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."

13 of 551 comments (clear)

  1. And in America... by ushering05401 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:And in America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This whole thing is just a matter of degrees.

      As is anything for someone with a brain. But it is fairly obvious that the matter of degrees difference here is like a Siberian winter vs Phoenix in the summer. Remember what they have done, forced the media to demonize one country and idolize themselves. This is nationalism at its worst. And with Putin's changes like appointing governorships (versus elections), Russia is becoming a totalitarian state.

      It is always wise to be very careful about a rabidly nationalistic totalitarian state. Over 100,000,000 people died in the last century from those entities.

      And before someone wants to criticize me by saying that the US is just as bad, I suggest you understand the meaning of the degrees of difference. Bush has abused the laws and now has a ~30% approval rating and is now a lame duck. Putin has abused the laws and has a >70% approval rating and the power to do anything he wants. If you don't see the difference, you are blind.

  2. No enemy? by Southpaw018 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re: No enemy? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

      The problem with that, of course, is that our propaganda is currently directed elsewhere. Which makes it an ideal time for them to play a weak hand.
      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  3. I might actually pay attention... by josquint · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  4. China more realistic enemy of Russia by ConfusedSelfHating · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Although the United States is an increasingly unpopular country, China is a more likely enemy. The greatest points of conflict with the United States would be over Russian business deals with "anti-American" countries. The United States is unlikely to invade any more countries in the near future given the numerous complications of the Iraq war. Iraq was one of the biggest business partners of Russia and the countries did not come to blows over it. A great number of the conflicts that Russia has with the West are also with Europe. There has been a great number of conflicts over oil. As far as the "War on Terror", the US and Russia are natural allies. With Russia's occupation of Chechnya (which makes the Iraq war look like a visit to the playground http://http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_ War/), 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.

  5. Re:tag: backintheussr by rucs_hack · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    Once people have an enemy they believe in, you can blame all kinds of crap on them, and claim that you are trying to save your people from those evil people.

    Interesting, it's exactly the same tactic the Nazi's used, although they picked the Jewish community.

  6. Probably a Good Idea by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 4, Insightful
    While many may argue that this supresses truth, is it really so? Does American-style "free" journalism really give a balanced view of what is happening in society?

    I argue not. Most "news" is heavily slanted to doom and gloom. Why? Probably because doom and gloom sells. People have a voyeuristic tendancy to be drawn to shootings, car crashes etc. In reality, 99.99% of were not in a car crash, got raped or any such mishap. Many had a good time.

    The media is not interested in truth, they are interested in what attracts eyeballs, and thereby ratings and advertising, and need to compete with comedy shows and other entertainment.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  7. Re:Enforced vs. voluntary censorship by scrondle · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  8. No, you shut up, moron by QuickFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  9. Re:tag: backintheussr by QuickFox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The first step in establishing a dictatorship is to define an enemy, preferably one that you know either cannot or will not defend itself. Like terrorism?
    --
    Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
  10. Re:In Soviet Russia by shark+swooner · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  11. Watch Russian Censorship in the USA by reporter · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If you live in the USA or another country to which "Russia Today" (RT) is beamed, then you can see Russian censorship in action. RT is a news service funded by the Russian government. RT broadcasts news about Russia, and nearly 80% of the Russia-related news is positive. I have yet to see any news that is critical of the Russian government. RT never interviews anyone who criticizes the Russian government.

    Compare RT to Deutsche Welle Television (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"?