Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

In Russia, 50% of News Must Be Happy

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the ministry-of-truth dept.

Censorship 551

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The USA doesn't have freedom fo speech either (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18827491)

If you think it does, I dare you to reply with a death threat towards george w bush

tag: backintheussr (3, Insightful)

rjamestaylor (117847) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827559)

Putin is putin' the USSR back together again. Bastard.

tagged (5, Funny)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827641)

backintheussr putin tag YOU

Re:tag: backintheussr (1)

that this is not und (1026860) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827929)

Leave me til' tomorrow to unpack my bag.
Honey, disconnect the phone.

Re:tag: backintheussr (4, Interesting)

frogstar_robot (926792) | more than 7 years ago | (#18828021)

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.

Um, Didn't you just commit treason? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18827591)

Or whatever the crime is that covers threats against the president's life?

Re:Um, Didn't you just commit treason? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18827655)


perhaps he doesnt live in USA ?, perhaps his country actually practices free speech instead of just pretending

Re:Um, Didn't you just commit treason? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18827751)

Most definitions of "free speech" don't actually include the freedom directly threaten someone with death, bodily harm, etc. The fact that you can't legally threaten the president's life in the USA protected by "free speech" clauses is not actually caused by that being a position of power; you can't legally make any death threats. Of course, some death threats are taken more seriously than others, and those being made against the president are probably taken pretty seriously. This could be seen as a failing of the American legal system, but it has nothing to do with free speech(and it is far from unique to America).

Re:Um, Didn't you just commit treason? (3, Interesting)

QuickFox (311231) | more than 7 years ago | (#18828033)

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.

Re:The USA doesn't have freedom fo speech either (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18827811)

Die, Bush.

Yep, looks like I have freedom of speech.

Re:The USA doesn't have freedom fo speech either (1, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#18828031)

Of course you do ... hey, someone's taking over my key....

Hello, this is the U.S. Service. We have recorded your IP address of 127.0.0.1 and are coming to arrest you for threatening the President -- immediately.

Thanks,
Agent Smith
U.S. Secret Service

Re:The USA doesn't have freedom fo speech either (4, Insightful)

Ayal.Rosenthal (1070472) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827909)

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!

In Soviet Russia (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18827495)

freedoms vanish you?

Re:In Soviet Russia (0, Redundant)

CommunistHamster (949406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827517)

In Soviet Russia, YOU depress news!

Re:In Soviet Russia (1, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827949)

In Soviet Russia, rich oligarchs that are hiding in Britain are not allowed to use their money to overthrow the government by sowing and supporting dissent?

Re:In Soviet Russia (1, Funny)

Plutonite (999141) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827763)

No no. In Soviet Russia, the news smiles at YOU!

Re:In Soviet Russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18827825)

In Soviet Slashdot, we get tired of YOU

In Soviet Russia, 50% of News Must Be Happy (1)

bit trollent (824666) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827889)

Come on! This one was so easy.

Re:In Soviet Russia, 50% of News Must Be Happy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18827989)

In U.S. of Amerika 100% of news must be sad!

Re:In Soviet Russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18828009)

Mr. Bush in the US / Mr. Putin in Russia.

Who put them there?

Have you ever felt like having no voice about your own destiny?
Apparently, no sight about your destination, too. :-(

DISCLAIMER: I'm not from the US or Russia.
And I'm happy about this... but I'm not safe. :-((

oblig (4, Funny)

Digitus1337 (671442) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827497)

In Russia... crap.

And in America... (5, Insightful)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827499)

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?

Re:And in America... (0)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827599)

If I were a newsie doing a topical piece on Sufist traditions, and the colorful history of Iran, being favorable to the rich and varied aspects of that culture... how well would it be received by the NY Times?

Re:And in America... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18827609)

This whole thing is just a matter of degrees.

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

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

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

Re:And in America... (2, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827749)

What does it matter if Bush's approval rating is 0% or 100%? He can't run again, so he might as well do whatever he wants. It's not like he has anything to lose.

Re:And in America... (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827979)

He can't do whatever he wants, he has to follow laws that Congress would impeach him for breaking.

Re:And in America... (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827991)

He still has his legacy to consider.

Of course, nobody will agree on it; neocons will probably worship him like Republicans do Reagan, and sensible people will rue the 300 votes he won Florida by.

Re:And in America... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18828023)

And Bush-haters decided long ago that they will hate Bush no matter what. It goes both ways.

Next cycle (1)

yoshi_mon (172895) | more than 7 years ago | (#18828045)

Mostly because if he leaves office with a horrid approval rating then being the sheep we are we will thing, "Ungh! Republican bad! Democrat good!" And vote a Democrat into office, or something like that.

It does get a little more complicated than that but general trend is when a high profile member from party X is doing that bad the only other option is to put vote in the guy from Y to see if he can do any better.

Sorry for the heavy dose of cynicism but we are talking politics.

Re:And in America... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18827757)

Remember what they have done, forced the media to demonize one country and idolize themselves.

At least it took some degree of force to get the Russian media to comply. The American mass media was voluntarily willing to "demonize one country and idolize themselves". Except in the American case, "one country" has ended up being many: North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Libya, just to name a few.

Enforced vs. voluntary censorship (3, Insightful)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 7 years ago | (#18828037)

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.

Re:And in America... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18828047)

Remember what they have done, forced the media to demonize one country and idolize themselves. This is nationalism at its worst. And with Putin's changes like appointing governorships (versus elections), Russia is becoming a totalitarian state.


This is different from the United States, how exactly?

I have exposure to Russian news, and it's not much different from American news. It's mostly focused on celebrities and crap like that. What little reporting they do on the government is nothing more than your government press release for the evening, run along and play happy. Same as here. Have you heard what a disaster Albert Gonzales was before the Senate? Probably not, unless you read political porn blogs, cause the mainstream media didn't report on it.

It is true that the US has a much stronger opposition party, and they're allowed to speak in public without being arrested. But watch how they're portrayed in the media.

Bush was still referred to as popular, up until about 70% of the country hated his guts then they grudgingly stopped. Even though 60% of Americans want our soldiers out of Iraq, the media still refers to those people as out of the mainstream. Bush threatens to cut funding to the soldiers, and they try to blame it on the Congress for passing a funding bill the little prick doesn't like.

It's pathetic, and it is an insult to the average American's intelligence.

Re:And in America... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18827617)

Not showing caskets is nothing compared to blatant propaganda.

Here's a video clip from MSNBC showing an clear example of at Fox News.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oulh6_lOif0&mode=re lated&search= [youtube.com]

It shows a "daily editorial memo" dated Nov. 9, on how and where to slant the news--the memo is followed a few hours later by "news" that surprisingly matches the memo.

They found an internal memo that instructs the Fox News to "be on the lookout for statements from Iraqi insurgents who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress" and just a few hours after the memo, Fox News airs "The Live Desk" news saying, "Some reports of cheering on the streets of Bagdad on the behalf of the supporters of the Iraqi insurgency, that they're very pleased with the way things are going here and also with the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld"

Re:And in America... (4, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827815)

They key difference is that NBC, CNN, CBS, the New York Times and so on aren't bound by it. That's why you have Administration mouthpieces trying to blame the New York Times for their mistakes. Even the President of the United States does not have the power that Putin has grabbed to essentially turn Russian media back into a state-controlled resource.

Re:And in America... (1)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827981)

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?
You mean you want the government to be able to decide that only what they consider to be factual news is shown? Why aren't you living in China or Russia or any dictatorship already then?

There's a big difference. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18828003)

Caskets? If you believe that should be shown, fuck you - and any who believe what you do. Cover the debacle that is the War on Terra all you want, but show some fucking respect for the dead.

Crap like this is why freedom of the press is a stupid idea; money-grubbing whores who will cross any line in order to make money. Gotta have the shock value, hey?

A nice thing (3, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827511)

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.

Re:A nice thing (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827861)

I haven't watched evening news in years. It keeps getting worse and worse.

Hmmmm. I wonder why that is???

It was SOOO much better when I was a kid and watching the 6:00 om news that reported on the dead in vietnam on both sides. Why is was so positive that they were killing 10-20 of ours a day, but we were killing 100s to 1000s of theirs. Then I remember that break-in. Minor thing being reported between the news about how this energy crisis thing was going to disappear very shortly. Happened in the water gate hotel. No big deal. Yeah, the news back in the 60's, 70's, and 80's WAS SO much more positive.

While I do think that there is sensationalism going on, most of the news today is simply reporting what is going on. Of course, I exclude as news sources like Pravda (and now all russian news), Fox news, and Xinhuanet (I would imagine that all of the other chinese sources are about the same).

Re:A nice thing (1)

WombatDeath (681651) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827873)

I think the problem is that most news tends to be either neutral or bad. There's not much value in "ten people didn't die today when a minibus didn't fly off the road into a crowd of cheerleaders". I think, as well, that the bad news has more of an impact: I reckon that the average negative story is more depressing than a positive story is uplifting.

On a related note, this story reminds me (albeit on a rather more significant scale) of the time my boss asked me to evaluate a shitty bit of workflow software. When I handed him my report he suggested that I should include more positive points to make it 'balanced'. When I explained that the software didn't actually have anything at all going for it and that my report was therefore 100% balanced, I was told to include some positives anyway.

No enemy? (5, Insightful)

Southpaw018 (793465) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827521)

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?

Re: No enemy? (4, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827677)

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

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

The problem with that, of course, is that our propaganda is currently directed elsewhere.
Which makes it an ideal time for them to play a weak hand.

Re: No enemy? (1)

frogstar_robot (926792) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827977)

Russia these days reminds me a bit of the Weimar Republic. And the Weimar Republic was the pupa of something altogether more scary when it hatched. Saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay, I'm starting to agree with that guy a post or three back who says we should play along and declare Russia the enemy. It's sooooooooo much easier to keep track of than a shifting cast of "Terrorist Masterminds".

Re:No enemy? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18827737)

To me, this shows that the over all state of a nation is more a matter of cultural evolution than the formal setup of the state.

Revolutions, end up having little effect in the long term. The communists overthrew the totalitarian monarchy, but ended up a totalitarian "bureaucracy" waving the red flag, and now gravitating back towards the same pattern again.

At least, with free elections there is actually room for the culture to evolve I guess. And I shouldn't say evolve, since it often implies progress. Things might just as well deteriorate I think.

US must b presented as a enemy.. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18827523)

They are trying to compete with the US media!

Re:US must b presented as a enemy.. (0)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827863)

Well at least the Russian jounalists are protesting and not just bending over and begging for a bigger pay check like their US mass media counterparts. The US news distort was picked up, exposed and attacked by the readers, the US junk journalists just slept peacefully and dreamt of bigger pay checks and larger jars of Vaseline.

Is this such a bad thing? (5, Interesting)

Illserve (56215) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827525)

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.

Re:Is this such a bad thing? (1)

WarJolt (990309) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827629)

Americans should have the choice to watch positive news as well. currently it's whatever the news networks want to show you. How bout the all positive network on TV. Wheres that?

Re:Is this such a bad thing? (2, Insightful)

ResidntGeek (772730) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827797)

Out of business. People don't want an "Everything is OK" alarm. You can start one if you'd like, but nobody will watch.

Re:Is this such a bad thing? (1)

TheViciousOverWind (649139) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827701)

I agree somewhat. It can't be healthy when almost all stories in the news are negative. Of course I don't condone the censorship or directing the news-outlets to represent the United States as "the enemy", but more positive stories would be a good thing. Sadly this isn't what's being ordered. If the article is correct, then it's only 50% of the news about Russia that needs to be positive, and then it's probably worse than just portraiting only the bad news.

Re:Is this such a bad thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18827781)

I shouldn't feed the troll, but, you know what?

You're right. It would be nice if the media were not feeding the "fear frenzy" that they usually do -- be it the latest health scare, politics, policing, war, enviroment, whatever. We should work towards something better.

But I'll take the status quo over a government-imposed "50% good news" quota any day.

I might actually pay attention... (5, Insightful)

josquint (193951) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827527)

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?

Re:I might actually pay attention... (1)

neoform (551705) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827893)

Do you cover your eyes when things are going bad?

Or do you man up and realize that in order for things to get better, we need to recognize the problems and work to fix them.

Ignoring them only serve make things worse. Bad news sucks, but it needs to be heard.

America is an enemy? (2, Interesting)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827529)

America viewed as an enemy? I know relations could be better, but enemy?

Re:America is an enemy? (1)

Chiaro Meratilo (1036598) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827573)

If America is an enemy, what does that make Canada?

Re:America is an enemy? (1)

CommunistHamster (949406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827835)

The charming neighbour of my enemy is my, er...

Re:America is an enemy? (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827595)

It's good for business... To have phantom enemies.

Re:America is an enemy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18827881)

Indeed [dhs.gov]

Who leaked!? (3, Funny)

WgT2 (591074) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827553)

Who leaked this script of this season's 24 to the Russians?!

Re:Who leaked!? (2, Funny)

Zantetsuken (935350) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827671)

while you could be joking, who knows what countries can't figure out that it's a television show (hell, even some American citizens) - one of these days North Korea, China, or any of the other shows that American TV uses as the target of some world domination plot, or makes just a bit too many bad jokes at is gonna get pissed.

ex: American Idol or some such show will be mistranslated as: "We're going to slaughter you all... lalalala.... we're going to eat your babies at the weekend BBQ... alala... cuz' we're Americans!"

Putin (3, Insightful)

Tsagadai (922574) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827565)

Putin is starting to lose it, he's on a return to his KGB tactics and training. Say goodbye to democracy Russia!

The FCC's "Fairness Doctrine" (0, Flamebait)

e9th (652576) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827569)

If the US begins enforcing it again, how are we any different? "Oh, your broadcast was pro-X. You've got to give equal to the pro-Y guy." Who decides when timeX == timeY?

You all aren't getting it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18827585)

They are mandating happy thoughts because their population must be staggeringly negative against their own government - Where as in America its just regular vanilla fearmongering for no apparent reason ... It's worse what they are doing because it is aimed at population control and supressing their (free?) election process....

Oh Heck... (4, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827587)

I guess Slashdot is now illegal in Russia as it has nothing good say about Microsoft, Apple, DRM/RIAA, Anonymous Cowards, and Martha Stewart.

Re:Oh Heck... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18827841)

I guess Slashdot is now illegal in Russia as it has nothing good say about Microsoft, Apple, DRM/RIAA, Anonymous Cowards, and Martha Stewart.

What are you talking about? Anonymous Cowards are awesome, everyone says so!

Examples (5, Funny)

AaronW (33736) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827625)

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 [yahoo.com]

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 [theonion.com] .

I guess it's possible to turn bad news into good news, but then everything will start to sound like The Onion [theonion.com] .

Note that I am not trying to make light of any of these issues but to show how idiotic the new Russian stance is.

Fair and balanced? (1)

soundhack (179543) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827637)

Isn't part of this what a lot of people say is required to have a "fair and balanced" discussion? No matter that there is a preponderance of evidence in one direction (global warming, evolution, Russian chaos) there must be a "fair and balanced" accounting.

I find it interesting we are quick to criticize other countries for their supposed failings while we engage in pretty much the same thing.

Re:Fair and balanced? (1)

Nymz (905908) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827791)

Isn't part of this what a lot of people say is required to have a "fair and balanced" discussion?

Nope, "fair and balanced" would be to report the news, the facts, the events, and let the viewers make their own conclusions. Requiring that America is always, every time, without fail, to be portrayed as the "enemy" is not reporting, it's propaganda.

Haven't you every wondered why there are so many clueless posters on Slashdot? It's because many of them get their "news" from sources that omit specific facts and details, in order to present biased conclusions. Then posters come here thinking they know the "truth", and procede to demonstrate how ignorant they are.

And RSF says (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18827639)

This about USA in 2006

http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639 [rsf.org]

The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002. Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of "national security" to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his "war on terrorism." The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media's right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism.

and whos company do you keep
Botswana, Croatia, Tonga, Uruguay

now Russia is at 147th but then Russia has never said "we are leaders of the free world" or "we want nations to be free" and other such propaganda.

Its troubling how far USA has fallen in such a small time, people once respected you, now they just laugh at you.
for shame, for shame.

reporting standards (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18827667)

In the U.S., staions choose the news according to what they think will get us tuned in.
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 ..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)

Re:reporting standards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18827759)

In the U.S., staions choose the news according to what they think will get us tuned in.
In Russia, editors choose according to whether they will keep their job or not.
But strangely, both are obsessed with "balanced". *sigh* I'd be happy with just complete and objective.

Some happy russian news for you... (1)

DigitAl56K (805623) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827681)

Moscow couple protests atop Lada (NSFW) [publiuspundit.com]

At least they look like they're happy...

Re:Some happy russian news for you... (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 7 years ago | (#18828005)

You call that not safe for work? You have issues dude... (And I read the text, the cops just waived and laughed...)

50% Happy News Would Be A Nice Break! Eh! (1)

cannuck (859025) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827715)

Compared to mainstream and most so called alternative media's approach in the USA and Canada - 50% happy news would be a breathe of fresh air.

The daily drivel dished out in Canada and the USA media is "to keep the rich happy and the rest of us in fear (and to make sure those credit cards are swipped through)" (Noam Chomsky). George Lakoff explains it all as well in his treatises on FRAMING. But maybe "WE" get the media we deserve - since 60% of USA adults believe that this planet - THE EARTH - is only 6000 years old - 60%!

Don't know if Canadians are that badly educated though.

"Only LEMMINGS would need a scoring system (in Slashdot) to tell readers what they want/need to read. Scoring was brought into the American schooling system to replace severe whipping for giving the wrong answer. Apparantly the Slashdot WHIPPERS here believe in censorship by numbers - the more you don't spout the standard propaganda THE RIGHT ANSWER - the lower the score. So I just read the lowest score postings - I imagine most readers do the same."

Reportedly loyal (1)

vivaoporto (1064484) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827719)

What does reportedly loyal means exactly? Ann Coulter loyal? Rush Limbaugh loyal? Rupert Murdoch loyal? How is this different from the rest of the world, except that is happens "in soviet russia"? I'm seeing a new trend on media, slashdot and comments of reporting the other side mistakes that happen to be the exact same things that are happening on this side too, for instance, Unmaned vehicles on Venezuela [slashdot.org] (happens on U.S. and U.K. too), Cuba, Russia, Venezuela, China, Brazil ...

Is this some kind of feel good measure, to help you people to feel better about the current situation of your countries? Because it will not help. Because that's the blind leading the blind situation, people over there publish about your errors, you people publish about their errors, everybody is too busy pointing fingers that nobody is left to fight for the country they are living in.

That's pure media distraction, get over it, fix your country first (whatever it is) and then help other countries to find the path to nirvana. Don't buy everything media feeds you, that's exactly what you are pointing on this very article that is happening in the "other side". And specially U.S., while you are letting your government to play World Police, you are losing both the respect the rest of the world had for you and the very freedoms and values that generated that respect in the first place. Get your act straight first.

Martial Law in Beijing... (2, Interesting)

Vexler (127353) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827721)

Reminds me of a cartoon shortly after the Tiananmen Square Massacre that depicts Premier Deng saying, "Smile, martial law in Beijing has been lifted... anyone found not smiling will be executed."

This news from Russia makes me wonder whether USSR isn't dead, but, as Calvin and Hobbs liked to say, "transmorgrified". If so, then Americans have been deceiving themselves that they have somehow "won" the Cold War.

But... but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18827727)

Stephen Colbert is funny TOO

What's that saying... (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827731)

"If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all."

Let's see how long it takes before he starts whining that nobody gives him any attention whatsoever.

I wonder if the news about the happy news (1)

skeldoy (831110) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827761)

will be one of the "happy news" :)

Good (1)

algf2004 (748651) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827779)

50% of News Must Be Happy

I realize it's for censorship purposes, but otherwise it sounds like a great idea. The world looks bad if every report is a school shooting. Give us something positive. I wouldn't end up so damn depressed after watching the news then.

Re:Good (1)

pimterry (970628) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827869)

The idea is to have the news accurately represent what is happening. Concentrating on the good only, like here, gives people a false impression of the state of the country, and the world, and defeats the point of watching the news (to find out what's going on). Western news is famous for moving the other way; More people watch worrying news than interesting news, so you scare people to keep them watching, and give them a false impression of their world.

Obviously neither approach is good, but at least in the west it's being happening to attempt make people interested, and news outlets do it independently depending on their personal morals, rather than it being a Government masterminded plan to keep the country in control and keep people in power in power (YMMV depending on Bush conspiracy theories).
I'd rather watch news attempting to keep me watching it than watch news attempting to keep me from revolution.

In Soviet Russia... (0, Redundant)

pickyouupatnine (901260) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827789)

100% of the news must be happy!

On Slashdot (-1, Troll)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827801)

50% of news must be dupes.

In happier news... (1)

pimterry (970628) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827809)

You've got to wonder, with all that effort into finding good news, why not simply put it into making something good happen? If there's a depressing story of an earthquake, send record breaking aid and show pictures a grateful, rapidly recovering people! Not only would they get good news, it might improve the country's (and the world's) opinion on Putin and keep him back into power without censoring details of his competition.

Anyway, it's not all bad (yet). If they were in true censorship, Russian News wouldn't be able to tell people (the American media no less!) that they're being told to do all this. There's some freedom there at least. And if all else fails they can always go on air with "Unfortunately we're now unable to tell you about the recent successes of the West against famine in Africa. Here's Vladimov with details of what exactly it is you're missing."

50% Positive News (1)

iviagnus (854023) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827817)

I agree that 50% of the reported news must be positive. Not only is it healthier psychologically, but there is just as much happy news out there as there is negative news. The reason we are fed a predominance of negative news: It makes the rich people out there more money. Yes, it IS that simple. End of line.

In Soviet Russia (1)

UPZ (947916) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827829)

the news writes you!

China more realistic enemy of Russia (4, Insightful)

ConfusedSelfHating (1000521) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827853)

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/ [http] ), 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.

Is it really censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18827865)

Or just a good idea, or at the very least a good social experiment, and it's nice that someone has the brains and guts to try it.

It's known that the media shape public opinion, which in a republic (even more so in a democracy) means the media have an unfair control over society and therefore government.

Balance of power, as in "checks and balances", is good in all areas of any society.

Re:Is it really censorship? (1)

pimterry (970628) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827925)

...Russian News Service say they were told by the new managers, who are allies of the Kremlin.

Doesn't sound like the media trying to influence society, sounds like the government trying to increase their power and control over society. Media having control isn't quite as bad, there's more than one media outlet. If that media outlet becomes too heavily liberal/conservative people disagreeing with that will start their own conservative/liberal newspapers and TV shows and similar and the overall media balances out (YMMV).
This is considerably harder to do with governments, particularly when they censor all mention of any opposition to the people in power.

As An Aging Cold Warrier (0, Troll)

ONOIML8 (23262) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827877)

I totally agree with this. The state of affairs in the world sucks at the moment. Back in my day things were much better. We knew who the enemy was, it was those commies in the USSR. And they were just as clear on who their enemy was. With that kind of clarity we all got on with our lives and things were simple.

If they want to portray the US as the enemy, I completely understand that. The best part of that is...we're not really their enemy. It's a safe ruse that could do a lot of good. I suggest we do the same and pretend Russia is an evil empire again.

Let's return to the concept of a cold war. Not as many people died in the last one. We didn't shoot each other as much either.

As for the requirement for 50% of the news to be happy: why the hell not? I realize that might require reporters and editors to actually do some work, but the stories are out there.

Obv. Airplane quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18827879)

Buffalo Anchorman: Our top story Tonight, Four-alarm rages through Downtown Buffalo. Also in the news, Lunar Shuttle heads for the Sun, and certain disaster.
Tokyo Anchorman: Our top story Tonight, Four-alarm rages through Downtown Tokyo. Also in the news, American Lunar Shuttle locked in death struggle
Moscow Anchorman: [with a gun pointed in his head] A four-alarm fire in Downtown Moscow clears way for a glorious new tractor factory. And on the lighter side of the news, Hundreds of Capitalists are soon to perish in Shuttle disaster.

Something to smile about (4, Funny)

BillGatesLoveChild (1046184) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827885)

> 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)

Ah (1, Funny)

UPZ (947916) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827901)

In Soviet Russia happiness pursues you!

Its a great improvement (2, Funny)

Woy (606550) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827907)

In Old Soviet Russia, it was the other 50% of the news that had to be happy!

Is that so bad? (1)

heretic108 (454817) | more than 7 years ago | (#18827917)

Here in the west, studies have suggested that people who don't watch/read news regularly tend to be happier and healthier. Here in the west, most of the news is negative. Major newspapers I've read tend to average up to 1 death story per news page, and most TV news programmes have at least one death/violence story per bulletin.

This might be an popular position, but I feel that there could be some good in the '50% good news' requirement. It could have an uplifting effect on a population. If a newspaper really wants to cover a given amount of negative material, they can do so, just print more pages, and find enough good news to balance it out and meet quota.

But as for rules requiring no mention of opposition politicians, or perception of the US as an enemy state, that is something I do find completely unacceptable.

but in the us.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18827963)

but in the united states, 100% of news reports about russia must be negative.

Let's call a spade a spade.... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18827997)

OKay.... there's no question that this is a disturbing development and really brings into question whether or not freedom and democracy are words that can possibly apply to Russia. BUT let's not compare them to US media. That which brings us the great institution of journalistic integrity like Fox News and CNN. What a load of horseshit!

If there's anything that you can say about US media it's that it's sensationalistic, fearmongering, and generally devoid of any parts of the story that aren't going to create a visceral response. The job of the media is to provide an objective and balanced account of whatever the story or issue may be...and American media does a pretty crappy job of it. Don't agree? Try paying attention to other media sources around the world. It's not to say that all the others aren't using the same techniques to sell their papers or their stations but US media is to worst of the bunch. They are deliberately engineered to instill fear and panic in the population and keep them glued to the very sets that are causing their panic in the first place.

So before we start pointing fingers at Russia (and make no mistake... fingers MUST be pointed) let's maybe consider what we can do here at home to improve our media.

What I'd LOVE to see is a news analysis program. Someplace where you can actually get both sides of the story... someplace that reveals the bias in the various media sources and makes people FINALLY think critically about what's being presented to them as facts.

holy shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18828011)

"the United States was to be portrayed as an enemy"

The last thing anyone wants is another cold war, but maybe Putin thinks differently.

Hopefully Kasparov and Other Russia can make a difference over there. Kasparov and
his supporters are risking their lives and their futures to take a stand for freedom.

At this point, we can only hope to succeed. It sounds like Putin has aspirations of
restarting the cold war, which scares the shit out of me.

And in Venezuela Chavez is closing down a TV stati (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18828025)

At least in russia they get to keep it.Censored.
Chavez just decided to close it here in Venezuela....

AllOfMP3 (1)

Falladir (1026636) | more than 7 years ago | (#18828043)

I guess this means we'll still have AllOfMP3 for the foreseeable future. I wonder if Putin is in bed with Paula Jones?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?