|
GET IT OFF YOUR CHEST - Is Russia unfavourable for journalists’ work?
Notification. Thank you for visiting our Forum pages. We always appreciate your thoughts, but please note that Russia Today reserves the right to edit, exclude or paraphrase any messages. Please be polite - rudeness won't be accepted. Also keep in mind that it takes some time for your posts to appear in the threads.
- Norman June 12, 2008, 18:22
- Two or three points: (1) Russia's economy, democracy and legal system is slowly changing. Old habits don't change quickly. In the past two years things have greatly improved in Russia. (2) Words can motivate people to do extreme things, such as murder and violence. (3) Last, freedom of press and speech come with certain responsibilities. Just look at the blurred lines between news and entertainment in Europe and the United States.
- Sam May 18, 2008, 12:30
- By the way Sanjay we had all this before and you raised all these claims before.
therefore I had lifted my reply to you last similar post on "had human rights situation improved under putin" page.
sam March 6, 2008, 22:13
Sanjay went to a great lenght to give us links to some videos of someone saying something.
To discuss the health situation in Russia lets review the indicators used in medical sciences.the data can be found on the website of the people who job is to observe the worlds population health.Thats WHO
http://www.who.int/en/
granted that the Russian health is lagging behind the west but to say that it is at the level of subsaharan Africa is a joke
lets compare the USA,RF,a western europern country(UK),an asian country(India) and an subsaharan country(Nigeria)
Probability of dying under age of five (per 1000 live births)
USA:8
Uk:6
RF:14
India:74
Nigeria:194
Life expectancy at birth m/f(years)
USA:75/80
Uk:77/81
RF:59/72
India:62/64
Nigeria:47/48
these are the health indicators used in medical sciences world over.
Since you mentioned that Russia is falling apart with tuberculosis lets check out the prevalence rate(total cases per 100,000 people per year)
USA:3.4
UK:11
RF:150
India:299
Nigeria:536
Well the figures say it all.
what does it mean? well 14 chidren are likely to die before their 5th birthday out of 1000 born and likely to live till 59 for men and 72 for women in Russia.In the USA 8 children will die and the rest may live till 75 for men and 80 for women.In Nigeria sadly 194 out of 1000 will die before age 5 and rest have high chance of dying before the ages of 47 and 48.
Sorry but you are like a broken record,at least the broken record does not keep repeating the same old rubbish
- Sam May 18, 2008, 10:01
- Sanjay sorry moving from one forum to another talking your rubbish is not impressive.
Maybe you should go back to your link and read again the Methodology,see what factors are used:)
for example Climate and geography.The Russians should tilt the earth by 25 degrees so that they will now have a Tropical climate.LOL
another, Community life including events like church attendance,everyone knows only 15% of Russians are practising Christians.
It may help if you read and analyze a topic before you post it:)
Still waiting on your link to the "expert" showing the figures of poverty you claim are in Russia.Dont forget to add the massive figures of human trafficing you are also claiming:)
- Norman May 16, 2008, 00:37
- Russian journalism is much like Russian democracy, slightly controlled and authoritarian. As I have said before, there is the elite and government and there is the population that acccepts authority and restrictions. It's been that way for centuries. Free market economy and democracy will take some evolution in Russia.
- Sanjay May 15, 2008, 15:44
- More important than Tabloid reporting is the honesty and accuracy in reporting.
For example hardly any reputed journalist talks about the real things such as quality of life and Human Development in Russia.
Quality of Life in Russia is worse than Bangladesh and Uganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index
and russia is near bottom in Human Development.
Life expectency is lower than India, same as subsaharan africa.
Why do Journalists not focus on these issues and the issues of oligarchical criminality.
Will reporting on these issues put them at risk.
Perhaps, but then journalism is not for the faint of heart.
- ROBERT (U.S.) May 15, 2008, 10:44
- Well you can't throw a rock in the water and not expect to create some waves.Its how big the rock you throw in the water to create the largest waves. Take a story like lee Harvy Oswald wife (Marina Prusakova )and her family. I would like to know What ever happened to her and her family in Russia and what the Russian authorities perspective on the subject . I never believed that her husband ever kill John kennedy. I believe that John Kennedy was kill by the Cuban mafia. My guess is the Mafia gave lee harvy Oswald a large some of money to put the rifle in the building and then they would help him get from Dallas to Mexico and then to Cuba and then maybe to meet up with his wife in Russia.I believe the story of the women that traveled with the two cuban assassins who later herself was murdered before she could testify. The Italian Mafia from New Orleans probly provided the information needed for free to the Cuban Mafia, because of there problems with Robert kennedy. I also Believe that the Italian Mafia got Oswald the job at the depository building. I would ponder that one cuban assassin was in the building and the other on the grassy nole. The one cuban in the grassy nole probly missed his target all together and no bullets were ever found. What ever happend to the two cuban my guess they died with in the week and not from natural causes(The two cuban that were interviewed were not the right ones buy that time the Mafia got to the women ). Common sence would tell you that when Jack Ruby shut up lee Harvey Oswald that he was not working alone. A succesfull night club owner was going to throw his hole life away for someone he didnt know ye right.
- Daniel April 21, 2008, 11:08
- Well The Moskovsky Korrespondent newspapers has been shut down after claiming that Putin was dumping his wife and marrying a model, turned politician.
I'm pretty sure this adds further weight that democracy has failed in Russia and Putin is intolderable to tabolid reporting
- DaniYah April 18, 2008, 09:01
re: Marzipan -"I don’t know, are any of our Russian contributors able to comment on whether any programme of public moral education happening in Russia over the last 17 years that seeks to instil a love of honesty and candour in the country?"
-Read the Bible.
- Marzipan6 April 11, 2008, 12:59
- The trouble is that Russia seems to have a deep need to create an imaginary ideal world in which it feels comfortable. Tsarist era official lies are encapsulated by the “Potemkin Village” syndrome, while Soviet era lies spanned the heights and plumbed the depths of even greater ludicrousness in just about every aspect of life.
Unfortunately Post-Soviet Russia not only is still esteems the general principle of the big lie, but even continues to embraces some particularly silly ones from the Soviet era. When journalists challenge some localised or general delusion or another, affected parties tend to become very annoyed indeed.
I don’t know, are any of our Russian contributors able to comment on whether any programme of public moral education happening in Russia over the last 17 years that seeks to instil a love of honesty and candour in the country?
- DaniYah April 5, 2008, 19:52
- Democracy Skeptic,
"Public domain information." Good point. In English. But who are you trying to convince?
It's funny that you say "strong meaningful criticism of the Russian government" should be avoided by journalists, nonsensical when you are proof of the opposite!
Constructive criticism, even constructive criticism of its rivals, is an enemy of the CIA, because it strengthens, builds up, "constructs". That is why Russia, in order to be secure, must protect itself against the CIA, whose death squads wander about killing friends and rivals alike. The devil is the master of confusion: remember that.
You know about the CIA "martyr" killings. Don't try to prematurely whitewash the circumstances. Your conscience will give you a clean slate when the time is right.
- Democracy Sceptic April 5, 2008, 13:36
- As I'm unable to read Russian or have access to Russia's popular press, I shouldn't really comment here. However, having seen the public domain information concerning the number of journalists deaths within Russia in recent years, I can only conclude that Russia is a most unfavourable place for some journalists to work. It would seem to me that Russian journalists should do what previous contributors here have recommended. They should write critically about the CIA or other foreign government activities. The arts, sport or the environment should be OK. However, strong meaningful criticism of the Russian government, its president and other prominant Russian political persons, or leading industrialists with influence should best be avoided in the interests of the journalist's health and safety.
- DaniYah April 4, 2008, 06:29
- Sevodnya,
You seem to be read on your topics. So, I think you already know that it wasn't just this latest article by the American that points to the implication of American and British assassins in the polonium scandal. All throughout the case it pointed to USA, Cronies, &Co. cahooch.
Perhaps you read up on the articles yesterday, that people having anti-war sentiments are flagged by the CIA? This includes journalists that are being targeted worldwide (by the CIA's "CIFA" and other centers like "Entersect"....
I hope that Russia will be able to secure intellectuals and journalists residing within its borders against the CIA bandit assassins; I hope that Russia be a refuge for those who wish for peace, unity, and prosperity. It may be up to the journalists in Russia to make sure this happens, by exposing every false move of the CIA, at every possible chance.
- Sevodnya_Net April 2, 2008, 19:39
- DaniYah -
All countries present problems for the work of journalists - depends on the type of problem of course.
There is the freedom of a journalist to work without fear of attack and there is the freedom of a journalist to access whatever information he or she needs to carry out their work. In the second case you run into the debate about freedom of information versus things like national security, confidentiality, judicial integrity etc. That's what I was touching on. I believe (I may be wrong) that in the latter regard America is freer than Britain - I believe in both regards Russia lags "behind" for want of a better word. But actually I think many countries represent a tougher challenge for journalism than Russia. It's all relative.
"Journalism means, that there is no story until the evidence is seen."
I couldn't agree with that. Sorry to go back to Mr Epstein again but two things struck me about his report:
1 - he never (explicitly) entertained the possibility that he might be being taken for a ride.
Real investigative journalism doesn't accept the word of authority as gospel, as his article did.
2 - his conclusions were based on no evidence whatever (and certainly were not based on anything in the main body of his report), but that is not uncommon in journalism or any other form of writing. Just so long as what is written is portrayed as opinion and not fact.
- DaniYah April 2, 2008, 00:12
- 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.
- Sevodnya_Net April 1, 2008, 15:19
- 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.
|
