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?
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!
I guess Slashdot is now illegal in Russia as it has nothing good say about Microsoft, Apple, DRM/RIAA, Anonymous Cowards, and Martha Stewart.
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.
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
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.
> 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)
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 democratic countries, threats against the functionaries of democracy are seen as threats against democracy itself. This is because the functionaries should act according to their own convictions and the promises that they have made to their voters. If instead they are forced or swayed by threats, democracy is subverted.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
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.
Yep, looks like I have freedom of speech.
Yeah? Try posting some Scientology text.
What?
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.
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
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.
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
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 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.
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"?