Is Russia unfavourable for journalists’ work?


Daniel 25 March, 2008, 12:26	As a journalist myself, i wouldn't want to work in Russia. It's press freedom is appaling due to Putin's actions and the dangers of working in areas such as Chechnyia, Dangestan and Kalmykia permalink quote 0 Daniel
john 25 March, 2008, 14:44	Western double standards exist in all aspects of life including media. Their standard accusation is that in Russia (China, Cuba, Venezuela and other countries the US does not like) the state controls the media. By making such accusations they imply that in the west the media are free. This is not the case at all. Western media may be in private hands but respective governments control that media by licensing. This is in fact state control. The way events were covered by western media prior to Iraq invasion proves the point. Only pro Bush and pro Blair articles were written. Only pro war enthusiasts were invited to chats on TV and radio stations. More examples, George Galloway a member of Blair labour party opposed Iraq invasion, he had his comments censored and distorted, and was thrown out of the party. Peter Arnet of CNBC (a private media company) while being embedded with the invading army after he said ‘not enough troops are here’ was fired on the spot. Because that contradicted statement made by Bush. For the same reason few senior generals were also fired. Many entertainers were media black listed for their opposition to war!!!!! Don’t ever say that western media are free. Western based English media empires are owned by 5-6 people only. This is strictly controlled. When Robert Murdoch wanted to buy US based TV channel (in 2002) he backed Iraq invasion and the US government gave permission for the deal. That is how it works. In Russia of course the situation is unique. Excitement built by western propaganda makes some journalists to believe that everything is possible in the name of freedom. The state duty however is to act in the interest of the majority of people and definitely not for the interest of individual journalists or media barons. permalink quote 0 john
Sevodnya_Net 25 March, 2008, 15:48	There's a difference between the issue of control/ownership of the media leading to possible curtailments of press freedom and the freedom of journalists to investigate corruption etc without being threatened, abused or even murdered. The latter problem has had a high profile in Russia over the years as journalists ranging from Paul Klebnikov to Anna Politkovskaya and now Ilyas Shurpaev and Gadzhi Abashilov have perished, almost certainly at the hands of those whose who wanted to keep their meddling investigations quiet. Not necessarily government sponsored, in fact probably not at all government sponsored. The figures quoted in the RT report (which don't include statistics involving politically inspired violent intimidation similar to that of the REN-TV journalists in Nazran I mentioned in a separate post) speak for themselves: considering Russia is not a war zone, it is indeed a comparatively dangerous place to be a certain type of journalist, even one working for state media, as the Shurpaev/Abashilov killings tragically proved. permalink quote 0 Sevodnya_Net
Sevodnya_Net 25 March, 2008, 16:09	John, I have to say that your comments about British media coverage of the Iraq war disaster are a complete distortion of the truth. Hope you're not a journalist! :0) permalink quote 0 Sevodnya_Net
Vijay Singh 25 March, 2008, 18:17	Journos come in various shapes and sizes – Govt controlled whose overriding job is to show the country is doing well, independent types whose agenda is just 'Yellow Journalism' and the non-popular/externally financed/opposition sponsored/maniacally driven who basically indulge in mud-slinging and in extreme cases anti-nationalistic activities and anti-social behavior! Russia has them all but thankfully there is some censorship. So that 'Dutch’ cartoons/films do not appear, Dangerous drugs are not advertised and untruths not turned into 'truths' through repetitive exposure! And probably more journos have died in Iraq, Vietnam, Bosnia and Afghanistan [as embedded journos with the US army] than rest of the world combined permalink quote 0 Vijay Singh
Norman 25 March, 2008, 18:33	Journalists in Russia, as well as in many countries, have three sources of pressure: government, organised crime and big business. Occasionally a journalist is killed for a sensitive report, just ask journalists in Latin America! permalink quote 0 Norman
john 25 March, 2008, 18:33	Sevodnya_Net, you are welcome to disagree. The undisputed fact however is - only those journalists/reporters under the protection of the occupiers can work in Iraq. These people know the rules of the game and we see that on TV screens. Media owners will not dare to broadcast anything the regimes may not like. Annual license extension will be at risk and they can not afford that. Accreditation permits are another control tools on individual journalists. So much for free western media!!!! Why Russia should be different. I do believe that in general any time journos or reporters are harmed these incidents are blown out of proportions and fantastic theories are created by other journos and reporters. According to RT, 13 people per each 100 000 are murdered in Moscow every year. That means in the year Politkovskaya was murdered another 1300 people were also murdered in Moscow. Those 1300 did not get even 1% of the publicity Politkovskaya got. Clearly the journos do not care much for the average victim of crime. They care for themselves only and abuse the public trust in this process. That happens everywhere. permalink quote 0 john
sam 25 March, 2008, 21:37	Sevodnya_Net posted: considering Russia is not a war zone, it is indeed a comparatively dangerous place to be a certain type of journalist, but Russia is a war zone with fundamentalist terrorists from outside Russia pouring into Chechnyia and Dagestan,as well as local separatists activities.In fact those republics are mini Iraq. permalink quote 0 sam
Sevodnya_Net 26 March, 2008, 09:46	Sam, Well, I agree that certain areas of the North Caucasus are extremely unstable, but none of the journalists killed in Russia - so far as I can see - died in crossfire or in the dubious circumstances of a Terry Lloyd, say. For example, Anna Politkovskaya's death may or may not be related to her work in Chechnya but she was murdered a long way from any conflict zone. Same goes for the Dagestanis, one of whom wasn't even murderd in Dagestan. The REN tv trio were arrested and beaten in their "hotel" (for want of a better word to describe the Assa - actually war zone might be a better description to be fair!!) The later Chechen war was probably a comparatively safe war for journalists as the Kremlin did its damnedest to keep journalists away altogether(!) To John, You said: "Only pro Bush and pro Blair articles were written. Only pro war enthusiasts were invited to chats on TV and radio stations." which was the bit I can't really go along with. (George Galloway for example, was hardly been off the TV for months and I read lots of articles, mostly opposed to the war - I was a staunch opponent of the gulf war I'm sure like yourself.) Of course the "Allies" attempted to discourage unsupervised war reporting by encouraging journalists to travel with them and offer them as much access as possible to what was going on, but to my knowledge no journalist was or is prevented from going wherever they want. It's probably fair to say that journalist deaths get disproportionate coverage as their deaths are covered by . journalists but as Norman rightly points out journalists are potentially at risk from the same areas: the state, big business and organised crime, which potentially threaten all of us and while undoubtedly a few journalists are dishonest and unscrupulous the work of many of them has helped expose corruption and made it less easy for the powerful to sleep easy in their beds. So we should worry when attacks are made against them. permalink quote 0 Sevodnya_Net
Sam 26 March, 2008, 18:27	Sevodnya_Net even if some of the journalists that were killed did not die in the conflict zones,it does not mean they were not killed in relation to or by people who did have something to do with the conflict.It really makes no difference where they died but more on why they died. permalink quote 0 Sam
Sevodnya_Net 27 March, 2008, 09:29	From a statistical point of view where a journalist dies IS significant - people get killed in war zones often by mistake, especially journalists and photographers (tho of course tragically many others too). There was nothing very accidental about the deaths in question (and of course that applies equally to suspicious deaths anywhere). You asked about Anna Politkovskaya on a separate thread and why some suspect the Kremlin of involvement in her death. I'm well aware some people accuse the Kremlin - my point (badly made as usual) was that I didn't think anyone in this discussion was doing so. I certainly don't - there is no evidence to back that up as far as I'm aware. Of course there is what someone rather neatly called the "Henry II factor", ("who will rid me of this turbulent journalist/ex-FSB officer/liberal politician/awkward NGO/university" - delete as appropriate - mentioned in high circles and then acted on by enterprising individuals) but that is all speculation I freely admit. It's good for discussion groups and - journalists(!) - tho. permalink quote 0 Sevodnya_Net
Vijay Singh 27 March, 2008, 10:12	Let's talk about Tibet and the Western media, before we talk about Russian press/journalists - Of course, Global (read Western) is against China, and deviously so! If cropping pictures, altering shadows, doing clever artwork on videos is not bias, I don't know what is? And not only China, but India (where cows/buffaloes/shanties/poverty are shown to be the main actors), Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Africa,even countries like Brazil etc. The Western media had to come out of its COLD WAR mentality and accept the realities. That what is just for some may be subjugation for others! That what is freedom for some may be injurious for others! The main grouse of the 'mainstream' Western media is now that they probably don't control/colonize the NON-WESTERN world AND the main attitude is = "How dare they!" Above all, The West should forget being hypocrites and see both sides of the coin! The western media should wake up to the fact that - There are educated, enlightened (probably less than 'pure' westerners) outside the Western 'world'. AND that the rest is not like the West! Or vice versa.as they like it.it's their choice.as has been all these past centuries!! permalink quote 0 Vijay Singh
Karon 28 March, 2008, 18:57	Journalists killed in Russia have been investigative reporters. Unlike journalists and editors who analyze and report the news on political, economic and the affairs of civil society, investigative journalists focus on crime and corruption. Few of sound mind can deny that organized crime families, including, in some cases, oligarchs and officials connected were organized crime, were behind their murder. Historically, every country--east and west--has had its share of investigative journalists murdered by criminals, some at the direction of corrupt businessmen and appointed and elected officials who fear exposure and prosecution. But it is folly, sheer stupidity, to attribute their murder to an act of retaliation by the leadership of a nation. Proof can be found on the front page coverage of state owned and independent print media and in televised broadcast in Russia where the crime and corruption of investigative journalist is reported. It goes without saying there is a free press in Russia. Doubtless the murder rate among investigative journalists will diminish when the all pervasive crime and corruption of bandit capitalism begun under the Yeltsin-Chubais/Clinton-Gore era is under control. permalink quote 0 Karon
DaniYah 30 March, 2008, 16:03	Karon, you are right about Russian journalistic culture being based on investigative journalism. Your description of the other type of journalism, the 'analytical' journalism, is an accurate description of modern Western journalism, though some outstanding investigative journalists have come from the USA and other European nations. In fact, Western investigative journalists have found themselves squeezed out of the mass media information food chain. The elimination of the Western investigative journalism came as a result of government pressure and overt force (Dan Rather, beaten on a street, was warned about 'getting the frequency'- a warning of the CIA; Dith Pran, the Cambodian aid to American journalist Sydney Shanberg and Briton Jon Swain (who covered the US support for the Cambodian government's 'killing fields'), was killed in suspicious mugging; there are countless more examples.) The "pervasive crime and corruption of bandit capitalism begun under the Yeltsin-Chubais/Clinton-Gore era" is precisely that US CIA threat. One should wonder how Edward Jay Epstein, an American journalist, is blocked from reviewing hard evidence about the UK-Russia polonium scandal (and even about the nature of the element polonium itself, as well as the history of its applications, in his own country, the USA, or its closest ally, the UK. But in coming to Russia, he is received with open arms and a load of original documents from the case (of Alexander Litvinenko and the polonium poisoning/contamination of 2006). Can investigative journalists find respite in Russia? A fitting question. The answer is yes, as long as Russia can become a truly sovereign nation. permalink quote 0 DaniYah
Sanjay 31 March, 2008, 02:56	In Russia there are three types of journalists: 1. Paul Klebnikov type: Bold, fearless and patriotic towards the land of their ancestors. They get to the root of the matter and expose criminal oligarchs, financiers and terrorists who want Russia's collapse. 2. Politskovkaya type: Who are bold but hostile to Russia. These journalists collude with traitors to pursue a hidden agenda to destablize russian society. Under the garb of human rights and freedom, she actively colluded with terrorists such as Zakayev etc. and undermined russia's national security and sovereignity. They pretend they are fighting kremlin, when in fact they are fighting russian society. 2. The money-minders: Those who would write basically anything which the oligarchs and financier establishment ask them to, to undermine russian people and loot russia's resources. Threat to investigative journalism is blamed on kremlin or KGB, but in reality commodity-oligarchs and financiers pose a much bigger threat to them. Almost all pro-russian thinkers agree that in order to have a vibrant media and investigative journalism in the tradition of Paul Klebnikov, Russia will somehow have to break the power of oligarch-financiers and reduce the concentration of power and wealth in Russia. This will minimize the possibility of power and money being used for organized crime and threaten journalists. permalink quote 0 Sanjay
DaniYah 31 March, 2008, 03:54	Correction to my previous post: Haing S. Ngor, the actor who portrayed the investigative reporter Dith Pran in the movie "The killing fields", and himself a Cambodian human rights activist, was killed in February 1996. Dith Pran died today at age 65 of pancreatic cancer this Sunday morning in New Jersey. permalink quote 0 DaniYah
Sevodnya_Net 31 March, 2008, 09:49	"One should wonder how Edward Jay Epstein, an American journalist, is blocked from reviewing hard evidence about the UK-Russia polonium scandal . But in coming to Russia, he is received with open arms and a load of original documents from the case (of Alexander Litvinenko and the polonium poisoning/contamination of 2006)." Well, I can think of a very obvious reason. American (or indeed any) journalist asks to see police files on a sensitive case which has already caused a diplomatic row between two countries - he is, not surprisingly, told to get knotted. You can see the contrasting attitude from Moscow as laudable openness from the Russian side or cynical manipulation of a journalist after a scoop. I know where my money would go . If he'd asked to see the Anna Politkovskaya files, of course, he'd have picking fleas out of his ear all the way back to New York (and quite right, too) :-) permalink quote 0 Sevodnya_Net
DaniYah 1 April, 2008, 04:38	If it is as simple as you say, Sevodnya, that Russia allows the journalists review only the evidence that benefits Russia, then so be it. But then, come now, explain to us why the USA, Cronies, & Co not do the same with it's own 'verifiable' stashes to discredit the claims of its rival (the Truth)? permalink quote 0 DaniYah
Sevodnya_Net 1 April, 2008, 11:19	DaniYah, Well, I don't necessarily say that anything is simple: on the contrary, I was suggesting that there was more than one explanation for the picture you were painting. I think my view is more likely, but of course it is only a view. In fairness to the US/British investigators, why on earth would they release evidence into the public domain simply to counterbalance one journalist's story? That way chaos lies. I think that in the matter of Litvinenko the time has come for the evidence to be made public, but only as part of a proper legal process (inquest or extradition proceeding - realistically now probably the former) Sanjay, to say that journalists like Anna Politkovskaya "pretend they are fighting kremlin, when in fact they are fighting russian society" you must have an awfully low opinion of Russian society. Sounds like you favour a certain type of journalist who simply does things the way you want, which is hardly in the spirit of a free press. permalink quote 0 Sevodnya_Net
DaniYah 1 April, 2008, 20:12	Sevodnya! "why on earth would US/UK release evidence into the public domain simply to counterbalance one journalist's story?" I can't believe you say this. It seems you don't relate to journalism at all. Journalism means, that there is no story until the evidence is seen. So, the presentation of evidence is not to save/build a journalist's face, his career, etc. It's to give an accurate account of the EVENTS. That is my question. I can't see how you reduced your answer as if I was speaking about the person of Mr. Epstein. Don't you see what you are doing? The story as presented after the seeing the evidence corroborated the accounts of Litvinenko himself, as when he said that it was Scaramella that poisoned him. Why do you keep insisting on narrowing the facts? When you cut out such important facts, you are further driving the observation that true journalism is nearly impossible to do in the UK. I can't even imagine how you can think of speaking for a free press. I believe in a free press, so the disagreement we have between ourselves is over something else. Particularly in this forum question we are talking about whether Russia is favorable to journalism. There are two things to take into account: Journalists access to information; and journalists safety in Russia. I was dealing with the first things when talking about the access of information; as compared to the access in the UK/US. The Litvinenko/ polonium case is a good case to compare the journalism situation in the respective countries it with, because the polonium case is already a highly media-oriented case. There are many other cases/ journalist concerns that are related in one way or another to how this polonium case is being treated. I am making a point, that just as the US/UK has barred journalists from the evidence of in the polonium media storm; the US/UK show their attitude toward journalism in general. PERHAPS you forgot about Tony Blair's speech about curbing journalists freedoms in the UK????? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6744581.stm Followed and preceded by calls from the US officials to the same extent on USA journalism. And I add: if the UK/US go to such lengths to prevent journalistic freedom in the home country, then they also with their military/clandestine might will try to prevent Russian journalists from doing their job in Russia, ditto overseas. It's the EVIDENCE that is the point in question. And we know that the record of the UK/US investigative teams have produced evidence that is falsified, fabricated, and faux-naif time and again. Journalists deserve better. So does the UK/US. I point out that the false evidence is undermining the authority of the British/American government and the international agencies that cooperate with them (IAEA, Interpol, respective foreign gov's, etc.) All in all, falsehood and double-stepping is detrimental to all. permalink quote 0 DaniYah

Daniel 25 March, 2008, 12:26

As a journalist myself, i wouldn't want to work in Russia. It's press freedom is appaling due to Putin's actions and the dangers of working in areas such as Chechnyia, Dangestan and Kalmykia

permalink quote Daniel

john 25 March, 2008, 14:44

Western double standards exist in all aspects of life including media. Their standard accusation is that in Russia (China, Cuba, Venezuela and other countries the US does not like) the state controls the media. By making such accusations they imply that in the west the media are free. This is not the case at all. Western media may be in private hands but respective governments control that media by licensing. This is in fact state control. The way events were covered by western media prior to Iraq invasion proves the point. Only pro Bush and pro Blair articles were written. Only pro war enthusiasts were invited to chats on TV and radio stations. More examples, George Galloway a member of Blair labour party opposed Iraq invasion, he had his comments censored and distorted, and was thrown out of the party. Peter Arnet of CNBC (a private media company) while being embedded with the invading army after he said ‘not enough troops are here’ was fired on the spot. Because that contradicted statement made by Bush. For the same reason few senior generals were also fired. Many entertainers were media black listed for their opposition to war!!!!! Don’t ever say that western media are free. Western based English media empires are owned by 5-6 people only. This is strictly controlled. When Robert Murdoch wanted to buy US based TV channel (in 2002) he backed Iraq invasion and the US government gave permission for the deal. That is how it works. In Russia of course the situation is unique. Excitement built by western propaganda makes some journalists to believe that everything is possible in the name of freedom. The state duty however is to act in the interest of the majority of people and definitely not for the interest of individual journalists or media barons.

permalink quote john

Sevodnya_Net 25 March, 2008, 15:48

There's a difference between the issue of control/ownership of the media leading to possible curtailments of press freedom and the freedom of journalists to investigate corruption etc without being threatened, abused or even murdered. The latter problem has had a high profile in Russia over the years as journalists ranging from Paul Klebnikov to Anna Politkovskaya and now Ilyas Shurpaev and Gadzhi Abashilov have perished, almost certainly at the hands of those whose who wanted to keep their meddling investigations quiet. Not necessarily government sponsored, in fact probably not at all government sponsored. The figures quoted in the RT report (which don't include statistics involving politically inspired violent intimidation similar to that of the REN-TV journalists in Nazran I mentioned in a separate post) speak for themselves: considering Russia is not a war zone, it is indeed a comparatively dangerous place to be a certain type of journalist, even one working for state media, as the Shurpaev/Abashilov killings tragically proved.

permalink quote Sevodnya_Net

Sevodnya_Net 25 March, 2008, 16:09

John, I have to say that your comments about British media coverage of the Iraq war disaster are a complete distortion of the truth. Hope you're not a journalist! :0)

permalink quote Sevodnya_Net

Vijay Singh 25 March, 2008, 18:17

Journos come in various shapes and sizes – Govt controlled whose overriding job is to show the country is doing well, independent types whose agenda is just 'Yellow Journalism' and the non-popular/externally financed/opposition sponsored/maniacally driven who basically indulge in mud-slinging and in extreme cases anti-nationalistic activities and anti-social behavior! Russia has them all but thankfully there is some censorship. So that 'Dutch’ cartoons/films do not appear, Dangerous drugs are not advertised and untruths not turned into 'truths' through repetitive exposure! And probably more journos have died in Iraq, Vietnam, Bosnia and Afghanistan [as embedded journos with the US army] than rest of the world combined

permalink quote Vijay Singh

Norman 25 March, 2008, 18:33

Journalists in Russia, as well as in many countries, have three sources of pressure: government, organised crime and big business. Occasionally a journalist is killed for a sensitive report, just ask journalists in Latin America!

permalink quote Norman

john 25 March, 2008, 18:33

Sevodnya_Net, you are welcome to disagree. The undisputed fact however is - only those journalists/reporters under the protection of the occupiers can work in Iraq. These people know the rules of the game and we see that on TV screens. Media owners will not dare to broadcast anything the regimes may not like. Annual license extension will be at risk and they can not afford that. Accreditation permits are another control tools on individual journalists. So much for free western media!!!! Why Russia should be different. I do believe that in general any time journos or reporters are harmed these incidents are blown out of proportions and fantastic theories are created by other journos and reporters. According to RT, 13 people per each 100 000 are murdered in Moscow every year. That means in the year Politkovskaya was murdered another 1300 people were also murdered in Moscow. Those 1300 did not get even 1% of the publicity Politkovskaya got. Clearly the journos do not care much for the average victim of crime. They care for themselves only and abuse the public trust in this process. That happens everywhere.

permalink quote john

sam 25 March, 2008, 21:37

Sevodnya_Net posted: considering Russia is not a war zone, it is indeed a comparatively dangerous place to be a certain type of journalist, but Russia is a war zone with fundamentalist terrorists from outside Russia pouring into Chechnyia and Dagestan,as well as local separatists activities.In fact those republics are mini Iraq.

permalink quote sam

Sevodnya_Net 26 March, 2008, 09:46

Sam, Well, I agree that certain areas of the North Caucasus are extremely unstable, but none of the journalists killed in Russia - so far as I can see - died in crossfire or in the dubious circumstances of a Terry Lloyd, say. For example, Anna Politkovskaya's death may or may not be related to her work in Chechnya but she was murdered a long way from any conflict zone. Same goes for the Dagestanis, one of whom wasn't even murderd in Dagestan. The REN tv trio were arrested and beaten in their "hotel" (for want of a better word to describe the Assa - actually war zone might be a better description to be fair!!) The later Chechen war was probably a comparatively safe war for journalists as the Kremlin did its damnedest to keep journalists away altogether(!) To John, You said: "Only pro Bush and pro Blair articles were written. Only pro war enthusiasts were invited to chats on TV and radio stations." which was the bit I can't really go along with. (George Galloway for example, was hardly been off the TV for months and I read lots of articles, mostly opposed to the war - I was a staunch opponent of the gulf war I'm sure like yourself.) Of course the "Allies" attempted to discourage unsupervised war reporting by encouraging journalists to travel with them and offer them as much access as possible to what was going on, but to my knowledge no journalist was or is prevented from going wherever they want. It's probably fair to say that journalist deaths get disproportionate coverage as their deaths are covered by . journalists but as Norman rightly points out journalists are potentially at risk from the same areas: the state, big business and organised crime, which potentially threaten all of us and while undoubtedly a few journalists are dishonest and unscrupulous the work of many of them has helped expose corruption and made it less easy for the powerful to sleep easy in their beds. So we should worry when attacks are made against them.

permalink quote Sevodnya_Net

Sam 26 March, 2008, 18:27

Sevodnya_Net even if some of the journalists that were killed did not die in the conflict zones,it does not mean they were not killed in relation to or by people who did have something to do with the conflict.It really makes no difference where they died but more on why they died.

permalink quote Sam

Sevodnya_Net 27 March, 2008, 09:29

From a statistical point of view where a journalist dies IS significant - people get killed in war zones often by mistake, especially journalists and photographers (tho of course tragically many others too). There was nothing very accidental about the deaths in question (and of course that applies equally to suspicious deaths anywhere). You asked about Anna Politkovskaya on a separate thread and why some suspect the Kremlin of involvement in her death. I'm well aware some people accuse the Kremlin - my point (badly made as usual) was that I didn't think anyone in this discussion was doing so. I certainly don't - there is no evidence to back that up as far as I'm aware. Of course there is what someone rather neatly called the "Henry II factor", ("who will rid me of this turbulent journalist/ex-FSB officer/liberal politician/awkward NGO/university" - delete as appropriate - mentioned in high circles and then acted on by enterprising individuals) but that is all speculation I freely admit. It's good for discussion groups and - journalists(!) - tho.

permalink quote Sevodnya_Net

Vijay Singh 27 March, 2008, 10:12

Let's talk about Tibet and the Western media, before we talk about Russian press/journalists - Of course, Global (read Western) is against China, and deviously so! If cropping pictures, altering shadows, doing clever artwork on videos is not bias, I don't know what is? And not only China, but India (where cows/buffaloes/shanties/poverty are shown to be the main actors), Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Africa,even countries like Brazil etc. The Western media had to come out of its COLD WAR mentality and accept the realities. That what is just for some may be subjugation for others! That what is freedom for some may be injurious for others! The main grouse of the 'mainstream' Western media is now that they probably don't control/colonize the NON-WESTERN world AND the main attitude is = "How dare they!" Above all, The West should forget being hypocrites and see both sides of the coin! The western media should wake up to the fact that - There are educated, enlightened (probably less than 'pure' westerners) outside the Western 'world'. AND that the rest is not like the West! Or vice versa.as they like it.it's their choice.as has been all these past centuries!!

permalink quote Vijay Singh

Karon 28 March, 2008, 18:57

Journalists killed in Russia have been investigative reporters. Unlike journalists and editors who analyze and report the news on political, economic and the affairs of civil society, investigative journalists focus on crime and corruption. Few of sound mind can deny that organized crime families, including, in some cases, oligarchs and officials connected were organized crime, were behind their murder. Historically, every country--east and west--has had its share of investigative journalists murdered by criminals, some at the direction of corrupt businessmen and appointed and elected officials who fear exposure and prosecution. But it is folly, sheer stupidity, to attribute their murder to an act of retaliation by the leadership of a nation. Proof can be found on the front page coverage of state owned and independent print media and in televised broadcast in Russia where the crime and corruption of investigative journalist is reported. It goes without saying there is a free press in Russia. Doubtless the murder rate among investigative journalists will diminish when the all pervasive crime and corruption of bandit capitalism begun under the Yeltsin-Chubais/Clinton-Gore era is under control.

permalink quote Karon

DaniYah 30 March, 2008, 16:03

Karon, you are right about Russian journalistic culture being based on investigative journalism. Your description of the other type of journalism, the 'analytical' journalism, is an accurate description of modern Western journalism, though some outstanding investigative journalists have come from the USA and other European nations. In fact, Western investigative journalists have found themselves squeezed out of the mass media information food chain. The elimination of the Western investigative journalism came as a result of government pressure and overt force (Dan Rather, beaten on a street, was warned about 'getting the frequency'- a warning of the CIA; Dith Pran, the Cambodian aid to American journalist Sydney Shanberg and Briton Jon Swain (who covered the US support for the Cambodian government's 'killing fields'), was killed in suspicious mugging; there are countless more examples.) The "pervasive crime and corruption of bandit capitalism begun under the Yeltsin-Chubais/Clinton-Gore era" is precisely that US CIA threat. One should wonder how Edward Jay Epstein, an American journalist, is blocked from reviewing hard evidence about the UK-Russia polonium scandal (and even about the nature of the element polonium itself, as well as the history of its applications, in his own country, the USA, or its closest ally, the UK. But in coming to Russia, he is received with open arms and a load of original documents from the case (of Alexander Litvinenko and the polonium poisoning/contamination of 2006). Can investigative journalists find respite in Russia? A fitting question. The answer is yes, as long as Russia can become a truly sovereign nation.

permalink quote DaniYah

Sanjay 31 March, 2008, 02:56

In Russia there are three types of journalists: 1. Paul Klebnikov type: Bold, fearless and patriotic towards the land of their ancestors. They get to the root of the matter and expose criminal oligarchs, financiers and terrorists who want Russia's collapse. 2. Politskovkaya type: Who are bold but hostile to Russia. These journalists collude with traitors to pursue a hidden agenda to destablize russian society. Under the garb of human rights and freedom, she actively colluded with terrorists such as Zakayev etc. and undermined russia's national security and sovereignity. They pretend they are fighting kremlin, when in fact they are fighting russian society. 2. The money-minders: Those who would write basically anything which the oligarchs and financier establishment ask them to, to undermine russian people and loot russia's resources. Threat to investigative journalism is blamed on kremlin or KGB, but in reality commodity-oligarchs and financiers pose a much bigger threat to them. Almost all pro-russian thinkers agree that in order to have a vibrant media and investigative journalism in the tradition of Paul Klebnikov, Russia will somehow have to break the power of oligarch-financiers and reduce the concentration of power and wealth in Russia. This will minimize the possibility of power and money being used for organized crime and threaten journalists.

permalink quote Sanjay

DaniYah 31 March, 2008, 03:54

Correction to my previous post: Haing S. Ngor, the actor who portrayed the investigative reporter Dith Pran in the movie "The killing fields", and himself a Cambodian human rights activist, was killed in February 1996. Dith Pran died today at age 65 of pancreatic cancer this Sunday morning in New Jersey.

permalink quote DaniYah

Sevodnya_Net 31 March, 2008, 09:49

"One should wonder how Edward Jay Epstein, an American journalist, is blocked from reviewing hard evidence about the UK-Russia polonium scandal . But in coming to Russia, he is received with open arms and a load of original documents from the case (of Alexander Litvinenko and the polonium poisoning/contamination of 2006)." Well, I can think of a very obvious reason. American (or indeed any) journalist asks to see police files on a sensitive case which has already caused a diplomatic row between two countries - he is, not surprisingly, told to get knotted. You can see the contrasting attitude from Moscow as laudable openness from the Russian side or cynical manipulation of a journalist after a scoop. I know where my money would go . If he'd asked to see the Anna Politkovskaya files, of course, he'd have picking fleas out of his ear all the way back to New York (and quite right, too) :-)

permalink quote Sevodnya_Net

DaniYah 1 April, 2008, 04:38

If it is as simple as you say, Sevodnya, that Russia allows the journalists review only the evidence that benefits Russia, then so be it. But then, come now, explain to us why the USA, Cronies, & Co not do the same with it's own 'verifiable' stashes to discredit the claims of its rival (the Truth)?

permalink quote DaniYah

Sevodnya_Net 1 April, 2008, 11:19

DaniYah, Well, I don't necessarily say that anything is simple: on the contrary, I was suggesting that there was more than one explanation for the picture you were painting. I think my view is more likely, but of course it is only a view. In fairness to the US/British investigators, why on earth would they release evidence into the public domain simply to counterbalance one journalist's story? That way chaos lies. I think that in the matter of Litvinenko the time has come for the evidence to be made public, but only as part of a proper legal process (inquest or extradition proceeding - realistically now probably the former) Sanjay, to say that journalists like Anna Politkovskaya "pretend they are fighting kremlin, when in fact they are fighting russian society" you must have an awfully low opinion of Russian society. Sounds like you favour a certain type of journalist who simply does things the way you want, which is hardly in the spirit of a free press.

permalink quote Sevodnya_Net

DaniYah 1 April, 2008, 20:12

Sevodnya! "why on earth would US/UK release evidence into the public domain simply to counterbalance one journalist's story?" I can't believe you say this. It seems you don't relate to journalism at all. Journalism means, that there is no story until the evidence is seen. So, the presentation of evidence is not to save/build a journalist's face, his career, etc. It's to give an accurate account of the EVENTS. That is my question. I can't see how you reduced your answer as if I was speaking about the person of Mr. Epstein. Don't you see what you are doing? The story as presented after the seeing the evidence corroborated the accounts of Litvinenko himself, as when he said that it was Scaramella that poisoned him. Why do you keep insisting on narrowing the facts? When you cut out such important facts, you are further driving the observation that true journalism is nearly impossible to do in the UK. I can't even imagine how you can think of speaking for a free press. I believe in a free press, so the disagreement we have between ourselves is over something else. Particularly in this forum question we are talking about whether Russia is favorable to journalism. There are two things to take into account: Journalists access to information; and journalists safety in Russia. I was dealing with the first things when talking about the access of information; as compared to the access in the UK/US. The Litvinenko/ polonium case is a good case to compare the journalism situation in the respective countries it with, because the polonium case is already a highly media-oriented case. There are many other cases/ journalist concerns that are related in one way or another to how this polonium case is being treated. I am making a point, that just as the US/UK has barred journalists from the evidence of in the polonium media storm; the US/UK show their attitude toward journalism in general. PERHAPS you forgot about Tony Blair's speech about curbing journalists freedoms in the UK????? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6744581.stm Followed and preceded by calls from the US officials to the same extent on USA journalism. And I add: if the UK/US go to such lengths to prevent journalistic freedom in the home country, then they also with their military/clandestine might will try to prevent Russian journalists from doing their job in Russia, ditto overseas. It's the EVIDENCE that is the point in question. And we know that the record of the UK/US investigative teams have produced evidence that is falsified, fabricated, and faux-naif time and again. Journalists deserve better. So does the UK/US. I point out that the false evidence is undermining the authority of the British/American government and the international agencies that cooperate with them (IAEA, Interpol, respective foreign gov's, etc.) All in all, falsehood and double-stepping is detrimental to all.

permalink quote DaniYah

Name*
Country, City
Valid e-mail*
Text*
Enter digits below*

	*Required fields