Talk:Media freedom in Russia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Russia Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
Society Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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." [1]
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)

[edit] 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. --Lysytalk 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)

[edit] 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? I am asking because Google search does not identify any journalist named "Andrey Kuznetsov". Biophys 17:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Even if supported by sources, this minority opinion of an unknown person was given undue weight in this article: his opinions occupy more space than an official statement by internationally recognized organization.Biophys 17:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight

You just said: "Due weight. First we have statements of FH on some topics, then we have different opinion on the same topics from a reputable source. Few in US heard abt Lenta.ru, but few in Russia heard abt F House!)". Sorry, but it does not work this way. On one side, we haveFreedom House (see Wikipedia article); this is a notable International organization; it published results of research, not a opinion piece; the results of their reserach were published in numerous sources. On the other side, we have a private opinion of a comletely unknown person. Could you please provide at least one publication about him? I have no idea who he is.Biophys 19:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, this is only his opinion, not even a minority opinion. Since he is not a notable person or a widely recognized expert, his opinion has no Encyclopedic value and therefore should be deleted.Biophys 19:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's all okey. Who sais Freedom House is a notable organization? In Russia it's absolutely disreputable, for that crap which it composes about my country. And it's research is all crap, as simply a journalist, using sources, most of which can be checked through the Internet, has managed to show pretty well. As for their "research made by the team", it's more about lurking from responsibility, as we can't look in honest faces of people who prepared that report. About Kuznetsov, do a google search. As you see, there are 1,000 links, many are to his articles at this site, on serious topics, which speaks about his professionalism. ellol 21:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not. This is very simple. We have Freedom House WP article because Freedom House is a notable organization. We do not have a WP article about this Andrei Kuznetsov, because he is not a notable person. I did not ask about Google search of lenta.ru articles. I said articles about Kuznetsov. That is how one can establish notability. Please see WP:Notability. Please provide at least one independent reliable source that tells who this Andrei Kuznetsov is. So far, there is none.Biophys 23:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Most of your "links" lead to a sportsmen Andrei Kuznetsov, not to this "journalist" (this is a very common name).Biophys 23:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me emphasize again why it is so important. The title of his article claims the research to be "fraud". Current text inserted by you says: "He also claimed the report did not match the "scientific requirements" of a research." But who is this person to judge? If he was a professional sociologist who made an alternative stdudy and published this study in a peer reviewed journal, then yes, it would be appropriate to talk about contradictions, etc. But we still do not know who this Kuznetsov is. Biophys 00:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Who's Kuznetsov? He is an editor of the major Russian internet news site, Lenta.ru, see the team list. No, links I provided are not about any sportsman with such name, see [2]. Yes, perhaps some links are cross-references to his articles, but nevertheless, he authored a lot.

We may reword that. Lenta Ru is the major Russian news website. The major Russian website published a critical article about Freedom House report (I note that it's draft version of the report, and the report itself is not yet released). If Kuznetsov published his article on his own, that would be different, and your critique would be fully appreciated. But it's an article in the major Media in one of four major Russian infourmation sources -- I mean Internet, newspapers, radio, and TV.

The title of the article is needed only to attract readers, it might be editorial policy, not Kuznetsov's willing choice. By the way, Kuznetsov didn't say it's a fraud, he approved job of Freedom House, he said it made a good job, just he criticized its accuracy. My god, have yuo read his article at all?! ellol 14:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Explain one simple thing: why do you think we need Gordievsky's comment on Politkovskaya death? Who is Gordiyevsky and who is Politkovskaya. ellol 14:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I note that all your contributions are preserved in some form in the current version. However, your claim about 42 journalist murders is strange, as CPJ listed 45 ones. There is no need to add that the Chechen government is pro-Russia, as there is only one government, i.e. there is no alternatiev ligitimate anti-Russia government. ellol 14:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that I have shortened Kuznetsov's statement, moving parts of it in ref. By the way, his article was reprinted by many internet websites: rambler.ru, bankfax.ru -- note that server which according to FH was "harrassed by the authorities", nedelya.ru... ellol 15:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

In this Encylopedia we want to use most reliable sources and include statements by most notable/qualified experts. Oleg Gordievsky is a notable expert on KGB subjects and authour of a book. Anna Politkovskaya is a notable journalist, a recepients of numerous International awards. But your Kuznetsov is just one of many editors of a Russian languge internet newspaper grani.ru. This is not Russian versus US opinion/source. This is expert opinion and scholarly research (as in the case of Freedom House) versus private opinion (bla-bla-bla) of a person from a street, which posted in a national internet newspaper.Biophys 23:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hash. Kuznetsov is editor of Lenta.ru, a major internet newspaper. ellol 13:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing MoD

Marches of Discontent are irrelevant to the body of the article, unless your point is the view of them in Russian media. They better be viewed in the corresponding article. Perhaps there's a need of a merge with the body of MoD article.

Placing here the removed content:

Thomas Steg, a spokesman for the German government, which currently holds the European Union presidency, urged Russia to respect human rights. Germany called on Russian President Vladimir Putin to allow demonstrations during next week's EU-Russia summit in Samara, Russia. Plans are under way for a so-called "Dissenters' March" in Samara during the May 18 summit. In the past months, several such marches were forcefully broken up by police in different Russian cities.

"Critical voices must be able to express themselves," government spokesman Thomas Steg said ahead of the summit, which Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel will attend. "In talks with the Russian president, we always stress the importance of fundamental basic rights, including the right of assembly," Steg said.

Last month, Germany - which holds the rotating EU presidency - condemned as "unacceptable" the Russian police response to protests in St. Petersburg, during which officers clashed with demonstrators, detaining more than 100 of them. Reporters for German public television stations were among those detained.

The organization "Reporters Without Borders" [1] issued the following statement:

"We are outraged to see that even important international meetings do not prevent the political authorities from harassing leaders of the Other Russia coalition who are organising a protest march (although it has been authorised) and the journalists who have interviewed them,” the press freedom organisation said. “This is a flagrant violation of human rights and civil liberties, and we urge all human rights activists to be especially vigilant in the coming months, which will be decisive for Russia’s future."

Reporters Without Borders added: "The record of the last seven years confirms our conviction that Vladimir Putin is an enemy of press freedom. It is our duty to appeal for solidarity with Russian human rights activists and journalists so that they do not feel isolated. Their struggle must find support outside the country, starting with the European Union."

During press-conference at the Summit, Mr. Putin was quoted as saying: "I am not bothered by these marches in any way. I believe that any such activities must take place within the existing legislative framework and not prevent other citizens from living a normal life."[2]

In May of 2007, a court in Samara sentenced an organizer of anti-government protests Iliya Gurjev to six months of prison. Opposition leaders said that was the first time an activist was given a significant prison term for organizing protests and said it was part of the government campaign to intimidate dissent ahead of the summit. [citation needed] The official version was that Gurjev was sentenced because he didn't attend obligatory registration every month, as he was previously convicted to a suspended sentence for action of NBP in waiting room of Administration of the President. [3]

ellol 10:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for new sources

I have an intention to continue working on the article. The article for now resembles a bit more than a stub. Lots of sections are not developed. Another interesting question which is uncovered are real capabilities of Russian media to act as a responsible actor in forming the mass opinion.

I do not want to start another clash between opponents and proponents of The Bloody Putin's Regime. But the questions of media freedom, of whether Russian media manage to address the needs of the developed civilian society, i.e. how well do they manage to inform the population -- such questions exist. So first of all I request every interested side to make a research of the sources and drop them here. I think there's an especial interest of professional works/reports/investigations etc, rather than some another bashing article of the Wall Street Journal. ellol (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sources