Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:01, 27 July 2007

Title of this article

Should it be "Media freedom in Russia", "Freedom of expression in Russia", or "Censorship in Russia"? Biophys 21:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I propose to create both three articles and fill them with equal stuff, to make editors' life impossible. ellol 10:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

TV directors in Kremlin

Translation of conversation thread at Livejournal account of Russian journalist Oleg Kashin (LJ user "another_kashin"):

user:

Yevgeniya Albats claims that directors of TV companies and newspapers are every thursday invited to Kremlin at meetings with Vladislav Surkov, where they are told which news where to present. Strictly, "Today the directors of the television channels and the newspapers are invited every Thursday into the Kremlin office of the deputy head of administration, Vladislav Surkov to learn what news should be presented, and where."

Would you comment on this?

user: another_kashin

As far as I know, such meetings are no longer with Surkov; also two years ago they were cancelled by incentive of Kremlin, and soon restored by incentive of directors of TV companies.

Western media (and Albats especially) don't understand nothing at all about Russia.

user:

And may be, you would take into it and write, what do directors of TV discuss inside Kremlin walls? The theme for journalist investigation is great, topical and uncovered. Perhaps, dangerous too. But we have, the hell, democracy! and you are representative of fourth branch of power. We would be proud of you! :)

user: another_kashin

Perhaps it's really a great and uncovered thema, but as soon as number of participants of such meetings hardly exceeds five, and moreover, hardly any of them has inclination to spread contents of the conversations beyond bounds of that office (and it's since one works, that one doesn't has such inclination), so perhaps it's even impossible to learn that for sure.

But it's very simple to guess, what happens there and what's the sense of such meetings. Two leading channels of the country directly belong to the state, the third belongs to the state company "Gazprom". Has the leading stockholder the right to carry consultations with heads of its companies? Undoubtedly has. Has it the right to get involved in editorial policy? The law sais nothing about it, and the shareholder, obviously, gets involved -- it's brilliantly seen from contents of broadcasts, by the way, which I believe are rarely taken seriously by anybody in Russia, TV is industry of entertainment and ratings are quite convicting to witness that.

Then, may such meetings and on the whole interference in editorial policy be considered violence upon good will of managers of TV companies? I guess, no. In exchange for that interference, TV companies obtain, at first, perceptible preferences towards access of any information (there are many places, institutions, people, accessible only by state TV companies, and inaccessible for journalists of private newspapers), and what's more important, unlimited opportunity to earn money in spheres, which do no interest the state — movies, show-business, and so on (in these domains state companies became serious players only now, under Putin, and it's because share of responsibility looks approximately so.)

It must be noted, Oleg Kashin's interlocutor was me (LJ user evagen). But I think that we could use this very interesting information without regard on that. It IS NOT original research, as it doesn't really mean, who was Kashin's interlocutor. ellol 20:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Freedom house report

Continuing the discussion started at talk pages of users Lysy and Ellol.

I think it's good to mention Kuznetsov's commentary, as it represents critical approach to the report, but there's no point in discussing this in detail, as his criticism is quite shallow and not notable to be so prominently analysed in the encyclopaedia article. This is regardless if he is right or wrong. I suggest to take this discussion to the article's talk page. --Lysy 15:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss it. I think it's notable, why? The article is about media freedom in Russia, not in the world, so there's no point to omit such details like known journalists, websites, laws. Freedom House report covered 150 countries, there were only two pages about Russia. Even if Kuznetsov is unknown in the West, he's published at the site Lenta.Ru, which is at least included in top 5 Russian internet news sites (among Rbc.ru, Gazeta.ru, perhaps rian.ru, km.ru or grani.ru).

Well, unlike Freedom House Kuznetsov is polite and accurate. Don't you mistake that for shallowness?

Look. Freedom House says: "Media freedom was further curtailed in 2006 as President Vladimir Putin’s government passed legislation restricting news reporting". This claim is based on two things: 1) New law on NGOs (FH and Kuznetsov have different perspectives on that but that's not viewed) 2) Ammendments to the Law on Fighting Extremist Activity. Is there a difference between "media criticism" or "public slander" considered extremism? If media criticism is considered extremism, it means, that you may be jailed for article "President heads the country in wrong direction". Doom's day. If public slader (what's in reality) -- you may be punished only for articles like "Governor protects an underground terrorists base", or "President humiliated Ingush nationals at the meeting in Kremlin." And only after a trial which would check the facts. Although nothing good, but it makes difference.

Does it worth mentioning? Surely. Because, simply "media criticism", as I said, is doom's day and absolute end of democracy, like some guys have already mentioned at Wiki talk pages.

The next Freedom House claims: "authorities are able to use the judicial systems to harass and prosecute independent journalists." "Criminal courts also sentenced several journalists on charges of “inciting racial hatred” for publicizing controversial events in Chechnya." FH bases this on history of two journalists. Does it make difference, if they are innocent investigators or really "incited racial hatred"? Surely. Because in the first case it is really suppression of freedom speech, masked as if it's violation of a law. But in the second case, it's triumph of the judiciary, which punished a journalist who used his power towards direction of destructing Russia's multinational society and provoking further ethnic conflicts (If you had Chechen war in your country, you wouldn't consider this reason laughable). Here Kuznetsov's notice is very notable, because the matter is really thin. (btw, I've learned in school that "several" denotes "three or more".)

Freedom House claims: "journalists were subjected to physical violence and intimidation." "Other journalists who were killed in 2006—likely for reasons tied to their work, according to media watchdogs— list of 4-5 names" Of course it's bad when a journalist is murdered. But there are 30,000 newspapers. We can estimate 100,000 journalists. Every year 30 people for each 100,000 are murdered in Russia -- not safe country. We can estimate every year 30 murdered journalists. It's simple mathematics. And the problem here is not with speech freedom, but with proper work of law defense structures. The real question is -- whether journalists are killed for reasons tied with their work? FH claims: yes, it seems they were. Kuznetsov claims: no, it's clear only that Politkovskaya was killed for her work, and others most probably were killed on the same grounds as any other 28,000 murder victims in 2006.

Of course, I greately exaggerated Kuznetsov's reaction in my this reasoning, just to make things clearer. (In the article I tried to hold closely to his article -- correct me please if I was inaccurate.) But he is a Russian journalist, it would look strange if he would furiously stand against organisation which claims to protect him and his colleagues. But he said enough for a thoughtful reader. He discussed the main thing -- i.e. facts that FH used to ground its claims. Because without proper grounds one claim is as good as the other. ellol 17:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Andrey Kuznetsov

Who is this Andrey Kuznetsov? Could you provide any refernce saying at least that he is a journalist? What newspaper he works for? This reference (an automatic translation?) looks like a blog. Where is original used for translation?Biophys 17:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)