien goal of personal rights in a culture that never valued individuals was of course overlooked. That's not genetic, but it's real.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
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.
In Putin's Russia, the In Soviet Russia joke writes itself
None of the example countries that became modern democracies were Islamic. Religion that demands theocracy cannot tolerate democracy. That isn't a genetic barrier, but a deep, superstitious cultural barrier.
I hate to break it to you, but the lines dividing secular from religious power in Islamic society were broken by the Umyyad Dynasty less than a hundred years after the death of Muhammad. You may want to spend some time with Wikipedia on the history of Islam and Arab culture... and no, the two are not the same thing.
Theocracy is no more inimical to Islam than it is to Christianity... and it's plagued both. Theocratic rule can be justified by fanatics cherry-picking verses from scripture, and used as an excuse to do scary and psychotic things, no matter what your religion. (See: Spanish Inquisition, Forced Conversion in the Americas, 30 Years War, Hugenot suppression, etc.) Given their respective histories, I'd be more suspect of Mormons seeking a theocracy than mainstream Shia and Suuni. The problem is, the mainstream is being marginalized by the fanatics these days, and this seems to be a global issue not limited to Islam.
Also note, Bosnia is now a modern democracy after a rough start, as is Kyrgyzstan and Albania, all of them Islamic. Might as well toss in the Autonomous Regions of Iraqi Kurdistan and Kosovo... two stable and progressive Islamic democracies.
SoupIsGood Food
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"?
So because someone is going to get hurt, let's continue to let people murder, torture and oppress others. Is that the sum of your point? (brash comparisons of U.S./GITMO and Saddam's Regime are forthcoming, I'm sure.)
/. does take a fair amount of masochistic tendencies to do.)
Let me make my stance very clear - even though you will never believe me: I have already put my money where my mouth is with my comment about freedom. Very few people in the US are willing and ready to possibly die for someone they don't even know. I have done so, survived, and the two people I helped are moving on with their lives. And I would do so again without a moment's thought. The point I made was not from some idealogical high school kid with a penchant for self-abuse (and commenting on
This nation of ours is filled with spineless yokels unwilling to do anything but whine or turn a blind eye towards the realities of the world around them.
To answer your question: Say one day the U.S.A. becomes a true dictatorial regime and a foreign power liberates us, but my family dies as a result. How would I feel, you questioned. I would feel grateful to the foreign power that liberated us, but extremely sorrowful that my family died in the process. Why should I hate the foreign power because they did not save my family? Why should I be mad that they meddled in our nation's affairs? The only reason I would have to be angry with that foreign power is if I wanted the life that the regime had offered.
But who am I kidding? I'll be lucky if this doesn't get marked -1 flamebait, or my favorite, off topic. I don't hold popular opinions.