Russian Journalists Quit Over Censorship

A state-controlled broadcast center in Russia has just seen the result of censorship restrictions imposed by the Kremlin. In a rare show of protest a group of journalists all resigned stating that they could no longer work under the harsh restrictions imposed by the state. "Artyom Khan, one of the reporters who resigned, said restrictions were introduced when new management was imported last month from Channel One, the state television station that documents Mr Putin's every move."

Comments

Well,

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a nice gesture, but the poor guy has a long road ahead of him.

Re:Well,

[Captain Splendid]

In Soviet Russia, nice gesture=waaaaaaay better than a syringe full of polonium.

Re:Well,

[Jimmy King]

Wait, does that mean in the rest of the world a syringe full of polonium is better than a nice gesture?

Re:Well,

[Bloke down the pub]

He didn't assert that it's true only in Soviet Russia.

Re:Well,

[Jimmy King]

I was responding to his post as if it were one of these, which are quite common on slashdot, as opposed to a somewhat serious response.

Re:Well,

[snarkh]

Yes, quite possibly a long road towards the north-eastern parts of Russia.

Next up, Channel One Exposes Number Two...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Channel One, the state television station that documents Mr Putin's every move...

Czar Putin, you sure that's a good idea?

"Next up, Channel One Exposes Number Two..."

Re:Next up, Channel One Exposes Number Two...

[WhyDoYouWantToKnow]

That's Mr Number Two to you Mister.

Re:Next up, Channel One Exposes Number Two...

[davidsyes]

Putin: "KHAN!! KHAN!!! KHAnNnNnN !...!!....!!!..."

Re:Next up, Channel One Exposes Number Two...

[Marnhinn]

The channel doesn't actually document his every move - it's more it documents every move he wants the public to see. I spent several years in Russia (2001 - 2003), and had the opportunity to see the government's censorship firsthand. It was very efficient and almost invisible. If someone hadn't told me about it - I probably wouldn't have noticed.

You see, the papers and stations are given free rein on a variety of subjects - ranging from tracking Russian movie stars to issues on the Ukraine. Only in certain topics (like Russian losses in Chechnya) is the press under tight control, but it is done in such a way that it is almost undetectable. Many people I spoke with only thought news about Chechnya was restricted, not about anything else... they simply were unaware that things were filtered.

I mean you could buy American movies, music, and media for nothing anywhere, of all sorts and types. Things like the Bond movies which made the Russians look bad were freely available. Documentaries on the Gulags could be found in the various Dom Kineeg (bookstores). Only things critical of the current administration were strangely non-existent or in short supply.

To Putin

[roman_mir]

I've done far worse than kill you. I've hurt you. And I wish to go on hurting you. I shall leave you as you left me, as you left her: marooned for all eternity in the center of a dead planet, buried alive. Buried alive.

Re:To Putin

[Captain Splendid]

PUTIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN!

Re:To Putin

[Hognoxious]

... du merde!!!!!

Re:To Putin

[nine-times]

I was hoping someone had made the comment already. My thought upon reading:

"Artyom Khan, one of the reporters who resigned, said restrictions were introduced when new management was imported last month from Channel One, the state television station that documents Mr Putin's every move."

My first thought was "KHAAAAAAN!!!"

Re:To Putin

[dkleinsc]

Why not link to here instead?

Re:To Putin

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean "de la merde?"

In Soviet Russia ...

[PPH]

... Kremlin mods YOU down!

And you thought Britain was bad for cameras!

[Timesprout]

Whats a few surveillance cameras when poor Putin has a camera crew following him everywhere!!

right..

[mastershake_phd]

the state television station that documents Mr Putin's every move.
 
If you were trying to run an oppressive state, why would you want your every move documented?

Re:right..

[Timesprout]

Because he is trying to build up a personality cult. It would appear Mr Putin has deigns on power greater than the Russian Presidency.

Re:right..

[guaigean]

No number of liberal bloggers ranting puts a bullet through the brain of a neocon!

I didn't realize liberals believed in the right to bear arms.

*ducks*

Re:right..

[fishbowl]

>I didn't realize liberals believed in the right to bear arms.

Odd belief, not as well supported by facts as certain pundits would have you to believe.
For example, the liberal Democratic Governor of my state is responsible for Open Carry, Open Transfer, and "Shall Issue" CCW permits. All of the Democratic Sheriffs of the state concur.

In my experience, "Liberal" gun laws are those where you are allowed to have them, and the government does not make it its own business until a crime is committed. Gun control is not a universal, or even a core value, of the Democratic Party, or of liberalism in general.

Re:right..

[WilliamSChips]

I'm not fully sure how gun control fell into the Democratic bucket in the first place. Probably because the NRA are a bunch of idiots and make restrictive gun control look like a good thing. Actually, the first comprehensive system of gun control was created by a California governor named Ronald Reagan in response to the Black Panthers stopping one too many cycles of police brutality.

Re:right..

[MadJo]

Wait, what? He wants to be Russia's Next Top Model?

Re:right..

[Red Flayer]

I'm not fully sure how gun control fell into the Democratic bucket in the first place.

As a straw man of the neocons in the NRA and the Republican Party. Gun control is a wedge issue used to create a false dichotomy between the Republicans and Democrats.

Corporate-allied Republican interests: The Democrats want to take your guns away! And kill babies! And force you to not go to church!

Mainstream Americans: Uh-oh, better vote Republican!
Republicans: Gee, thanks for getting us elected!
Corporate interests: No problem, now about those tax breaks and environmental law rollbacks we discussed...

Wedge issues like gun control are the reason that the white rural middle-class and poor consistently vote against their economic self-interest in state and national elections. It's identified with the Democratic Party because that makes the issue useful to the special interests that control the Republican party. Note that this works both ways, and the Republicans aren't the only part using wedge issues to divide the electorate...

Re:right..

[Khaed]

You've obviously never heard of Senator Diane Fienstien, who said she would take every gun from Americans if she could.

Or the ridiculous Assault Weapons Ban, passed by a Democrat controlled congress and signed by Bill Clinton. A law that banned guns on cosmetic features and made a minimum impact on crime; most weapons used in crimes are not "assault" weapons (which are NOT machine guns -- fully automatic guns require a license and a yearly tax), they're stolen or otherwise illegally gotten pistols. When the bill was going to expire in 2004, supporters (Democrats) claimed there would be blood in the streets. And... nada. Three years later, it turns out it was just a bill passed to "feel good."

And to make Democrat supporters like the Brady Campaign happy. They support Gun Control. And look at how they rate elected officials. They rate Democrats higher. So, the gun control lobby likes Democrats. When a group likes a political party, that tends to imply that party supports the same thing that group does.

It's not *all* Democrats, just like not *all* Republicans are pro-gun. In fact, most suck on the issue. But they suck to a lesser extend than Democrats do on this issue.

This is an important issue to me, and it irritates the living hell out of me that my choices are between an idiot who wants to take all guns and an idiot who wants to take all non-hunting guns.

Also, the NRA is no more powerful than the Brady Campaign and mostly supports guns for hunting; I don't give a rats ass about hunting, so I could care less what the NRA says.

Re:right..

[fishbowl]

>It's not *all* Democrats, just like not *all* Republicans are pro-gun.

My point is, that in my political and private experience, I have found Democrats to be less concerned with gun control than Republicans. Most of the people who reflect that they actually understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment (to serve as a continual check against government becoming tyranny), have been "liberals".

Naming a few names and citing a few laws doesn't change the fact that permissive gun laws are "liberal."

"This is an important issue to me, and it irritates the living hell out of me that my choices are between an idiot who wants to take all guns and an idiot who wants to take all non-hunting guns."

Neither of your hypothetical idiots actually has the power anyway. Congratulations on being misdirected. "Watch my left hand... "

Re:right..

[fishbowl]

>So, the gun control lobby likes Democrats.

Pretty much *everybody* likes Democrats. Especially nowadays. Suggesting that Democrats represent one particular thing or another based on the support of numbers is fairly silly.

Re:right..

[fireylord]

Because he is trying to build up a personality cult. It would appear Mr Putin has deigns on power greater than the Russian Presidency. And if he's trying to take his country where it looks like he's trying to take it, it'll all go tits up in a few decades time. ALL HAIL COMRADE LENIN^H^H^H^H^HSTALIN^H^H^H^H^HPUTIN (did you notice how they all end in 'in'???)

Re:right..

[MightyMartian]

If you were trying to run an oppressive state, why would you want your every move documented?

I'm sure this is more in the vein of "Our fearless leader visits a hospital and shakes hands with a cancer patient" or "Our fearless leader opens a new armaments factory sending missiles to our great ally, Iran" and other such pleasantries.

Re:right..

[sheepweevil]

I just read a Philip K. Dick short story where there was a television program run by the state that everyone watched. It was a man and his family, and was designed to have everyone living on Ganymede (I think that was where it was set) become the same, and to never question the state or have thoughts to rise above their own lot in life. Scary. Perhaps Mr. Putin is attempting something similar.

Re:right..

[Khaed]

The actual word liberal, and the way people labeled as liberals now act, are two different things.

When it comes to national politicians, generally, you're choosing between two different sets of special interest groups. There are very, very few good politicians.

As for the power thing -- they vote on the laws. Allowing themselves to be bought and paid for doesn't absolve them of the responsibility.

Re:right..

[Khaed]

Pretty much *everybody* likes Democrats. Especially nowadays.

Not according to the latest poll numbers where congress is doing worse than Bush is (which is quite a fucking feat if you ask me). I think people are, in general, damn tired of the current nationally elected officials. The shift in 2006 was one sign; I imagine 2008 will bring more unseated Congressmen and women. (and it'll certainly bring a new president...)

I don't know where you get the "pretty much everybody likes Democrats" thing. I don't. Almost no one I know does. Maybe a few here or there -- I like my current Congressman, but he is barely a Democrat. And I'm not suggesting the only reason they support gun control is because of the Brady campaign. I'm just pointing to the smoke. I'm basing it on the leadership of the Democratic party, the bills they've voted for, and the things that Democrats say. And outside of Southern and Midwestern Dems, most seem to say "we want to take guns."

Re:right..

[hotdiggitydawg]

You laugh, but celebrity status is a great way to guarantee votes. Having your name known for pretty much anything (as long as it doesn't involve killing people or raping babies) is far better than languishing in obscurity. Plenty of historical precedent for this - Americans need look no further than Reagan/Ventura/Schwarzenegger... did you know even Clint Eastwood has got in on this gig? Not just an American thing either - other examples off the top of my head include Peter Garrett (Australia) and Robert Kilroy-Silk (UK)...

Re:right..

[Red Flayer]

I think you're missing the fact that Deocrats use the gun control issue as a wedge issue as well... vote for us for every gangster will be packing heat! And never mind these porkbarrel corporate handouts...

Re:right..

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

>>...You've obviously never heard of Senator Diane Fienstien, who said she would take every gun from Americans if she could...

Not to mention her complete and total hypocracy, she was once 'busted' carrying a concealed handgun, without a permit, and in a place that didn't allow guns. Her response was, in effect, "the laws I make don't apply to me."

Politicans, shoot them all...

Re:right..

[Khaed]

Politicans, shoot them all...

I'm not sure that's the best way to convince them to allow us to own guns. :)

Re:right..

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

Yeah but hanging them would take forever...and I ran out of sharks...

Censorship

[Mockylock]

Too bad they don't have a writer's guild. They could regulate the censored censorship to regulate the censorship of Putin's Censorship.

OR they could just get a job at the Washington Post for a few weeks before it falls apart.

Re:Censorship

[sgt scrub]

Or they could do what Pasadena does. Outsource your reporters from India.

Cold War, take... Two?

[u-bend]

You know, there are probably a lot of frustrated Washington bureaucrats and military types that would love to see a re-emergence of a Soviet Russian state--we'd be fighting real commies again, and not elusive and often invisible terrorists. And the wiretapping infrastructure is there to catch the red sympathizers at home now! Ah, Russia, how your people are always out of one pan and into another fire.

Re:Cold War, take... Two?

[CrimsonScythe]

Well, I vote that we'll henceforth refer to this as the Nippy War!

Re:Cold War, take... Two?

[Bearpaw]

Actually, I get the impression that at least some in Washington prefer an elusive and often invisible enemy. This way, it's a lot easier to just make shit up.

Re:Cold War, take... Two?

[kannibal_klown]

Well, I vote that we'll henceforth refer to this as the Nippy War!

Nippy War, wasn't that started by Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl?

Re:Cold War, take... Two?

[morgan_greywolf]

You know, there are probably a lot of frustrated Washington bureaucrats and military types that would love to see a re-emergence of a Soviet Russian state--we'd be fighting real commies again, and not elusive and often invisible terrorists.

That's what Iraq was at least partially about. Saddam Hussein was a very visible public figure -- it gave the folks back at home something to 'rally around.' With the War on Terror we're now back to shadow fighting enemies that we know very little about who sneak around blowing up stuff and killing troops. Does this last description sound familiar? It should if you know anything about the Vietnam War.

If there's a big boogieman out there, we need to build weapons and tanks and planes and spend big bucks doing it. But the public rarely rallies behind a cause that looks confusing and hopeless... the American public likes the classic "the good guys (U.S.)" vs "the bad guys (Russia, Saddam, Ax1s of da 3v1l, etc.)", not us vs. some tactics.

Re:Cold War, take... Two?

[ni42]

Actually, elusive and invisible is good -- fear of the unknown. I mean, we don't want anything to be too tangible, or Americans might start to think that they are not likely to get bombed at any second by nebulous terro-commies! Then they would start demanding more "rights" and other dangerous things. *shudder*

Re:Cold War, take... Two?

[cyphercell]

Wrong, we'd be fighting both. Namely elusive, invisible terrorists possibly funded and probably armed by the kremlin. We'd be moving towards all out war with Russia while trying to continue our game of whack-a-mole with the terrorists. More likely, the millitary would not be happy with a revived Soviet opposition, it would be too much. Though the traditional Soviet enemy was easier to deal with, and would be preferable, we can't have both at the same time. Too expensive.

Re:Cold War, take... Two?

[u-bend]

Perhaps poor wording on my part. My statement was a whimsical "what-if" which was inspired by a mental image of mostly older, mostly white guys in Washington mopping their brows and having private moments of nostalgia for the cold war days (especially the later ones). Sure, people died in the 80s (google Maj Nicholson), and Vietnam was a disaster, but we largely felt good about ourselves as the champions of freedom, democracy and capitalism. Now, while still ostensibly standing for those things, we're having PR problems abroad and at home, and are unable to wage an effective war with our opponents.

Re:Cold War, take... Two?

[fritsd]

With that tiny golden thingy that all those USians were afraid of for some reason?

I'll never understand what that was all about.

Re:Cold War, take... Two?

[UnknownSoldier]

No, that was ''Nipplegate'', one of the most watched events...

Re:Cold War, take... Two?

[Nimey]

Yes, because gods know we need to have a war on two fronts...

Oh? We do already?

Well, carry on then.

Re:Cold War, take... Two?

[WilliamSChips]

The Kremlin has never funded terrorists and the documents the neocons used to claim those things were in fact so-called "Black Propaganda" released by the CIA to dissuade neutrals from the USSR by associating them with terrorists. And of course, Islamic terrorism has always been a joke given that we've had only two attacks in the past two decades whereas white supremacists and anti-choicers* have made made over 32 attacks in 2007 alone.

*You lose the right to be called pro-"life" when you try to take the life of mothers and abortion doctors. (The hypocrisy of the rest of the movement is outside the scope of this post but I assure you it involves the correlated positions against birth control and methods of helping the mothers who have these babies)

Re:Cold War, take... Two?

[cyphercell]

The Kremlin has never funded terrorists...

Never said they did, they have however funded our own enemies. Not to mention the fact that their are effectively two guns of war in the world, the AK-47 and the M-16. Someone is/was selling the AK-47s.

Re:Cold War, take... Two?

[mvdwege]

The Kremlin has never funded terrorists

Don't be silly. History is quite clear for those that want to read it without ideological blinders: both sides in the Cold War preferred to let client states do the dirty work. The Kremlin may not have paid for things like the Lockerbie attack, but it damn well propped up the regimes that made these things possible, in the full knowledge what those folks were up to with their freshly-gotten military knowledge and materiel.

the documents the neocons used to claim those things were in fact so-called "Black Propaganda" released by the CIA

Oh no, not the almighty CIA again. I am not disclaiming that they didn't meddle in client states' affairs to the detriment of world stability, but the CIA is not the almighty bogeyman some folks make them up to be.

Let me guess: the next thing you are going to claim is that 9/11 was orchestrated by the Mossad?

Mart

Re:Cold War, take... Two?

[YrWrstNtmr]

And of course, Islamic terrorism has always been a joke given that we've had only two attacks in the past two decades

Right. London, Madrid, WTC1, USS Cole, Dar-es-salaam, Nairobi, Bali, just for the more visible ones.

Re:Cold War, take... Two?

[Anonymous Coward]

With the War on Terror we're now back to shadow fighting enemies that we know very little about who sneak around blowing up stuff and killing troops. Does this last description sound familiar? It should if you know anything about the Vietnam War.

Sure when you compare vapid soundbites about the Vietnam War with vapid soundbites about the War on Terrorism they do sound an awful lot alike. It's when you start studying the facts that start to realize just how wrong the comparisons are. Those who are against the war on terror, and who are actually familiar with the facts of both wars (a vanishingly small number) live in fear of the day that Joe Public starts to do that - as that day Joe Public learns just how badly they've been mislead for decades about both wars by those who oppose them.

Re:Cold War, take... Two?

[GigG]

Yeah, right... http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&met adataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA178183

Re:Cold War, take... Two?

[robinesque]

"The primary aim of modern warfare (in accordance with the principles of DOUBLETHINK, this aim is simultaneously recognized and not recognized by the directing brains of the Inner Party) is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living." --1984

Re:Cold War, take... Two?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Islamic terrorism has always been a joke given that we've had only two attacks in the past two decades

it's not the quantity but the quality

Re:Cold War, take... Two?

[MightyMartian]

What the hell would you call the support of various Marxist militias in Latin America? What about producing millions of AK-47s and flooding huge parts of the world within them?

Now I'm not defending the US, who was usually doing the same damn thing, except they tended to prop up fascists, because of the dogmatic position that a murderous pro-capitalist tyrant is much better than a pro-communist tyrant.

Re:Cold War, take... Two?

[Jarik_Tentsu]

But at the same time, an illusive, shadow enemy can be just as useful. Because they are unclear, ill-defined enemy that no one knows much about, and aren't particularly public, they can be moulded into whatever shape the government wants them to take.

I'd argue that the current anti-terror fear campaign is akin to the anti-communist witch hunts (McCarthyism) during the 1940s-1950s. Sure, a visible boogieman can gain you support from the public, but the invisible ghost can gain you power over the public.

Just my $0.02.

~Jarik

Re:Cold War, take... Two?

[Das Modell]

we're now back to shadow fighting enemies that we know very little about

Actually there's nothing mysterious about the nature of the enemy, but it wouldn't be politically correct to say what it is.

Re:Cold War, take... Two?

[Obsi]

Don't worry. England, Tanzania, and Kenya will be US protectorates if Bush has his way. Until then, don't count those attacks as attacks on US soil. I will give you the USS Cole and WTC1 though.

Re:Cold War, take... Two?

[morgan_greywolf]

Good point. Now where's those mod points when I need 'em?

You get power, but not public support. It's the cold, uneasy kind of power that lets the government enact things like the Patriot Act, but doesn't provide much public support for the War itself.

Re:Cold War, take... Two?

[Anonymous Coward]

well, it was pretty fugly... If I saw that thing growing on some woman's breast, I'd be kinda iffy about it too. Pert, pretty Breasts on view == nice. Fugly breasts on view == not so nice. That's why nudist beaches really aren't arousing - saggy granny breasts and wrinkly old man scrotum.

Re:Cold War, take... Two?

[YrWrstNtmr]

Dar-es-salaam and Nairobi were attacks on the US Embassies in those cities. By definition, US soil. London and Madrid are western cities. Close enough for fanatical Muslims. Bali was a western tourist spot. Again, close enough.

Re:Cold War, take... Two?

[MadJo]

The invasion of Iraq was a smoke screen.
How is the hunt for Bin-Laden / Al'Qaeda going lately, any news from that front? I thought that pres. Bush had said that he would make sure that he'd get the people who were behind that attack on 9/11... instead he screwed up Afghanistan and it's economy (leaving a lot of mess for the UN to pick up after him, which makes Bush look a lot like a toddler) in order to invade Iraq. (And to this day I do not know the real reason behind US' attack on Baghdad, other than oil and smoke and mirror for the failures in Afghanistan.)

When CNN showed the press conference where they said "Ladies and gentlemen, we've got him." My initial thought was: "Huh? Did they find Osama in Iraq?" Only then to discover that it was in fact Saddam that they had apprehended.

Censorship in Russia?

[ls -la]

Whodathunk.

Not too different from MSNBC

[Vicarius]

Not saying there is no censorship in Russian media, but why can't "state controlled" network can't impose its own agenda like many other media companies do?

IMHO, if you want an objective news coverage, you have to look at the Internet, where an open uncensored discussion is possible.

Re:Not too different from MSNBC

[Bearpaw]

IMHO, if you want an objective news coverage, you have to look at the Internet, where an open uncensored discussion is possible.

This must be some usage of the word "objective" with which I am not yet familiar.

("Less corporate-dominated", I'd agree. But "objective" ...?)

Re:Not too different from MSNBC

[clarkkent09]

Not sure I understand what "state controlled" means here. Is it financed by the state i.e. from the taxes? From what I can tell from wikipedia, Channel One is a privately owned company, no?

It does make all the difference. A public TV station should not use taxpayers money to promote a particular party or a politician. A private company can do whatever it wants.

Re:Not too different from MSNBC

[Anonymous Coward]

>From what I can tell from wikipedia, Channel One is a privately owned company, no?

nope the article clearly states it's split between a certain Roman Abramovych and the state 49/51. btw that the concepts of being "state controlled" and "privately owned" are orthogonal.

Re:Not too different from MSNBC

[Anonymous Coward]

the problem is that you have not only to actively seek objective information but also know were to find it, most russians probably just watch the news on one of the main tv stations and aren't even aware anything is wrong.

I myself am Czech but I had to learn russian in high school and sometimes out of curiosity watch a channel called "rtr-planeta" which I get on cable. It's completely amazing and nothing like the European standards and pretty close to what we had in Czechoslovakia under soviet rule: every 30m issue of the main news program has at least 5 to 10 m of Putin, then some news about how russia is dynamically developing and sometimes some natural disaster or political scandal occurring in the West, but the most notable part is about all the evil enemies surrounding russia Poles, Georgians, Ests seems as if their all out seeking revenge.

I can't tell to what degree the general public watches this but it's truly frightening.

Re:Not too different from MSNBC

[tsm_sf]

A public TV station should not use taxpayers money to promote a particular party or a politician.

I'm starting to wonder about that... What is the rationale behind avoiding a position? Unbiased and impartial coverage shouldn't drive news networks, accuracy and truth should. If your party is on the wrong side of the truth you shouldn't expect equal treatment.

For example, Bush and Gonzales are currently raping the constitution. Merely stating this fact would be seen as taking sides. Should they soft pedal it? Should they offer equal time for the pro-rape perspective?

I'm just not sure that constant impartiality serves the public interest.

Re:Not too different from MSNBC

[turing_m]

"Not saying there is no censorship in Russian media, but why can't "state controlled" network can't impose its own agenda like many other media companies do?"

It's a good question, but to answer it you need learn to read between the lines. You have to understand that a monopoly of influence is "good" when one group of people wield it, and "bad" when another group of people wield it.

Putin is "bad" because he dispossessed several oligarchs of their ill-gotten wealth. If he were "good", Putin would allow so-called "private" news organizations to portray him and his policies in a bad light so that whoever they choose to replace him will be seen as a better alternative. It has nothing to do with truth or justice, it is all about who is doing what to whom.

There is no such thing as a "free" press. Every publisher decides what content he allows his readership to read. If he is too stupid to exercise that control, an editor will only too gladly exercise that control for him.

And the distinction between state control of the media and private control of the media is also arbitrary. Control of the media leads to control of opinion which leads to control of the laws on the books and enforcement of those laws.

It's the reason for the cliche that "the first casualty of war is the truth", and why the first target of any occupation government is always the media organs of the country they wish to control.

Re:Not too different from MSNBC

[Pecisk]

So Putin is "good" just because he is mighty savior of Sovi..err, sorry, Russian people from mighty capitalism (yeah, what about those hyper wealthy people which are favorites of President)? And just because sometimes Western journalists have similar problems (Let's be clear - any arrogant power doesn't love critics or people who try to investigate those who are in power), it is equal and there is nothing to blame Russia about?

I am getting tired "I am bad as you are, so no blame on me" shit everywhere, but especially in Russia. They can't handle their own country, but they are just trying to insult and blame anyone around it instead of getting it right in their own backyard. Yeah, I know, sounds like US to me too, but that only means that they are equally BAD.

Putin is dictator and seems like Russians really don't care or are too ignorant to do something about. Or got that "scare gene" from Soviet times back. Youth are totally brainwashed by "Great Russia" concept, even blindly falling into historical traps a la Soviet Union, Stalin, etc. I have lived these years in a hope that they won't fall into same river. Well, they are making history in proving otherwise.

Actually, this is good news

[Control Group]

It speaks well of the net progress in the ex-USSR from the mid-eighties to now that a) these journalists weren't shot/sent to Lefortovo and shot/sent to cut down trees in Siberia until they didn't need to be shot, and b) that the rest of the world has heard about it.

On the time scale of massive societal shifts, things are still looking up. Backsliding, certainly, but it's still a far cry from the heyday of Soviet control.

Re:Actually, this is good news

[sd_diamond]

It speaks well of the net progress in the ex-USSR from the mid-eighties to now that a) these journalists weren't shot/sent to Lefortovo and shot/sent to cut down trees in Siberia until they didn't need to be shot, and b) that the rest of the world has heard about it.

It's certainly an improvement from the days when they would have been shot and then sent to cut down trees in Siberia. Honest mistake and all, but that was one hell of a cold winter for everyone in the city.

Re:Actually, this is good news

[flyingsquid]

It speaks well of the net progress in the ex-USSR from the mid-eighties to now that a) these journalists weren't shot/sent to Lefortovo and shot/sent to cut down trees in Siberia until they didn't need to be shot, and b) that the rest of the world has heard about it. On the time scale of massive societal shifts, things are still looking up. Backsliding, certainly, but it's still a far cry from the heyday of Soviet control.

Tell that to Anna Politkovskaya and Paul Klebnikov, or the other Russian journalists who have been assassinated in recent years. Trying to read this as somehow being good news sounds disturbingly like the Neocon concept that democracy is somehow the long-term natural outcome of the human history, Bush's "people want to be free" theory. That idea is misguided as best, and as Iraq shows, dangerously unrealistic at worst. Western democracy is no more the natural outcome for a group of people than a house is the natural outcome for a pile of plywood, nails, and two-by-fours. Like making a house, democracy takes a lot of hard work and design, and continual upkeep. The developments in Russia- along with Russia's efforts to spread fear with its polonium assassinaton, and poisoning Ukraining politician Viktor Yushchenko with dioxin- suggest a deep, broad move towards totalitarianism. The odds of Russia emerging with a free society are good, but the outcome is not certain. It is too soon to pat ourselves on the back.

Consider that the emergence of western-style democracies with individual rights and accountable heads of state is a recent development, something that has only become fully developed in the past few hundred years. Meanwhile, China has been ruled by totalitarianism of one form or another for thousands of years. So, looking at the big picture, isn't the sure money on totalitarianism to eventually take over the world, not democracy? Sure, the spread and success of democracy has been a remarkable success story... but for a while, it looked like Communism might well be the system to take over the world, and then that fell apart almost overnight. How can we be so certain that democracy won't be a similar historical anomaly? Remember how certain people were that democracy would take root in Iraq, and beat out the forces of the Baathists, radical Islamists, militias and criminals? Every time something went wrong, instead of looking at the possibility we were failing, we patted ourselves on the back and said, "Yes, but look at the big picture! It's so much better than it was under Saddam!". Democracy still may win in Iraq, but our arrogance and complacency, our certainty that it would win out over the forces of totalitarianism, religious extremism, and anarchy, have vastly reduced the chances that it will.

Don't read this the wrong way. I actually agree with the Neocons on one issue: democracies should promote democracy outside their borders. But I think we need to understand that while this fight may be winnable, fighting for freedom is a hard, uphill fight, and that we are not necessarily destined to win the fight.

Re:Actually, this is good news

[Kjella]

On the time scale of massive societal shifts, things are still looking up. Backsliding, certainly,

Looking up: getting better or improving.
Backsliding: Slipping back; falling back into sin or error

Your sentence does not compute. Things are not looking up. it could have been worse but if this trend keeps up it will be worse. Nothing points to this as a lapse or minor setback, Putin has been clearly and constantly amassing power for many years now.

Re:Actually, this is good news

[Control Group]

I didn't intend the comment as a statement of policy, but simply a comment on the fact that we're still better off (from a "spread of freedom as defined by western civilization" standpoint) than we were twenty, thirty years ago in that country.

By no means do I draw the conclusion that it's time to dust off our hands and claim our work here is done. I was just trying to provide some perspective on the story, as opposed to wailing and gnashing of teeth. The fact that they had to step down at all means that there's a long way to go, and there's no arguing that the country is headed in the wrong direction currently.

It's maintain, though, that it is good news on the time scale of sweeping societal change.

Re:Actually, this is good news

[orzetto]

It would be interesting to hear the opinion of a Russian who is old enough to remember the Soviet eighties, still lives in Russia, and can compare the two conditions. My impression is that the current regime is more violent than Gorbachev's Soviet Union. Maybe not as pervasive, since the state apparatus is not as extensive; but mafia "solves problems" so much faster.

As for the GULAG system you allude to, which was officially shut down in 1960 in Kruschev's destalinisation wave, it was a long way in the past in the eighties.

a) these journalists weren't shot/sent to Lefortovo and shot/sent to cut down trees in Siberia until they didn't need to be shot,

Ever heard of Anna Politkovskaya?

b) that the rest of the world has heard about it

You are naïvely assuming that just because you heard about these, there are no others. Actual censorship is a very silent business, otherwise it would defy its purpose.

There is this great book I have been reading, "Manufacturing Consent". The main lesson is, wherever you live the information you get from the media will be biased in favour of the elite to which the newsmakers have to relate to. Not because there is a shadowy secret police, but simply because of social equilibria, cowardice, greed, and survival of the fittest. In Italy we have a saying, "being more royalist than the king himself": that's a good way to be liked by a king.

Being aware of this propaganda filter helps understanding which news are likely to be biased. News of the Pitcairn sex-abuse trials is not likely to be forged (except possibly for sensationalism), because it is hardly something that jeopardises any elite's interest. News on hot political topics is very commonly biased. In the case of Putin's Russia, I feel that the situation is not especially worsening—it was bad all along, only now Putin is no longer the good lap dog of Washington, flooding the oil market to keep 10 dollars a barrel: now he's trying to get Russia back as a major power. That's why the bad news from Russia keep flowing, they paint the painting the elites want to see.

I mean, surely Pakistan is in worse condition than Russia. How often do you hear about democracy issues in Pakistan, a dictatorship, original home of many of the Taliban, and a nuclear power? That's because Pakistan is, for the time being, an ally. Just like Saddam's crimes were unworthy of noticed when they were committed (roughly the same time Rumsfeld shook hands with him), because he was an ally, and were later unearthed when it was convenient (when Rumsfeld got him bombed). Just like the Shah's Persia, Suharto's Indonesia invading East Timor, and bunches of other "rogue states" that did not elicit any words of condemnation from the "leaders of the free world".

Re:Actually, this is good news

[yoprst]

I'm being anal, but Khlebnikov most likely has been killed by Chechen rebels, you can hardly blame the state here. That doesn't mean that the state is good, of course. Politkovskaya is the victim of pro-Kremlin Chechens, Litvininko, while not being a journalist is a victim of FSB (KGB), and lots of journalist are abused in many ways once they say something a Big Brother doesn't want them to say.

Re:Actually, this is good news

[yoprst]

This may sound weird for you, but Soviet Union was more or less like teocratic state, with religion replaced by communism. There was a set of nonsense beliefs you couldn't question that governed everyone's life. Gorbachev's time was a time when this system suffered a great erosion (toward a free country). Now it's more or less feudal state (before Magna Carta), but because the rulers want to look nice in Europe, there's a lot of brainwashing and Potemkins villages to pretend it's a nice democratic state. The people from the class above you (there's a hierarchy) can do whatever they want to you (including murdering you, or taking away your propery) effectively with no penalty, but the system will make it look to like nothing bad happened. Interestingly, the brainwashing machine started under Yeltsin, who showed no autocratic tendencies: during the time of his reelection he has extremely low prospects for reelection, so major entrepreneurs (who later became known as oligarchs) have build a brainwashing machine to reelect him. Later, ex-KGB goons took over it.

Re:Actually, this is good news

[Mitiaj]

If you want an opinion of a Russian, who remembers the 80-ies well, here it is: in Gorbachyov era there was more freedom for mass media, but less freedom for business. I guess very democratic G.W. Bush envies his 'friend' Vladimir, when having to deal with remnants of a free press here. Sure it's not Fox News network or even CNN, that are not much different from our Channel One.

Small correction: GULAG as a system was dismantled in 1955-56, after execution in December 1953 of L.P.Beria (Stalin friend and chief of KGB) and his aids.

Re:Actually, this is good news

[moyl]

Where did you guys get the idea that Russia poisoned Yushchenko? It did not, at least it's never been proven by anyone. In the Ukraine, the investigation of this crime has all but frozen -- almost as if the country nationalist leaders know something about it that makes it better to keep it like that. The investigators found nothing, zilch, at least publicly. The press seems to have forgotten about it. There are persistent rumors that Ukraine's own SBU (Ukrainian Security Service) was involved.

Re:Actually, this is good news

[JAlexoi]

First of all: You are a deeply deluded person. Communism - read the Communist manifesto, and stop equating communism with authoritarianism. One is an economic term, as opposed to capitalism, another is form of rule, opposed to democracy. As for the killing of journalists, although I agree that that is appalling, please remember that this is a step forward. In mid 90-s, although you consider that the top of Russian democracy, you could get shot if you said the wrong word on the street. So I consider this an improvement, over the unsupported anarchic democracy of Jetsin era. PS: If you think that Russia has no grounds on witch to "dislike" US, remember that in the beginning(1991) Russia was hugely pro US, and instead of friendship US gave Russia "the finger"(in political and diplomatic terms). And BTW, those ex-soviet nuclear and other weaponry/hazardous science scientists wouldn't have been picked up by Irans, Pakistans and others.

Re:Actually, this is good news

[Anonymous Coward]

The Soviet Union was always almost as terrible as the anti-communist press painted it. No doubt about that.

Gorbachev's times were a real mess. We were under an impression that we were going to have freedoms of all sorts and that illusion made many Russians happy. In fact, there was no power at all while Kremlin and goblins were busy dividing the country's resources, so nobody cared what you do or what you say. There was nearly no law enforcement and everybody did what they wanted to. It felt like the Wild West: he wins who has a larger gun. Is that freedom?

Yeltzin's Russia began with the mafia clans' victory all over the place. These clans' leaders (or oligarchy, in terms of free press) were highly interested in modest order because no order at all meant no safety for what they called their property. So they started to rebuild the political infrastructure. Those were bad times too because the new elite had a criminal mentality and whatever it created served criminals alone. Journalists did not get to Siberia any more because it was cheaper to kill them. Meanwhile, these high profile criminals started to invest insane money in the first world countries to move there eventually, because they knew they cannot invest in Russia for fear of other criminals. Many western governments liked it because it was "money for nothing": obscene bank accounts, crazy-goon investments, dirt-cheap oil and - yes - bribes. Russia was unexpectedly everyone's friend. Until somebody said the king was naked and people started complaining about their new neighbours. Since then nobody in the US/EU wanted a flood of Russian criminals, so they started a massive world-wide PR campaign to make Russia look good. Then it became clear that a new shiny image needs a new president to represent it.

With Putin somebody (I don't know who exactly) realized that the good old propaganda machine can still work. They wiped the dust off it and launched it. Now everything is as fine as can be. Democracy wins, economy is on the rise, inflation is suppressed, people are happy. Right? No? WTF? You see, the new generation of Russian criminals all have lawyers and are able to count the money they spend. So the changes in their spending habits entail real estate's jumping price across the EU, no more cheap oil and less bribes. Oh, and journalists still die. And, by the way, many still remember that Cold War had a good budget. Been there, done that. Now everybody's jumping on its bandwagon again to take a better seat.

The harsh reality is that freedom of speech is almost irrelevant. There is no such freedom in the ad-paid world, so why seek it where it doesn't survive? Russians don't give a damn for it because they know it doesn't give them better life and never did. You can yell "Putin sucks" in the middle of Red Square, but you won't get a better president because "poor, poor" oligarchy have already bought the next one and it's just not yet the time to tell you his name. Russians know whom they'll elect between a bad candidate and an ugly one. Russians know they are hostages to the pension funds and paid medicine. Russians are used to corruption to such an extent that they don't give a damn about it either. When 1 square meter of real estate in Moscow costs $4000 with a good wage considered to be $1000 a month and a decent credit rate to be 8% a year, when an average pension is about $100 a month and a visit to a dentist starts from $50, do you care much about freedom of speech? I bet many of us would gladly exchange it for a better standard of living even if we really had it.

Re:Actually, this is good news

[MightyMartian]

Considering that poisoning was a favorite tactic of the KGB, and that a Russian has been implicated in the death of Litvenenko, I'd say odds are on that Russia, who has a lot to lose by the Ukraine turning away from its former colonial master, would use tried and true methods to both get rid of opposition and send a message to others that might think the same. Finding evidence linking Russian agents directly to any poisoning is going to be all but impossible, but there is a definite trend here of Russia undermining those who it sees as blocking its reascendancy.

To put it bluntly, the Kremlin is not friendly to the West, nor to those who seek close ties with the West. Any journalist or politician in or from Russia or a former satellite is being sent a message that they can be eliminated.

Re:Actually, this is good news

[moyl]

There is a difference between "I'd say odds are on that Russia" and claiming that Russia did it. Odds are not that great: many powers in Ukraine itself could benefit, including the then President Kuchma (who is suspected of ordering to kill the opposition journalist Georgiy Gongadze), criminalized businessmen like Rinat Akhmetov who wanted the allegedly corrupt government to stay, etc etc.

Re:Actually, this is good news

[MightyMartian]

If the actions in the Ukraine was am isolated incident, I'd agree, but there is a growing pattern that suggests Russia is playing some pretty dirty pool on a number of fronts. No one can ever know for sure, but it seems being an opponent of the Russian government is becoming a dangerous line of work. Russia does not want the Ukraine to turn towards the West, that much is very clear.

Re:Actually, this is good news

[bliz1985]

Actually, I'm not too sure if this should be considered good news. After all, they will be replaced by other journalists who may or may not yield to the authority.

In any case, in Anna Politkovskaya's words, "...the duty of for doctors(sic) is to give health to their patients, the duty of the singer to sing, the duty of the journalist to write what this journalist sees in reality. It's only one duty."

http://www.bolt.com/bliz/music/Exerpt__Anna_Politk ovskay/2372210

What Putin should rather do

[Anonymous Coward]

... is to withdraw the broadcasting license of those that are damaging to the interests of the state. He would have gotten support worldwide.

On a more serious note - I have some sympathy for the possibility of limits on the writings of journalists. Language can be used as an effective weapon, and has so much flexibility in it that you can get around any formal guidelines.

E.g. of what I have seen several times:

- devote much more space to one view than the other
(Side 1 thinks X. Side 2 thinks A, however side 1 thinks this is wrong because Y and Z)

- when describing debates, quote widely-encompassing truisms from one side and pick unfocused and illogical sentences from the other
(Side 1 says noone can be held responsible. Side 2 says a public servide requires public accountability).

- if being editor of a debate page, accept submissions from both sides, but from the one you don't support, only pick the poorly worded ones

- consistently use unflattering pictures of your ideological opponents - ones where they e.g. have their mouth wide open, or look unsure

- describe those you support with terms with positive connotations and vica versa
('Jeremy Jackson hopes for sympathy from the Senegalese prime minister / Jeremy Jackson expects compliance from the Senegalese prime minister')

Can a situation arise where journalists do those things, and the majority of them in addition are of a distinct political colour? Very possible. If that is the case, which is a separate discussion altogether, then as it would not be acceptable for people with any other job to use their position to secretly fight for their side and sabotage their ideological opponents (e.g. banks refusing overdraft requests for some politicians, plumbers using poor seals for those who oppose plumbing) I cannot see why journalists should have the possibility either.

Too bad...

[DoofusOfDeath]

Too bad that their resignations will somehow fail to appear on the evening news programs. That kind of limits (but doesn't totally erase, I suspect) the impact of their protests.

Re:Too bad...

[owlnation]

What resignations?

Wasn't there a ... rather unfortunate accident?

Russia is well on its way

[Sciros]

back to Soviet times. But this time with a healthy mix of organized crime and even more corruption!

In a couple more years it might get to the point where being outspoken like this journalist will get you a one-way-ticket to the far East >_>

Re:Russia is well on its way

[Tablizer]

In a couple more years it might get to the point where being outspoken like this journalist will get you a one-way-ticket to the far East

You mean the far south. Thanks to global warming, Siberia is now a happening place.

FTA

[Cancer_Cures]

Eight reporters from the Russian News Service said they could not work under new rules that required them not to interview or mention opposition leaders such as Garry Kasparov and to ensure 50% coverage of "positive news". Kinda like how the U.S. main stream media does not mention Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul.

Re:FTA

[Anonymous Coward]

Kinda like how the U.S. main stream media does not mention Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul.
Ron Paul was in the national spotlight last week and made an Ass out of himself.

Dennis Kucinich, was in all the Democratic primary debates back in 2004 amd made Howard Dean look like a moderate.

Just because the left and right nutjobs don't get to see thier candidates taken seriously in the media does not make it censorship. It makes your candidate a nutjob. Media companies are not going to waste time and effort on anyone with 100% of the nutjob vote.

In current Russia ...

[iknownuttin]

You will MOD yourself down! Or face the consequences!

Disgruntled Russian journalist video-blogs

[Anonymous Coward]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=N560NCIsaS8

It's been subtitled for the youtube link.

mainstream media

[Bearpaw]

Kinda like how the U.S. main stream media does not mention Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul.

Corporate media focuses on serious candidates, which are easily distinguished from non-serious candidates because ... um ... because if Kucinich or Paul were serious candidates, they'd be getting more media coverage.

Putin sounds like a /. mod

[stratjakt]

how dare you disagree with me!

-1 TROLL

Congratulations!

[$lingBlade]

Congratulations Comrades! You and your journalist friends have just been selected for a trip to Political Re-education Camp! You'll spend 6 years and 6 months enjoying our fabulous new facilities located in sunny Siberia. You'll enjoy a rigorous exercise routine designed exclusively for our attendees by our award winning staff of high ranking former KGB officials! You'll marvel at our state of the art housing facilities with all the amenities you've come to know and love, such things as fresh running water (piped directly from the ultra pristine wells of Chernobyl), candle light (for ambience and relaxation after a hard day's exercise) and best of all food prepared fresh daily by our chef Kuzma who specializes in cooking the world's finest gruel! You'll savor the flavors of not one, but three, yes three, fine gruels including Rice Gruel, Millet Gruel and even Flour gruel! So please, pack lightly, all clothes and exercise equipment will be provided to you at no cost. Our highly qualified and competent staff of handlers will be along shortly to pick you and your comrades up!

no new cold war

[circletimessquare]

if anything, europe is way more agitated than the usa. this is because the eu expanded into old soviet bloc countries and a russian awakening from its post cold war hangover is feeling rather nationalistic about it's old sphere of influence. witness the latest conflagration in estonia over just a world war ii statue of a russian soldier being moved

plus the recent summit in samara resulted in nothing but serious discord

so russia and europe are seriously butting heads right now, but the usa? not so much

the cold war was characterized by an ideology which directly threatened the usa. communism was dead set on taking over the world. so it was a real global struggle. now, russia is just a garden variety autocracy. if russia went into chile or peru or bolivia in the cold war, the usa would get agitated: communism spreading. but russia could go over now and give tanks and kalishnikovs to these countries and it would be no big deal: there is no ideological oomph behind the gesture, no real threat in terms of ideas. communism has died, lost its lustre, no one seriously believes in it anymore

and today? today we have islamic fundamentalists who are dead set on putting large swaths of the world under sharia law. and the meddling usa is a prime enemy of that effort, so it will be targetted big time. in some ways this new world is less dangerous, because massive world war of huge armies and scary war machinery won't be unleashed at the slightest gaffe or bravado. but in other ways, the threat of fundamentalist terrorism is more dangerous, since if someone sets a nuke off in times square, there is no clear line of accountability. if russia nuked times square, red square would cease to exist too. if times square gets nuked today, who can you blame?

Re:no new cold war

[Thirdsin]

You make a great arguement for EU being more agitated than the US. That said, here in the states we have a bright red target on our forehead for all those "Jihadists" "Terrorists" so inclined. I realize countries in EU are dealing with it also, Spain, UK etc, its just that in addition to having terrorists trying to kill us, we are too busy shooting eachother!
But regardless, I like your arguement.

Re:no new cold war

[DoofusOfDeath]

if times square gets nuked today, who can you blame?

History suggests that we'd blame Sadam Hussein.

Re:no new cold war

[heinousjay]

I'd blame Sylar. But it would really be Peter.

Re:no new cold war

[Anonymous Coward]

today we have islamic fundamentalists who are dead set on putting large swaths of the world under sharia law.

And we also have Christian fundamentalists who are dead set on putting large swaths of the world under laws based on fundamentalist Christian beliefs and we also have a whole range of other fundamentalists (that most people in the USA haven't even heard of) who are dead set on putting large swaths of the world under laws based on whatever they happen to believe.

I hate to break it to you, kid, but it's not exactly a new thing for religious fundamentalists to be trying to legislate their beliefs.

...and the meddling usa is a prime enemy of that effort, so it will be targetted big time.

Not exactly. The meddling USA is the prime facilitator of Islamic fundamentalism. Their are hundreds and hundreds of millions of people who are officially Muslim but who basically just want to live out their lives without too much suffering. When the USA does bad stuff (particularly, bad stuff to Muslims) then the religious leaders can hold the USA up as the big scary boogeyman to scare the hundreds of millions of casual Muslims into being more devout. The argument is: "The USA is bad, therefore USA culture is bad, therefore your suffering is caused by USA culture, therefore in order to avoid suffering you must reject USA culture by becoming a more devout Muslim".

The USA is not the enemy, per se. The USA's actions are merely a vehicle for promoting religion. Similarly, no one with any sense thinks that it is even remotely possible that the USA is going to (somehow be compelled to) adopt Sharia law.

in other ways, the threat of fundamentalist terrorism is more dangerous, since if someone sets a nuke off in times square, there is no clear line of accountability.

If by "dangerous" you mean "more likely" then I would agree with you in a limited sense. For the foreseeable future only a country like the USA can amass the resources to destroy the plant but a small group could possibly get a single nuclear weapon that, while insignificant on a global scale, would nonetheless cause a lot of damage on a local scale.

The problem here isn't Islamic fundamentalism or even fundamentalism in general. The problem is technology. As increasingly advanced technology becomes available to individual people, it becomes easier for individuals and small groups to build devastating weapons. The problem is that, as advanced technology becomes available becomes available to the billions of people in the world, inevitably there will be a few people who want to do as much damage as possible.

There's a good chance that sometime down the road an individual or a small group will actually build and detonate a nuclear bomb. There's a good chance - maybe even an overwhelming chance - that this group or individual will not be a religious fundamentalist. Maybe it will be some nerdy guy at a pharmaceutical company who discovered how to genetically engineer bacteria to separate isotopes of uranium at just the same time as he discovers that his wife is cheating on him. Maybe it will be some gang member who joined the military to get weapons training who happens to discover a nuclear bomb that got lost in transit (e.g. the bomb was disguised as a jet engine for transport and got mis-routed to an air base).

I'm not saying that the USA could not (or will not) behave in such an offensive manner that it causes a massive rise in Islamic fundamentalism - just that, when it comes to "terrorism", religious fundamentalism is not actually the root of the problem here.

Re:no new cold war

[Control Group]

Don't be so sure.

It could be Al Qaeda.

Or child pornographers.

Re:no new cold war

[WilliamSChips]

Just don't vote for Nathan--he'll send the country in the wrong direction.

Re:no new cold war

[WilliamSChips]

The meddling USA is the prime facilitator of Islamic fundamentalism. We also send quite a bit of money to Saudi Arabia, which is the most powerful Arabic nation in the world, and also runs the Wahabi sect, the most fundamentalist sect in the Islamic world. During the Cold War the United States fucked up its diplomatic relations with the Arab world incredibly badly, and now is reaping what it sows.

Re:no new cold war

[tnk1]

if russia nuked times square, red square would cease to exist too. if times square gets nuked today, who can you blame?

You mean, if islamists bombed Times Square, who can you *nuke*?

That's what it comes down to. We held off the Soviets because the Soviets were ideological, but they are atheists and so, they understood and properly weighed the costs of mutually assured destruction. In other words, they believed that if they died, they were dead and that was that. The communists may have been authoritarian and frequently brutal, but they weren't suicidal.

Islamists are trying to get to heaven, and dying is just fine with them, if they do it in the "right" way. Unfortunately, they believe that dying in the "right" way means that they need to take infidels with them.

You are only going to deal with Islamists if their base inside their homelands is neutralized. This may happen over time, just like Europe's Crusades tapered off, or it may end up causing a global war where those who are now slightly sympathetic to the islamists end up being polarized into taking a side.

It is crystal clear that there is no way the West can *impose* a solution short of naked conquest and subjugation. That would obviously entail a global war and would probably not work very well.

We need to get better at identifying what is best for the long term interests of the area and helping them where they need it, instead of our moves being dictated by oil concerns.

It's clear that our current alliances are built on who will keep the oil supplies flowing. However, you can't blame a government for seeing to the needs of its people. We want oil, and lots of it. And until we all buck up and work for a new solution to our energy issues, we are going to contimue to tell our government to keep butting in, whether we say it out loud or not.

Re:no new cold war

[ricree]

Depends on which timeline you are living in. I guess we'll find out tonight.

Re:no new cold war

[noidentity]

Just some free advice: capitalize the first letter of your sentences and more people will read your posts.

Re:no new cold war

[DoofusOfDeath]

It could be Al Qaeda.

Or child pornographers.

Actually, if they blamed Al Queda pornographers, I'd actually start listening to Bush talk again...

Re:no new cold war

[Anonymous Coward]

is everyone taking notes? i'll be quizzing you later.

Re:no new cold war

[Das Modell]

And we also have Christian fundamentalists who are dead set on putting large swaths of the world under laws based on fundamentalist Christian beliefs and we also have a whole range of other fundamentalists (that most people in the USA haven't even heard of) who are dead set on putting large swaths of the world under laws based on whatever they happen to believe.

The US does at least somewhat suffer from the scourge of Christian fundamentalism, but it's not that dangerous. Certainly not a threat to the world, and certainly not even remotely comparable to Islamic fundamentalism.

Similarly, no one with any sense thinks that it is even remotely possible that the USA is going to (somehow be compelled to) adopt Sharia law.

Probably not going to happen in the US. The country is too big, too diverse. But small(er) European countries? That's another story. It really comes down to numbers, and when (not if) Muslims become the majority in countries like Norway and Sweden, sharia law will be implemented, unless there's a civil war that the Muslims will lose.

There's a good chance - maybe even an overwhelming chance - that this group or individual will not be a religious fundamentalist. Maybe it will be some nerdy guy at a pharmaceutical company who discovered how to genetically engineer bacteria to separate isotopes of uranium at just the same time as he discovers that his wife is cheating on him. Maybe it will be some gang member who joined the military to get weapons training who happens to discover a nuclear bomb that got lost in transit (e.g. the bomb was disguised as a jet engine for transport and got mis-routed to an air base).

Or maybe you just want to avoid even contemplating the mere possibility that in all likelyhood it will be done by a Muslim fanatic. They're the ones who are hellbent on bringing down the US. They're the ones who have already launched several successive and failed terrorist attacks on US soil, not to mention elsewhere in the Western world (and beyond). If there's going to be a nuclear detonation in the US, it's almost certainly going to be done by Muslims.

just that, when it comes to "terrorism", religious fundamentalism is not actually the root of the problem here.

It is, actually. Jihad is 1400 years old.

Re:no new cold war

[Anonymous Coward]

The US does at least somewhat suffer from the scourge of Christian fundamentalism, but it's not that dangerous.

I'll agree with you there - but that was kind of my point anyway: it's technology not fundamentalism that's the problem.

Certainly not a threat to the world, and certainly not even remotely comparable to Islamic fundamentalism.

Well the USA has hundreds, if not thousands, of nukes and the Christian fundamentalists are a lot closer to taking control of the USA than the Islamic fundamentalists.

It really comes down to numbers, and when (not if) Muslims become the majority in countries like Norway and Sweden,...

Hmmm. Sounds like someone has a severe case of racist paranoia. Well, even if that was true - so what? Norway and Sweden are dippy little countries with no international relevence anyway. Yeah, I'd miss the Swedish bikini team but, other than that, I'm not seeing the problem.

They're the ones who are hellbent on bringing down the US. They're the ones who have already launched several successive and failed terrorist attacks on US soil, not to mention elsewhere in the Western world (and beyond).

"They" are by no means the only ones who have launched "terrorist" attacks on US soil. Now I suppose that, in your case, a terrorist attack involves a Muslim by definition. For example, if Virginia Tech had been a Muslim then that would have been a terrorist attack but otherwise not. The factual reality is that if you look at violent deaths in the US then Muslims are way way way down the list of perpetrators.

Jihad is 1400 years old.

And Christianity is even older - what's your point?

The real problem here is that "concern" about Islamic fundamentalism is the new racism. Back when the USA was founded, the pervasive racism was directed against the native Americans. Everyone was talking about the threat posed by the "savages". Not so long ago the target or racism was black people. Everyone was talking about crimes against whites by blacks. Segregation (or even genocide) was seen as the only way for white people to be safe.

These days, I'm cynical enough about the world to accept that racism is a part of the human condition. As a scientist, it bothers me that so many people make the wildly inaccurate claim that racism has been abolished but I also remind myself that humans are fundamentally rationalizing rather than rational.

Re:no new cold war

[Das Modell]

Well the USA has hundreds, if not thousands, of nukes and the Christian fundamentalists are a lot closer to taking control of the USA than the Islamic fundamentalists.

It's not about anybody taking control.

Hmmm. Sounds like someone has a severe case of racist paranoia.

Who said anything about race? Oh, you did. You may think this is a race issue, but I don't. And no, it's not paranoia: it's a fact that Muslims will become a majority in some countries. Regardless of what you believe about Islam or Muslims, it's going to happen. Their birth rates are higher, and they are reinforced by continuous immigration.

Well, even if that was true - so what? Norway and Sweden are dippy little countries with no international relevence anyway. Yeah, I'd miss the Swedish bikini team but, other than that, I'm not seeing the problem.

France has nuclear weapons. But how exactly are you not seeing the problem? You don't think there's anything worrying about Muslims taking over European countries?

"They" are by no means the only ones who have launched "terrorist" attacks on US soil. Now I suppose that, in your case, a terrorist attack involves a Muslim by definition. For example, if Virginia Tech had been a Muslim then that would have been a terrorist attack but otherwise not. The factual reality is that if you look at violent deaths in the US then Muslims are way way way down the list of perpetrators.

I am not talking about violent deaths, I am talking about terrorism. Virginia would have been a terrorist attack if the hypothetical Muslim perpetrator had done it in the name of Jihad or something similiar.

And Christianity is even older - what's your point?

My point is that Jihad is very old and therefore cannot possibly result from US action or inaction, or anything else that's happening right now. Jihad is the eternal duty of all Muslims, fit for all places and all times, until there are no more infidels.

The real problem here is that "concern" about Islamic fundamentalism is the new racism.

Except, of course, that Muslims are not a race, and the issue has nothing at all to do with race, except according to people like you who see everything in terms of race.

People have every right and every reason to be afraid of Islamic fundamentalism. You might as well claim that the world was racist for opposing Nazism.

Re:no new cold war

[Anonymous Coward]

if times square gets nuked today, who can you blame? History suggests that we'd blame Sadam Hussein. WTF are you talking about!? Haven't you been watching that documentary on Fox?

We'd blame JACK BAUER.

No... wait. Jack would have blown up the circuit board (and himself if necessary) if that Silver Spoons guy hadn't interfered. So the correct guy to blame is RICKEY SCHROEDER.

The good news...

[TrappedByMyself]

...is that we know about this story. The journalists didn't disappear into the night before they could be heard. It may not seem like it, but it is progress.

Re:The good news...

[Control Group]

Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?

Good question. I'd guess sometime between users number 105495 and 861095.

I kid, of course.

Re:The good news...

[drinkypoo]

Must be a hell of a lot closer to 105495 than 861095, because this place was a hotbed of conspiracy theories before I got here - and I lurked for quite a while before creating an account. Incidentally, though, conspiracies are everywhere! They're utterly commonplace.

Re:The good news...

[ACS Solver]

That, or they got lucky. It's not like certain other journalists that disagree with the Kremlin don't get murdered on Putin's birthday.

Re:The good news...

[dhalgren]

Incidentally, though, conspiracies are everywhere!

It's worse than you think. The conspiracies are starting to work together. It's almost like a...um...what's that word?

Obligatory Quote...

[LEX LETHAL]

Someone has to do it...

"Khaaaaaaaaan!!"

Freedom of the press

[Anonymous Coward]

Belongs to the owners of the presses.

can at least follow russians' suit?

[superwiz]

How many journalists quit in post-911 self-imposed editor censorship? Is this what the world has come to? Russian journalists have more ethics than ours?

Re:can at least follow russians' suit?

[bucket_brigade]

It's not that russian people are unethical - some of them are very decent (and some are the worst possible scum you could find on earth) but it's the political system that sucks there, and the majorities need to be proud slaves.

Re:can at least follow russians' suit?

[Tablizer]

It's not that russian people are unethical

I think the poster meant that those journalists had more ethics than ours because ours stopped questioning 9/11 issues and went with the W flow.

Happens Here, too

[soren100]

This type of thing is not limited to Russia -- it's very common in America, although a little more subtle. For example, Rupert Murdoch told the NY POST Not to publish news critical of China Because he was trying to do business deals there. In the runup to the Iraq war, all you could see on TV was retired generals, and MSNBC cancelled Phil Donahue's show during the month that it had the highest ratings on their network because he was anti-war and had guests with ant-war viewpoints

.He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives." The report went on to outline a possible nightmare scenario where the show becomes "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."

The myth that America has a free press allows these types of things to go unchallenged, but the truth of the matter is that America has a "corporate press" that does what its conservative masters wants. The press used to be known as the "4th estate" because it was another tool that held the government in check and kept it accountable, but now it is just "info-tainment". How bad has America's press become? Viewers of "Fake News" Comedy shows (The Daily Show and the Colbert Report) were found by one study to be more informed than viewers of other "real' news shows.

Re:Happens Here, too

[Anonymous Coward]

These are actual incidents in US news.

Russia is not the only place with censorship, and mentioning that America's corporate press has problems too is not "trolling".

Re:Congratulations! DISSENT is PROY-BEH-TED

[davidsyes]

Butt, Dysentery... is NOT...

(I'm not a STUNNING linguist, but I'll settle for "cunning")

LA Times front page today

[sjw02001]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-f g-gazeta21may21,1,1616926,full.story?coll=la-headl ines-world&ctrack=3&cset=true/
For those who don't RTFA, this basically says there is one independent newspaper which publishes 3 times a week, is funded mostly by Gorbachev and another prominent politician, incurs huge losses, and has had mysterious accidents including death happen to several reporters. Any political scientist can tell you that this is not a sign of a healthy free press, and without a healthy free press democracy suffers due to lack of good information. Basically, the West has been worried about Putin and his backsliding into authoritarianism for quite some time but hasn't had the balls to do much about it. Yes, there is the internet, but you assume that a) everyone in Russia who wants to can get their news from the net, which is not true for many poor elderly folks, and b) those who might be politically savvy are tech savvy enough to find the independent sources on the net. If you lived through Soviet times, you'd be skittish about seeking out politically sensitive info if you had any sense.
In other words, this is a big deal.

No, people still believe in communism

[geoffrobinson]

Like Hugo Chavez or Rage Against the Machine (maybe their just socialists). But I would say no one serious believes in Marxism anymore. History has laid bare its false claims.

Re:No, people still believe in communism

[mvdwege]

What false claims by Marxism have been laid bare? Care to mention specifics?

Or are you denying that things like class difference exist? Or that the political power structure is a reflection of the economic structure of a society?

Marx may have made a few wrong predictions, and his assumptions on the merits of central control are grotesquely open to abuse, but one cannot say in all seriousness that he was wholly wrong.

Mart

Re:No, people still believe in communism

[geoffrobinson]

Let me differentiate between his negative critique and his recipes for improvement.

The medicine he offered was worse than the original sickness. He also underestimated the benefits that come from capitalism.

Re:No, people still believe in communism

[mvdwege]

So you admit that some of his work had relevance? That considerably weakens your original statement. Thank you for admitting that.

And as for Marx underestimating the benefits of capitalism? You have not read much Marx, have you? He thought it was the penultimate stage in social progress. He was lyrical on the benefits of capitalism. His main thesis was just that those benefits were not distributed in an equitable manner.

You are fully within your rights to criticise Marx, there is a lot wrong with his work, but when your criticism show a shallow understanding of his work, expect criticism in return.

Mart

Re:US is well on its way

[Sad Adam]

back to Mc Carthyist times. But this time with a healthy mix of corporate control of the state, Christianity and even more corruption! In a couple more years it might get to the point where being outspoken like this journalist will get you a one-way-ticket to Gitmo >_>

Death of Independent Journalism in Russia

[reporter]

The "International Herald Tribune" has just published a report summarizing the state of independent journalism in Russia. The Kremlin is trying to seize the offices of the Russian Union of Journalists, which is the largest organization of independent journalists. Meanwhile, the Russian government uses its satellites to transmit "Russia Today", a government-funded pro-Kremlin program, to audiences in foreign countries like the USA and Germany. Also, Vladimir Putin has ordered the Russian News Service (RNS) to broadcast pro-Kremlin news. One Russian listener of RNS commented on the new format by writing, on the RNS web site, " Down with Kremlin censorship! Yesterday elevators were discussed. Today, buckwheat. Are not there any other topics? "

Channel One

[GrapeSteinbeck]

Channel One, the state television station that documents Mr Putin's every move...

We have one of those here in the states, it's also called "Channel One"; only this time they track all of the president's moves and broadcasts them to schools across the country.

Well, that not entirely true, they also have constant advertisements for various branches of the US military.

This is progress!

[$criptah]

Khrushchev and Kennedy are talking about freedom of expression. Kennedy says, "In United States, anybody can come out and scream 'Kennedy sucks!' Nothing will happen to that person because we have freedom of expression in the United States." Khrushchev smiles and says, "So what? If a person goes to the Red Square and shouts 'Kennedy sucks!' nothing will happen to that person too!"

We have a bunch of folks who resigned because of the censorship. That is awesome! At least they did not up in Siberia like my ancestors. I bet writing a letter and saying "I do not work here anymore." was easier than living on a bread-and-water-and-beatings diet in prison. I am not going to engage into a debate on us-vs-them because every governmentt in the world has a dark side.

In the past, way too many Russian journalists died under interesting circumstances. These guys are alive, so the country is heading somewhere when compared to its neighbor, Belarus.

Bogeyman

[PhxBlue]

If there's a big boogieman out there, we need to build weapons and tanks and planes and spend big bucks doing it.

At the moment, there're a couple of bogeymen: Iran and China. Hopefully we'll never have to worry about going to war with either one, because it would be damned ugly under the best circumstances.

Bogeyman?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that more likely some frustrated golfer's vanity plate? :)

Re:This is nothing compared to AMERICA

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah It's pretty bad here. Consider the tens of thousands of political prisoners in the states, all arrested for criticizing the government, Christianity, or American-ness. Consider the scores of thousands of noble peasants being scooped from entire towns into the gitmo starvation.

Troll?

[weighn]

For example, Rupert Murdoch told the NY POST ... so let me guess, Murdoch has mod points?

In Soviet Russia... aw, screw it

[merc]

*rips up joke and wanders off in disgust*

Nothing in the news

[stas2k]

I was watching evening news yesterday on Channel One and the didn't say anything about this. Maybe they forgot? :)

What was the issue?

[master_p]

What was the issue that got the journalists to quit? if they were spreading disinformation, then it does not look so bad to me.

And it is not that there is no censorship in the US. Remember the two professors that wanted to speak about how the Jewish* community affects the media? their presentation was canceled.

There are topics in every place on Earth that might cause censorship. For example, try to talk about the positive things nazis did in Germany, and your chances of being censored are quite high.

Or try to deny the holocaust in Europe: you go to prison.

(*I am not a right wing nut, it is just an example)

Re:What was the issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's all you think that's happening over there, try actually researching the issue out... In the US I can watch news or documentaries about how bad the Bush presidency has bad. Over there, you'd probably be dead if you tried the same. Seriously dead (try googling missing news reporters russia sometime)

Tomorrow at 11

[Wolfier]

Journalists discover polonium in their bloodstreams.

In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Psyche!

Backwards country

[Big Nothing]

In Putins Russia, the Government controls the media moguls!

The commies let us down once

[spun]

Why would we trust them with the important role of "eternal enemy" yet again, when they've proven themselves deficient in the "eternal" department? Terrorism is a MUCH better eternal enemy, precisely because it is so elusive and invisible. Have we won yet? Who knows!