Russian Radio: 50% Good News mandated

[2Sheds_Jackson]

April 22, 2007
50% Good News Is the Bad News in Russian Radio
By ANDREW E. KRAMER

MOSCOW, April 21 — 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.

How would they know what constituted positive news?

“When we talk of death, violence or poverty, for example, this is not positive,” said one editor at the station who did not want to be identified for fear of retribution. “If the stock market is up, that is positive. The weather can also be positive.”

In a darkening media landscape, radio news had been a rare bright spot. Now, the implementation of the “50 percent positive” rule at the Russian News Service leaves an increasingly small number of news outlets that are not managed by the Kremlin, directly or through the state national gas company, Gazprom, a major owner of media assets.

The three national television networks are already state controlled, though small-circulation newspapers generally remain independent.

This month alone, a bank loyal to President Vladimir V. Putin tightened its control of an independent television station, Parliament passed a measure banning “extremism” in politics and prosecutors have gone after individuals who post critical comments on Web chat rooms.

(continues)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/world/europe/22russia.html?ei=5065&en=d4929f91a6c5b2aa&ex=1177819200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print


Nationally drinking the kool-aid?

[Gothjod]

I belive that having more "positive" news in the news is a good Idea. I think that the news here in the US is just too depressing.

[TheStorm]

and the United States was to be portrayed as an enemy,

Well, well, well. That's telling, though I can't say I'm surprised.

[Chuckie]

They are sort of on to something. The few times I watch the news by me, it's 28 minutes of stories about murder, rape, drugs and death followed by 60 seconds of weather and another 60 seconds of sports.

[INCONEL]

I belive that having more "positive" news in the news is a good Idea. I think that the news here in the US is just too depressing.


"Warm and Fuzzies" are for Social Workers and Snivel Servants...The world is a sh*thole...get used to it.

[themacedonian]

So what is the problem here??

The radio is told to report that the glass is half full and not half empty.

50% positive leaves another 50% negative. Now if they were told to report 51% of news to be positive NOW that is a problem.

Try watching news in Australia. "5000 workers might be stood down today by Ford .... and the weather todays is great for the sports events"

Half the news here can be classified as an advertisment or endorsement of some product, person or policy, then part is sports and part is weather. The real news gets a small mention.

[Gothjod]

"Warm and Fuzzies" are for Social Workers and Snivel Servants...The world is a sh*thole...get used to it.

I know the world is, well pretty messed up. Between shootings,stabings, killings, bombings, Global warming!, chemical disasters, natural disasters, hurricanes, tsunamies, and the list goes on and on and on.....

The point is many people have many problems in their life and by god they don't want to turn on the TV/radio/internet and someone is telling them that life Sucks and that the World is gonna blow up!.

Im not saying that ALL the "bad" news should be removed, no news should be removed at all... im saying that the news should (in am ideal world) be at least balanced (hence 50% good news 50% not so good news)

[Hunterhr]

So what is the problem here??

Hahahahahahahaha. :)

If you can't tell, there's not point in explaining it to you.

[Mr.K]

Hahahahahahahaha. :)

If you can't tell, there's not point in explaining it to you.

Yeah, only in a free world you're privileged enough to only hear bad news!

[Hunterhr]

Yeah, only in a free world you're privileged enough to only hear bad news!

Pretty much.

[themacedonian]

Hahahahahahahaha. :)

If you can't tell, there's not point in explaining it to you.

oooh I get it and I think I get it more than you.

If it was me I would have banned the tape from the Virginia Tech killer from being broadcast.

A lot of the terrorist actions are to bring them publicity and the Vtech guy got his publicity on TV and said what he wanted to say. But if you ban it then so many others will know that anything they do will NOT get GREAT publicity on TV.

But now things are starting to bite. Not too long ago a death of a US soldier deserved an amount of publicity and now a multiples of deaths do get a line of scrolling news and if you think that is right then there is no point explaining it to you.

The same reason deaths and injuries of troops are not given any more publicity in the US (will embarass current government) is the same reason that the Russians want news outlets to report more positive news and less negative.

[intelligenzija]

and the United States was to be portrayed as an enemy,

I cannot imagine that

[Herrmannek]

I belive that having more "positive" news in the news is a good Idea. I think that the news here in the US is just too depressing.

Thats why you got few hundreds of fun channels, If you don't like bad news just press the button on your remote control...

[Kilgor]

Thats why you got few hundreds of fun channels, If you don't like bad news just press the button on your remote control...

yes, as in turn the tv off.

The news is too depressing, but this "50% must be positive" is just like the good ol days of pravda

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

And the west does not do this?

I mean Op-Ed's and all.

[Herrmannek]

And the west does not do this?

I mean Op-Ed's and all.

Yes, but difference is they swap depending on Who is in the office... You have at least one station full of whining at the time....

[Switek]

This is another proof how weak is Putin's clique and how weak is their current legitimation...

Seems that official 75% support rate for Putin is also taken from old times of "Pravda"

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I actually see this move as a possible privatization of Russia's media. By setting up a system where 50% of news is favorable to the government and 50% against the Russians could possibly create two separate media organizations, privatize them.

Food for thought.

[Kilgor]

I actually see this move as a possible privatization of Russia's media. By setting up a system where 50% of news is favorable to the government and 50% against the Russians could possibly create two separate media organizations, privatize them.

Food for thought.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/070422/21/13718.html

something you would find interesting ...

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

News Limited is a good case in point that a monopoly can work. His organisation is huge yet there is still alot of diversity in the left/right equation.

[Digimon]

I actually see this move as a possible privatization of Russia's media. By setting up a system where 50% of news is favorable to the government and 50% against the Russians could possibly create two separate media organizations, privatize them.

Food for thought.

Russian media is privatized. "Channel One" and "Rossiya" are State Corporations, not unlike BBC or CBC.

The editorial guideline to provide 50% positive news is not the same as to provide 50% positive news about the government. I hope the difference does not need to be explained...

[Digimon]

This is another proof how weak is Putin's clique and how weak is their current legitimation...

Seems that official 75% support rate for Putin is also taken from old times of "Pravda"

There is no official anything… The data is gathered by a number of independent pollsters. There are no restriction on foreign pollsters…

[TheArmenian]

There is no official anything… The data is gathered by a number of independent pollsters. There are no restriction on foreign pollsters…

Switek knows that. He is just flamebaitingp-)

[Switek]

Switek knows that. He is just flamebaitingp-)

.... lol, TheArmenian, thank you for your appreciation p-)

[Digimon]

The change leaves Echo of Moscow, an irreverent and edgy news station that often provides a forum for opposition voices, as the only independent radio news outlet in Russia with a national reach.
And what does Aleksei Venediktov, the editor in chief of Echo of Moscow, think of the latest news from Russia?
“For Echo of Moscow, this is positive news,” Mr. Venediktov said. “We are a monopoly now. From the point of view of the country, it is negative news.”

The point of the article is to suggest that Kremlin and friends of the Kremlin are extending their control over media, and introducing censorship. Gazprom, the owner of not a highly critical NTV, is portrayed as the hand of the Kremlin. The ownership is pointed out as a an explanation of the uncritical coverage of the channel.

Yet, the fact that Gazprom also owns the “irreverent and edgy news station that often provides a forum for opposition voices, as the only independent radio news outlet in Russia” somehow slipped the mind of the author…. Evidence that does not fit the assumed paradigm is conveniently ignored, probably, so as not to confuse and overtax the reader with extra complications...

[Sergei]

This is another proof how weak is Putin's clique and how weak is their current legitimation...

Seems that official 75% support rate for Putin is also taken from old times of "Pravda"

I think you are just jealous that potato-brothers will never ever going to have even half of that.

[daily666]

Switek, Herrman, Kilgor and 2sheds the official Rusophobes of mp.net p-).

You cannot criticise Putinist implied radio propaganda, it's just not right goddamint!


I think you are just jealous that potato-brothers will never ever going to have even half of that.

Sadly they did have more than half of that. But Saddam got close to 99%, bet Putin is just jealous about him.

[Sergei]

Switek, Herrman, Kilgor and 2sheds the official Rusophobes of mp.net p-).

You cannot criticise Putinist implied radio propaganda, it's just not right goddamint!



Sadly they did have more than half of that. But Saddam got close to 99%, bet Putin is just jealous about him.

And I wish you a good day in the Kachinskistan as well.

[Herrmannek]

And I wish you a good day in the Kachinskistan as well.

It seems Kaczynski brothers ordered up to 99% of the bad news in our tv and radio...

[Liptow]

Wonder what happens if another Chernobyl goes off and the 50% bad news limit is depleted.

?

[Ordie]

Good news is boring.

Besides good news never sells newspapers or radio ratings.

How will the weather report come across?

[Digimon]

You have to keep in mind that this is not an official policy. It is an editorial policy of a private radio company. A private enterprise can pursue an editorial policy that has 100% good news, if it so chooses. If I own a radio broadcasting company I can make it broadcast jazz all day, or sports news, of weather, or Fox style “fair and balanced” BS, which, as has been pointed out, is neither fair nor balanced…. There are no restrictions on your editorial policy, and you can do with your property what you wish, in so far as it does not violate any of the federal laws regulating hate speech, defamation, etc…


Wonder what happens if another Chernobyl goes off and the 50% bad news limit is depleted.?


Good news is boring.
Besides good news never sells newspapers or radio ratings.
How will the weather report come across?

These are good points.

Radio is in the business of making money. If there is another Chernobyl, and the radio station does not cover it, users will switch to its competitor, and the station will lose money. In general, if bad news is unprofitable no one can force a private company to broadcast bad news. My freedom includes the freedom to be a government critic, as well as being a government supporter, and freedom of enterprise includes my freedom to use my property as I see fit, within the law.

The problems only arise when state regulations are introduced to curb the editorial freedom. However, this article was not about this, but about particular editorial choices that a private company made. The references to federal regulations and the use of the concept of “extremism” and ideologically or politically motivated “vandalism”(originally introduced in the Duma to deal with youth drawing swastikas in Jewish cemeteries) within the New York article conflated these two distinct issues.

Were this done on purpose? Well, they are certainly free to do this… . As far as media and public demand is concerned, fear sells, patriotism sells, sense of national superiority sells, and thus you get what you have…

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I wonder if the same people would voice similar support if Bush mandated that NPR also be at least 50% good news, and issue a list of acceptable subjects. Somehow I think not.

[Xaito]

I wonder if the same people would voice similar support if Bush mandated that NPR also be at least 50% good news, and issue a list of acceptable subjects. Somehow I think not.

why Bush? The management does it - in your country too - its nothing special thats how private media works. Because of that we have a few TV channels in germany that are obliged to be neutral so that people have a media source that is as unbiased as possible while on most other channels you probably won't even get a higher ranking job if you're not in the right political party - suffice it to say that the news are not neutral.
But thats even another story - this 50% thing isnt about censorship its about how the management thinks people will like the channel best.

[afreu]

@Susumu - Nonetheless all major private tv stations send basically the same news as the public ones with the only difference that the private ones substitute some international news with stuff about high society and ****.

/edit

When I read the title of this thread I thought this was a joke. This is clearly censorship of the media. It's hard to believe that there's still something like free press in Russia. So much for a democratic Russia.

[sir-chimp]

why Bush? The management does it - in your country too - its nothing special thats how private media works.


Actually its quite special how private media works in the States at least. If you cant see the difference between private media working their own agenda, and government censorship I dont know what to tell you.

I mean how do you explain the glaring and huge differences between self censorship and government censorship to some one if they cant see it for themselves.

You have to ask yourself is it even worth the effort or just say to yourself PT Barnum was right and shake your head.

[Digimon]

I wonder if the same people would voice similar support if Bush mandated that NPR also be at least 50% good news, and issue a list of acceptable subjects. Somehow I think not.



When I read the title of this thread I thought this was a joke. This is clearly censorship of the media. It's hard to believe that there's still something like free press in Russia. So much for a democratic Russia.

Who "mandated" the 50% positive news guideline? Was it Putin? If Putin (i.e. executive branch) or Duma (i.e. legislative branch) had done it, this would qualify as a form of censorship. If Bush had done it, then it would also qualify as a form of censorship. But it was not done by the state, it was done by the new management.

Russian News Service is a private company. When the hired management of a private company does it, with the agreement of the company's owners, it is not censorship. You might question their motives, but you cannot question their right to do this - it is precisely by questioning the right of a private media company to set their own editorial guidelines that you introduce censorship, and legitimize the state's interference in the affairs of private citizens and their right to free speech. My right to free speech includes my right to be a political prostitute... and the denial of this right constitutes a violation of my freedom.

If you think that there is anything wrong with this, then the first thing to be done is to raid the Fox News, the Economist, or The Washington Times, then criticizing Russia would not feel so surreal.

[Digimon]

If you cant see the difference between private media working their own agenda, and government censorship I dont know what to tell you.

I mean how do you explain the glaring and huge differences between self censorship and government censorship to some one if they cant see it for themselves.

"Russian News Service" (the subject of the New York Time's article) is a private media outlet. New guidelines are introduced by the new editorial management, not by the state.

[Lokos]

Who "mandated" the 50% positive news guideline? Was it Putin? If Putin (i.e. executive branch) or Duma (i.e. legislative branch) had done it, this would qualify as a form of censorship. If Bush had done it, then it would also qualify as a form of censorship. But it was not done by the state, it was done by the new management.

Russian News Service is a private company. When the hired management of a private company does it, with the agreement of the company's owners, it is not censorship. You might question their motives, but you cannot question their right to do this - it is precisely by questioning the right of a private media company to set their own editorial guidelines that you introduce censorship, and legitimize the state's interference in the affairs of private citizens and their right to free speech. My right to free speech includes my right to be a political prostitute... and the denial of this right constitutes a violation of my freedom.

If you think that there is anything wrong with this, then the first thing to be done is to raid the Fox News, the Economist, or The Washington Times, then criticizing Russia would not feel so surreal.



This is mp.net, Digimon. When it comes to Russia, all negative developments will be blamed on its government (Putin specifically), all civic issues will be portents of a new Soviet Union, all foreign policy will be strictly anti-US and all actions undertaken in the defence of that foreign policy will be construed as such, too.

Don't fool yourself.

Lokos

[Digimon]

This is mp.net, Digimon. When it comes to Russia, all negative developments will be blamed on its government (Putin specifically), all civic issues will be portents of a new Soviet Union, all foreign policy will be strictly anti-US and all actions undertaken in the defence of that foreign policy will be construed as such, too.

Don't fool yourself.

Lokos

p-)

This might be so Lokos, but, ultimately, one has to take a stand. If we only debated with those who agree with us, we would probably understand ourselves and our own positions very little…

[koozya]

This is mp.net, Digimon. When it comes to Russia, all negative developments will be blamed on its government (Putin specifically), all civic issues will be portents of a new Soviet Union, all foreign policy will be strictly anti-US and all actions undertaken in the defence of that foreign policy will be construed as such, too.

Don't fool yourself.

Lokos
100% yeap

[Atlantic Friend]

Wonder what happens if another Chernobyl goes off and the 50% bad news limit is depleted.

?

Something like that :


"And now some more good news. To cater to the needs of successful businessmen from the Pripat area, our business-friendly government has authorized a huge release of free energy, that will be available to all our hard-working citizens in the Oblast and possibly beyond.

As an aside bonus, the government has also decided to experiment socialized medicine in the same Oblast, to make sure our successful and happy citizens do not exhaust themselves in their enthusiasm to pursue a full and rich life in our great nation. In the spirit of hard-work and dedication that characterizes our nation, we are told medical experts are being efficiently transported to the Oblast as we speak.

We cannot provide you any picture, as the Presidency spokesman precised us such a generous initiative should not be flaunted, because it might bring shame to less efficient governments in less fortunate nations. "Aw, shucks, just doing my job here" said the Oblast governor, donning a white suite with a gas mask, probably so as to shy away from public attention."
After all, all they have to do is to bring the best from British tabloids, Fox News, and the MSM from every nation when in full "we are the champions" mode.

[annihilation]

This is mp.net, Digimon. When it comes to Russia, all negative developments will be blamed on its government (Putin specifically), all civic issues will be portents of a new Soviet Union, all foreign policy will be strictly anti-US and all actions undertaken in the defence of that foreign policy will be construed as such, too.

Don't fool yourself.

Lokos


Pretty much, why should it be different.

[Atlantic Friend]

I mean how do you explain the glaring and huge differences between self censorship and government censorship to some one if they cant see it for themselves.

Well, as a citizen/consumer of news, there isn't much of a difference. I get fed bull**** in both cases, and it doesn't matter too much if that smelly BS comes from a corporate board of directors or from a Propaganda Ministry. Neither should decide what kind of news is good for me, and what kinf they cannot trust me with.

[Flamming_Python]

This is mp.net, Digimon. When it comes to Russia, all negative developments will be blamed on its government (Putin specifically), all civic issues will be portents of a new Soviet Union, all foreign policy will be strictly anti-US and all actions undertaken in the defence of that foreign policy will be construed as such, too.

Don't fool yourself.

Lokos

Actually I find mp.net to be far more fair to the Russian side of the issue than many other boards. Sometimes the Russophobes go overboard, sometimes the Russophiles do, but what we end up with is such a huge quantity of information from both sides that more neutrally minded people will be able to glean a fair assessment of a certain issue without the bias that accompanies media sources.

[Firetxmi]

Isn't this what a lot of you guys want? I mean all I hear around here is "the news from Iraq is only showing the bad stuff...."

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Have I missed something, are some of you really that dim...or are you just putting your heads in the sand and hoping it will get better some day?



In a darkening media landscape, radio news had been a rare bright spot. Now, the implementation of the “50 percent positive” rule at the Russian News Service leaves an increasingly small number of news outlets that are not managed by the Kremlin, directly or through the state national gas company, Gazprom, a major owner of media assets.


Gazprom is owned by the state. Gazprom owns media outlets. Therefore, in Russia, there are media outlets that are overtly controlled by the state, and those run by Gazprom, which have 1° of separation from the state - like a CIA front company for example. Therefore, both types now serve at the pleasure of the government. It also makes not one whit of difference whether Putin signed this order while in his pajamas, or if the legislature did - it is still government control of the media - which, if I remember right, is still supposed to be a bad thing.

There is a huge huge difference between private editorial control over the media (such as with the dreaded Fox news, or Rather's fake news CBS etc.) and editorial content mandated by the government. While I constantly harp on what a problem biased news reporting in the US represents - it's still orders of magnitude better than news content centrally controlled by the State. Christ, I never took a civics class in my life, and I still at least know that much.

[Xaito]

Gazprom is owned by the state. Gazprom owns media outlets. Therefore, in Russia, there are media outlets that are overtly controlled by the state

I don't see the problem where you see one - I think the only problem is that Gazprom has the monopoly over lots of business areas in Russia - state owned (not controlled) media is no problem imo - as long as the government doesn't start telling the media to tell lies or to hide facts there is no problem - the 50% thing is just a marketing strategy - something the managers came up with when thinking about how you can reorganize the broadcasting time. The bad news will be still there.
And believe me you will be the first one to know if Russian media starts twisting facts as western media watches everything very closely and jump on everything like hungry animals. Besides - our Russian members here have all access to both western media (at least via internet) and russian (ditto) and even if you might not believe it I don't think anybody of us will hide it if we notice BS on russian News - IMO so far it has been mostly western media that made up wild "theories" which they try to sell as truth, concealed information that would make these theories even less plausible then they already are and blown things out of proportion.

[Hunterhr]

Isn't this what a lot of you guys want? I mean all I hear around here is "the news from Iraq is only showing the bad stuff...."

However no one is arguing that a certain percentage of good news be required.

[Atlantic Friend]

While I constantly harp on what a problem biased news reporting in the US represents - it's still orders of magnitude better than news content centrally controlled by the State. Christ, I never took a civics class in my life, and I still at least know that much.

it may sound like a knee jerk reaction to you, then, but as a citizen I fail to see how it is better for me to be lied to by a bunch of board directors from the private sector than by a bunch of civil servants from the Information Ministry.

To (mis)quote Margaret Thatcher, a lie is a lie is a lie...

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I don't see the problem where you see one - I think the only problem is that Gazprom has the monopoly over lots of business areas in Russia - state owned (not controlled) media is no problem imo - as long as the government doesn't start telling the media to tell lies or to hide facts there is no problem - the 50% thing is just a marketing strategy - something the managers came up with when thinking about how you can reorganize the broadcasting time. The bad news will be still there.

Well, no only some of it will be there. Hiding facts is exactly what this is about. The news that the State does not want reported will not be reported. That is not just government ownership of the media, that's government control of the media

As with all news, there will be a massive stack of bad news, and a tiny stack of good news. All the good news will get reported, and those facts the government wants concealed will simply not make it to the "air" pile. Good lord, can you imagine what a skewed worldview this would produce for their listeners? I can't even imagine what a US news report with 50% good news would look like - it would be something out of 1984. I dunno, maybe folks over there are so accustomed to being hand-fed their news by the State that they just don't see anything unusual about this.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

it may sound like a knee jerk reaction to you, then, but as a citizen I fail to see how it is better for me to be lied to by a bunch of board directors from the private sector than by a bunch of civil servants from the Information Ministry.

To (mis)quote Margaret Thatcher, a lie is a lie is a lie...

A lie may be a lie, but the purpose of the lie is all important. A lie to get you to buy soap is different than a lie to keep you in the dark about what your government is doing. Don't you recognize that the role of media in a democracy must be somewhat adversarial? Freedom of the press is essential, or the population will be living in a dream world, force-fed the reality their government chooses for them. That's a helluva lot more dangerous than some corporate news media that's just trying to get you to buy a certain type of microwave oven.

[Xaito]

Well, no only some of it will be there. Hiding facts is exactly what this is about. The news that the State does not want reported will not be reported. That is not just government ownership of the media, that's government control of the media

As with all news, there will be a massive stack of bad news, and a tiny stack of good news. All the good news will get reported, and those facts the government wants concealed will simply not make it to the "air" pile. Good lord, can you imagine what a skewed worldview this would produce for their listeners? I can't even imagine what a US news report with 50% good news would look like - it would be something out of 1984. I dunno, maybe folks over there are so accustomed to being hand-fed their news by the State that they just don't see anything unusual about this.

First of all - don't forget we are talking about one single radio station here - not the Television or newspapers or anything - this also shows that its not a nationwide government order or something - also the "some bad news will not be made public" theory is just wrong - believe me that all newsworthy bad news will still be there - its just that some stuff with minor importance will be told shorter and maybe some stories of an old granny who got robbed on the bazar or something will be left out.
Russian news are not much different from western news - you don't get more news hand-fed then in the west (western managers also have personal agendas even with news)- I remember seeing russian news on TV once in a week where some bad stuff happened - plane crash, mineworkers killed and I think a big fire somewhere - the whole news program was like one big report on catastrophes or somehting - including lots of details and crying people and everything - believe me bad news are not left out.

I say it again - if somehting will be left out or lies are spread by russian media you'll notice because it will be in every western news program and newspaper the next day. Then we can talk again.
Until then: you worry too much - russians are not that much different from western people - don't always assume they want to conquer the world, restore dictatorship or any other BS ;)

[Atlantic Friend]

A lie may be a lie, but the purpose of the lie is all important. A lie to get you to buy soap is different than a lie to keep you in the dark about what your government is doing. Don't you recognize that the role of media in a democracy must be somewhat adversarial? Freedom of the press is essential, or the population will be living in a dream world, force-fed the reality their government chooses for them. That's a helluva lot more dangerous than some corporate news media that's just trying to get you to buy a certain type of microwave oven.

To make things clearer, I am not talking about lying to me in an ad - but in news.

Like, is it okay to present me slanted news coverage of the war in Iraq ? Is it okay to lie to me about the results of the next US election ? Even commercial lies must have their limits. For example, is it okay to lie to me about the side effects of Flu shot A or Vitamin complement B on pregnant women, so as not to hurt the lab's sales projections ?

I totally endorcse the adversarial role of free media in the democratic process, and don't get me wrong, the feer the press the better. But I cling to the probably nostalgic and long-gone notion that such a role is better served with truths than with lies. I am not a US citizen, but if I were, lying to me about what president Bush did or failed to do wouldn't be the best way to have me vote Democrat. I'd probably join the growing part of the US electorate who is either fed up or disgusted with both parties and fail to turn up for the elections.

Telling me "hey, we promise we'll only lie to you if and when it means making extra money at your expense" is basically on the same level, IMHO that is, to telling me "heck, we'll only lie to you if and when it suits the government's agenda". Particularly when economical and political interests are meshed together so tightly these days. I'd trade both corporate or government liars for a group that tells the truth any day, regardless of that group's status.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

First of all - don't forget we are talking about one single radio station here - not the Television or newspapers or anything - this also shows that its not a nationwide government order or something - also the "some bad news will not be made public" theory is just wrong -

....er, did you read the article? It's not one station, it's an entire radio network - which used to be independent, but is now under state control. This is in addition to the other radio network which is already under state control - and the 3 national TV networks...which are under state control. Sounds an awful lot like a boiled frog to me..



believe me that all newsworthy bad news will still be there - its just that some stuff with minor importance will be told shorter and maybe some stories of an old granny who got robbed on the bazar or something will be left out.

Says who? Believe you? Well, I would believe you, but it's not up to you - it's up to the government. This is an order from the state to leave out bad news. There's simply going to be a significant portion of news that people will not get - and that's precisely why the government ordered this. This is a measure that benefits the government, implemented by a government entity (the media) - why do it at all if it would not have an effect? Of course important information will be left out - why else do this at all?



Russian news are not much different from western news - you don't get more news hand-fed then in the west (western managers also have personal agendas even with news) -

Perhaps I have not made myself clear on this concept. There is a huge difference between a news editor who's agenda is to scrutinize the government, and one who works for the government. In a democracy, it is essential that people know what their government is doing. 99.9% of news editors in the west could be said to be anti-government...which promotes a healthy, if contentious, society.



I remember seeing russian news on TV once in a week where some bad stuff happened - plane crash, mineworkers killed and I think a big fire somewhere - the whole news program was like one big report on catastrophes or somehting - including lots of details and crying people and everything - believe me bad news are not left out.

Well, half of it will be left out from now on. So both air travel and mines will instantly appear 50% safer. Now there's something that will make people happy.



Until then: you worry too much - russians are not that much different from western people - don't always assume they want to conquer the world, restore dictatorship or any other BS ;)

Well it's becoming apparent that it's not the Russian people we need to worry about, as they're increasingly turning into mushrooms (i.e. kept in the dark and fed manure). I find it distressing that anybody would so easily dismiss such an elementary aspect of democracy. With increased freedom comes increased responsibility - and this IMHO is a huge abdication of that responsibility.

BTW I'm not arguing that these new rules are anything more than one more sign of a creeping all-powerful central government in Russia. I'm just a bit perplexed how a people who just shrugged off an oppressive system could so easily and quickly be massaged right back into it.

[achilles]

In a darkening media landscape, radio news had been a rare bright spot. Now, the implementation of the “50 percent positive” rule at the Russian News Service leaves an increasingly small number of news outlets that are not managed by the Kremlin, directly or through the state national gas company, Gazprom, a major owner of media assets.

Sounds like more government control over Russian media and less democracy for the Russians. Bad news.

[Xaito]

Well, half of it will be left out from now on. So both air travel and mines will instantly appear 50% safer. Now there's something that will make people happy.


your calculation is simply wrong - first of all its not like there were 100% bad news before and second its not like they'll make "a mining accident, a half crashed aircraft and no fire" out of "a mining accident a planecrash and a fire".
Its just that they are supposed to not let out the good stuff that happens either. Its not a "tell lies to the people" order.


...er, did you read the article? It's not one station, it's an entire radio network - which used to be independent, but is now under state control. This is in addition to the other radio network which is already under state control - and the 3 national TV networks...which are under state control. Sounds an awful lot like a boiled frog to me..
ok one network then - still I haven't heard anything about 50% quotas for television or newspaper? If it comes from the government like you think then why only for the radio network?

edit:

Says who? Believe you? Well, I would believe you, but it's not up to you
believe me as in "its my opinion and I don't know for sure but I have a long lasting history of first hand experience with russian media and am not basing my opinion on just one article" ;)

[2Sheds_Jackson]

your calculation is simply wrong - first of all its not like there were 100% bad news before and second its not like they'll make "a mining accident, a half crashed aircraft and no fire" out of "a mining accident a planecrash and a fire".
Its just that they are supposed to not let out the good stuff that happens either. Its not a "tell lies to the people" order.

You're right, it's not a directive to tell untruths, just to leave out 50% of the truths...the ones the government considers bad. That's what's known as a lie of omission. Look, if it didn't matter, if it had no effect, they wouldn't be doing it to begin with, right?



ok one network then - still I haven't heard anything about 50% quotas for television or newspaper? If it comes from the government like you think then why only for the radio network?

mmmm well it's not as I say, it's what the article says. I admit I'm taking it as being accurate (unless they've left out 50% of the bad news :lol: ah, I crack myself up). So I really can't answer why, other than to say the article points out that up until now, the radio network had been an especially good source for information critical of the government.

I'm not trying to bash Russia here. We have the same mentality here in the US - courtesy of the "fairness doctrine" - a concept that has been floating around for a few years but has not been implemented. In the US, radio has become a conduit for an alternate (and decidedly right-wing) media - and our leftist members of Congress have sought to do exactly the same thing by legislating content. I think it sucks for Russia (where it is apparently happening) and for the US (where for the time being, there is not enough support to let it happen). So what I'm bashing here is the idea of a central government executing a slick power grab...not any particular nation.

[Xaito]

You're right, it's not a directive to tell untruths, just to leave out 50% of the truths...the ones the government considers bad. That's what's known as a lie of omission. Look, if it didn't matter, if it had no effect, they wouldn't be doing it to begin with, right?


I think you still take the "50%" too literally.
They mean 50% of the broadcasting time is to be used for good and 50% for bad stuff - not "leave out 50% of the bad news" they don't ask to leave out bad news (especially not selective) they just ask to bring an equal amount good news too.
you can still be critical of the government or anybody else you want in 50% of the broadcasting time.
As for why they did it I don't know - I'm no media expert but it might be a marketing strategy because they think thats what people would like more - not only hearing depressing stuff.

Furthermore I don't think anybody is stopping people from listening to other radiostations or starting a new radio network if they are unhappy with the way the new owners of the old one handle things - would be good for russia too if they do - a step towards how free market in the western countries works. The only problem then is - like I said before - that some corporates have too much influence and are an unfair competition for new small ones - russia would need some antitrust laws.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I think you still take the "50%" too literally.
They mean 50% of the broadcasting time is to be used for good and 50% for bad stuff - not "leave out 50% of the bad news" they don't ask to leave out bad news (especially not selective) they just ask to bring an equal amount good news too.
you can still be critical of the government or anybody else you want in 50% of the broadcasting time.
As for why they did it I don't know - I'm no media expert but it might be a marketing strategy because they think thats what people would like more - not only hearing depressing stuff.

...well I suppose we can agree to disagree - but it's been my experience that radio functions best as an alternative to other media. Limbaugh is a ultra-gajillionaire not because he simply repeats the same stuff on the TV news...so there's obviously plenty of money to be made in rocking he boat.



Furthermore I don't think anybody is stopping people from listening to other radiostations or starting a new radio network if they are unhappy with the way the new owners of the old one handle things - would be good for russia too if they do - a step towards how free market in the western countries works. The only problem then is - like I said before - that some corporates have too much influence and are an unfair competition for new small ones - russia would need some antitrust laws.

It will be interesting to see what happens. I can envision something like what happened here in both media and telecom - where many small time operators get their foot in the door, only to be bought out by corporations, resulting after a few years in only a handful of choices. And I think it's a bit scarier when one of the entities doing the buying is the government.

[Digimon]

Have I missed something, are some of you really that dim...or are you just putting your heads in the sand and hoping it will get better some day?

Gazprom is owned by the state. Gazprom owns media outlets. Therefore, in Russia, there are media outlets that are overtly controlled by the state, and those run by Gazprom, which have 1° of separation from the state - like a CIA front company for example. Therefore, both types now serve at the pleasure of the government. It also makes not one whit of difference whether Putin signed this order while in his pajamas, or if the legislature did - it is still government control of the media - which, if I remember right, is still supposed to be a bad thing.

There is a huge huge difference between private editorial control over the media (such as with the dreaded Fox news, or Rather's fake news CBS etc.) and editorial content mandated by the government. While I constantly harp on what a problem biased news reporting in the US represents - it's still orders of magnitude better than news content centrally controlled by the State. Christ, I never took a civics class in my life, and I still at least know that much.
Look. You should read the article again, but critically. The Russian News Service is not owned by Gazprom, which is a corporation where the state has a controlling stake. It is owned by private business. Do you understand this? Here is what the author says:


The Russian News Service is owned by businesses loyal to the Kremlin, including Lukoil (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/l/lukoil/index.html?inline=nyt-org), though its exact ownership structure is not public. The owners had not meddled in editorial matters before, said Mikhail G. Baklanov, the former news editor, in a telephone interview.
Gazprom does own NTV, and you could say about NTV that it is owned by a state corporation (note: BBC and CBC are also state corporations), and hence by the state. But this is not the case here. The author purposely buries the information about the actual ownership of the radio station in the middle of the article, right after bombarding the reader with the stations and networks that are actually, directly or indirectly, under the state control. Hence, you get the impression that it is the state who is mandating 50% editorial guideline to one of its media outlets. You are played.

Having said this, it is true that the state has control over most federal broadcasting networks that provide news. As far as democratic institutions are concerned, this is the biggest problem in Russia. The general criticism in the article is founded. But as far as the Russian News Service is concerned, the situation is, if you will, of self-censorship, not state mandated censorship (structurally it is Fox not BBC).

[SOG]

**** news on the tv and **** news on the radio. its the same old **** and will always be so. a dead body found on the roadside near a canyon warrants more news time than 1000 samaritans good deeds and random acts of kindness. talk about agenda. russia is simply balancing the two instead of hose feeding one over the other in a ratings war. i wholly agree with russia on this. if the news is going to abuse the freedoms of the press like they do over here, then **** it, regulate it.

peace out!

[Digimon]

Well, as a citizen/consumer of news, there isn't much of a difference. I get fed bull**** in both cases, and it doesn't matter too much if that smelly BS comes from a corporate board of directors or from a Propaganda Ministry. Neither should decide what kind of news is good for me, and what kinf they cannot trust me with.

The difference between the state controlled media and private media is competition.

State censorship represents a monopoly on what news comes out, so, you have no choice in the kind of BS you get. You probably would not even know that you are given BS since there will be nothing with which you can compare it. This represents a violation of free speech.

Self-censorship, on the other hand, is a consequence of free speech. It represents a private choice between possible alternative ways of presenting information. Since under the conditions of free market media outlets compete with each other for profits and ratings, a ground is provided for critical coverage of issues, which comes down to showing that the other media outlets are full of BS. In a sense, while private media outlets are not interested in truth as much as profits, truth, under most conditions, will be the shortest route to higher profits.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Look. You should read the article again, but critically. The Russian News Service is not owned by Gazprom, which is a corporation where the state has a controlling stake. It is owned by private business. Do you understand this? Here is what the author says:


Gazprom does own NTV, and you could say about NTV that it is owned by a state corporation (note: BBC and CBC are also state corporations), and hence by the state. But this is not the case here. The author purposely buries the information about the actual ownership of the radio station in the middle of the article, right after bombarding the reader with the stations and networks that are actually, directly or indirectly, under the state control. Hence, you get the impression that it is the state who is mandating 50% editorial guideline to one of its media outlets. You are played.


Prove it. But you can't can you? The businesses are "friendly" to the government, the individuals now in charge of the radio network work for the government. Conveniently enough, the exact ownership of the network is not made public by the government...I wonder why that would be?

But we do know this apparently-



Two weeks ago, the shareholders asked for the resignation of Mr. Baklanov. They appointed two new managers, Aleksandr Y. Shkolnik, director of children’s programming on state-owned Channel One, and Svevolod V. Neroznak, an announcer on Channel One. Both retained their positions at state television.
Mr. Shkolnik articulated the rule that 50 percent of the news must be positive, regardless of what cataclysm might befall Russia on any given day, according to the editor who was present at the April 10 meeting
.

...and that

When in doubt about the positive or negative quality of a development, the editor said, “we should ask the new leadership.”

Yeah, ok...when in doubt, ask the guys who work for the government. It would take several gallons of vodka to fail to connect these dots.

[Firetxmi]

**** news on the tv and **** news on the radio. its the same old **** and will always be so. a dead body found on the roadside near a canyon warrants more news time than 1000 samaritans good deeds and random acts of kindness. talk about agenda. russia is simply balancing the two instead of hose feeding one over the other in a ratings war. i wholly agree with russia on this. if the news is going to abuse the freedoms of the press like they do over here, then **** it, regulate it.

peace out!

Like I said 2sheds, there are those in the U.S. who want this.

[Digimon]

Prove it. But you can't can you? The businesses are "friendly" to the government, the individuals now in charge of the radio network work for the government. Conveniently enough, the exact ownership of the network is not made public by the government...I wonder why that would be?
It is the responsibility of the journalist to prove facts, you see, not the other way around. I hope that this principle does not need defending, although I have spent enough time arguing with others about principles of sufficient reason and media ethics. The fact is, you do not know that the government or a state corporation owns the network; all you know is that a private oil company Lukoil, owns part of the network.

Furthermore, it is not the government that keeps the ownership information secret. Government has nothing to do with making “exact ownership” public. It is the prerogative of the business, and unfortunately, in Russia, crossed corporate ownership through all kinds of special entities is a rule rather than the exception. The practice developed as a result of tax evasion technologies in the nineties. If lack of information regarding the ownership was sufficient to infer state ownership, Kremlin would own half of the country, if not more.

Finally, there is absolutely no reason why a professional from a state media network cannot be hired to work in a private media network. The new editors do not control the owners of the network, they work at the will of the owners, who can freely hire or fire them. If the owners chose to promote the current state policy, and Putin personally, it is reasonable that they would select to hire professionals with the appropriate background. Remember, the problem here is not the content of the owner’s choices, but how these choices are made, i.e. that the choices are free.

[turska]

At least the media could try to dig up some positive news every now and then so that 30 min aint only filled with murders, genocides and wars.