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