Almost half of Russian voters think that this year’s parliamentary elections will be marred by fraud, and will not reflect the will of the people, is the key finding of a suvey by the Levada Centre.
Some key stats:
- 45% think that the election result will not reflect the will of the people
- 39% think local officials will fix election results
- 25% think opposition candidates may be excluded from the election
- 8% think the election will be fair
- 33% will consider the new parliament illegitimate
- 65% want an “against all candidates” option on ballot papers
Interesting results, although one should be careful not to read too much into them. I suspect that, if you asked a random sample of British voters whether they thought Parliamentary elections in the UK reflected the will of the people, you’d receive a somewhat similar answer.
And electoral fraud isn’t just a problem confined to Russia – take a look at this roundup of electoral fraud (and other problems) from last week’s local elections in the UK.
About Andy Young
The most painful irony of the upcoming rigged election is that United Russia would likely win in a landslide even in a free and fair process. It’s the control over broadcast media that is the principle hindrance to political competition in my opinion.
I suspect you’re right about the UK, however the problems there are relatively insignificant. If you’re looking for REAL electoral fraud, you have to hand it to the Nigerians – they really take the cake:
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9070922
Although it would be premature to say that Russia is on par with Nigeria in terms of electoral fraud, each year they seem to get closer and closer on most watchdogs’ lists (Transparency ranked Russia 121 and Nigeria 142 for the 2006 corruption index).
Too bad these same questions were not asked just before the last few elections for comparison. I think that you would have seen similar results under Yeltsin because Russians are very skeptical of politics and consider politics to be inherently dirty.
Also, it is a shame that for further comparison that these questions were not asked of US and UK residents. In the US, some (not many) have concerns over the voting machines, but many people (although most Republicans would never admit it) wonder if the two results from Florida are truly accurate which decided both elections. Even worse, in the last election the majority of the US voted for Kerry, but the oddity of the electoral college system put Bush in office. So there will be a good chance the next US president will also not represent the will of the people. Also, the US has very little opposition outside the two major parties because of the money required to run a campaign.
Even worse, in the last election the majority of the US voted for Kerry, but the oddity of the electoral college system put Bush in office.
This is not true. Bush won both the popular vote and the electoral college vote against Kerry.
Bush lost the popular vote against Gore but won the electoral college vote, handing him the presidency.
As for “even worse” I don’t know why so many people have a problem with this; the US presidential elections have never been a straight popular vote, and Bush should not be condemned for winning under the rules which were in place at the time.
An explanation of the electoral college vote and its origins can be found here.
On the subject at hand, I’m not surprised almost half of Russian voters think that this year’s parliamentary elections will be marred by fraud.
Russians have got to be the most politically cynical people on the planet. You mention politics and politicians to most Russians and they roll their eyes, point to the suspiciously large houses in which their representatives live, and complain that nothing will ever change before dismissing the subject completely.
Thanks for correcting which election Bush did not win the popular vote. “Even worse” meaning “even worse for American public opinion if a similar poll were to be taken in America” because the electoral college makes the average person skeptical that their vote counts. Many Americans do not understand or trust their own election system. I understand the electoral college system and did not intend to make it sound like I thought Bush stole the election in any way. Obviously the rules that gave him the win over Gore are not his fault.
The overall point about the comparisons is that the article makes it sound like these opinions by Russians are because of Putin. These poll figures standing alone should not allow the author to draw the conclusions that he does. I doubt that Putin has done much to shift Russian public opinion on the fairness of elections because it was low to begin with.
“The most painful irony of the upcoming rigged election is that United Russia would likely win in a landslide even in a free and fair process. It’s the control over broadcast media that is the principle hindrance to political competition in my opinion.”
****
As has been noted by others, there’s sound reasoning why Vladimir Putin is popular and why anyone significantly going agaiunst his policies would lose the upcoming presidential election.
In the last Russian presidential election, nothing was preventing Gary Kasparov and Grigori Yavlinsky from running. As was the instance in that process, there were other candidates who had a very fair share of media and travel time throughout Russia.
University of Rhode Island Russian Studies Professor Nick Petro follows Russian mass media. He recently busted some fraud Western mass media commentary on the actual media reality in Russia.
http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=CDI+Russia+Profile+List&articleid=a1178033222
As per the above linked piece, there’re numerous other instances of inaccurate reporting on FSU matters, which don’t get picked up by Russia Profile and Johnson’s Russia List. Sometimes those venues post blatantly one sided commentary, which go unchallenged. This, despite the submission of perfectly valid rebuttals.
In the last Russian presidential election, nothing was preventing Gary Kasparov and Grigori Yavlinsky from running.
Mike – I suspect that the primary reason they decided against running in 2004 was that they (rightly) didn’t feel they would make much of an impact on Russian politics. Partly because of the general advantage any incumbent President holds, partly because of the way in which the media is skewed against non-approved (for want of a better word) candidates, and partly because Putin generally was popular.
This time around though, the incumbent advantage is gone, and a lot of candidates will feel that they are in with a shout of making an impact on this election – be that by winning (unlikely, but a freak event could change the mood of the electorate), by using the campaign to get their ‘message’ across (to both Russian and international audiences), or by giving them the opportunity to gain a leading position within Russian opposition politics (perhaps positioning themselves to take advantage of any later upheavals).
I agree with you Andy.
A loss as such can often serve as a building block for the reasons you so spot on describe.
The incumbent factor is kind of still around in that whoever has Putin’s blessing will have a great advantage. Much like after Reagan’s second term as US prez.
Mike/Andy,
I’ve no doubt that Putin’s posing and his policies are genuinely popular which, combined with the Russian inability to understand that politicians are in fact responsible for the state of the country, makes whoever he chooses a shoe-in even in a totally free and fair election. But the fact is the Kremlin have total control over television and to say otherwise is simply to lie. A constant barrage of photo-ops and meetings where Putin is seeing giving orders is the diet on Russian tv. There are no debates on tv either, like Sarkozy vs Royal recently in France, no opportunities for other parties to say their piece and worse other parties or candidates are shown only in the most unflattering light. If anyone gets within an inch of making an impression suddenly a skeleton appears from their closet, for example Kasyanov’s allegedly ill-gotten house on posh Rublyovskoe.
Television is used by the Kremlin to almost brainwash levels, so much so in fact that one is left with the impression that in fact there really is no-one else to even consider voting for. Ivanov, Medvedev and co. have now completely seeped into the minds of the electorate and there’s only going to be one result. As for newspapers, Russians have little interest in them – just sit on the metro and watch – ten people are reading, nine of those are reading books and just one a newspaper. Russians consider them mouthpieces for business interests.
In addition to Petro – there’re others who would very much differ with that view.
In an earlier article of his – Petro noted how the other Russian TV networks offer more hard hitting political insight. The top three Russian TV networks vary as well.
Of related note is this excerpt from http://www.siberianlight.net/2007/03/01/interview-mike-averko/:
“14. You regularly offer criticisms of Western media where you feel it’s deserved. What criticisms would you make of Russian media?
Similar to the criticisms of Western media. I recall former American Ambassador Alexander Vershbow acknowledging diversity among the top three Russian TV news networks. He added that the diversity isn’t as great as it could be. On a number of issues, the same can be said of the top three American TV news networks (ABC, CBS and NBC). The follow-up to that would be that Americans have other TV channels with news, as well as other news gathering sources (print and electronic). The same applies to Russia.
Another criticism contradicts what Andrew Kuchins said about Russian media. Concerning the last Valdai Discussion Group, a Moscow Times article by Andrei Zolotov uncritically cited Kuchins’ statement about Russian State Television being (as per Kuchins) one sided. The state owned giant Gazprom owns Ekho Moskvy, which is often biased against Putin and Russia. In comparison, the Moscow based non-Russian owned Moscow Times isn’t so forthcoming towards Russocentric views going against that outlet’s bias.
This leads to another observation about Russian media faults. Anglo-American mass media at large has done a great job at promoting Russian journalists/analysts who subscribe to the former’s views. In comparison, I don’t see Russian media outlets doing much for Western based Russocentric journalists/analysts.”
*****
As a follow-up the above excerpted, I’ve heard of several credible instances where “name” individuals opposed to key Russian government policies turn down guest appearances. You can’t make people come on.
The definition of a “free press” is relative to what exists elsewhere in the world. I know of a Western reporter for a major Russian news outlet whose views aren’t as pro-Russian/pro-Putin as my own. He/she said that in his/her native country, the media elites would consider him as too “extreme”.
Mike,
you havent substantiated your remark about press freedom in Russia with any hard facts. I’m speaking from a point of view of someone who actually watches Russian tv regularily. And relative to Irish and British tv – who do have a high standard of freedom -Russia is censored. No doubt about it. I can make no comment about US tv, I just dont know. To put it in perspective, tv at home wouldnt show clips of politicians doing their jobs in the exhalted manner that Putin is shown. The viewing public would first laugh and then go mad. Its a fundamentally different belief system -our politicians are there to do a job, are servants of the electorate and are on thin ice even if they succeed. Putin on the other hand is the Tsar. And he is portrayed as such. You can quote whatever Kremlin-friendly acadamic you want. I have my own eyes and brought up on proper tv at home, I can see a mile away that Russians are being force fed crap.
What about televised debates? Question Time? None of these things happen in Russia. And another thing – elderly academics waffling in monotone like on Russian tv is not free media. Its simply elderly academics waffling in monotone. It catches no-ones attention and once again there are no politicians being questioned.
Oh yes I did substantiate.
Not all of the Russian channels do as you claim.
In addition to which, I’ve seen my share of BBC hack jobs.
You didnt substantiate at all.
You quoted Alexander Vershbow, who called the media ‘diverse’. And thats all. Its not free. There is a difference. Propoganda wrapped in different packages by different producers remains propaganda.
Second, you mention Ekho Moskvuy, which again is very marginal indeed and not respected anymore. And, again, its not tv – I was talking about tv. Television is far and away the biggest influencer now in Russia. The only Russian channel that makes any sort of attempt to toe a slightly -and I mean slightly- different line is REN-TV. And its marginal enough. What I’m talking about are major tv stations actually criticising and questioning the Russian leadership, much like what happens in Britain and Ireland. This simply doesnt happen in Russia.
Also, you didnt address my points at all about what is shown on tv – partially explained by the fact that perhaps you may have never actually seen Russian tv programmes. There’s a lot to be said for witnessing something you know.
By the way this has nothing to do with english-language coverage at all. This is about Russia on the ground, not the second hand info of western pundits.
It’s about other media as a measurement to this applied word “free”.
The BBC’s periodic utilization of sources like Andrei Nekrasov and Taras Kuzio with no opposition to them is no less propagandistic than what you accuse Russian TV media of.
With translation, I’ve had the opportunity on a number of occasions to sample Russian TV news, besides the three main networks. After them, other channels do some really cutting edge stuff. Petro’s other article (not linked) on Russian TV media is a very good overview. It was linked at the now downed http://english.intelligent.ru web site. Besides Petro – I know others familiar with that scene, who share his view. Once again, I also know about the frequent crappy coverage evident in Anglo-American mass media.
Like I said earlier: Vershbow’s point about the three top Russian TV networks applies to NBC, CBS and ABC.
When analyzing Russia, the standards are often doubled.
If not more than doubled.
We should simply compare how British TV covers Blair or American TV covers Bush with how Russian TV covers Putin.
I’m not sure about the US media’s relationship with George Bush, but in Britain, the media is reasonably balanced in the way it reports news about Tony Blair (although it leans more towards the hostile side of ‘balanced’ than to the sycophantic).
Much as it will be to Gordon Brown in a couple of months time, and as it was to John Major and Margaret Thatcher previously. (Sorry – that’s as far as my memory stretches back!)
If not more than doubled, doubled, doubled.
And of our father’s father’s father’s father’s…
(sorry, couldn’t resist)
Michael Averko:
The BBC’s periodic utilization of sources like Andrei Nekrasov and Taras Kuzio with no opposition to them is no less propagandistic than what you accuse Russian TV media of.
Mike, you’re comparing the BBC’s coverage of foreign political events to Russian TV’s coverage of domestic political events – apples and oranges. I can tell you that the way Russian TV covers events in the US and surrounding US politicians is not exactly “balanced,” with people like Leont’iev often trotted out on ORT as serious commentators on these issues. Bias or slant of US/UK media in covering Russia et al. is one issue; it stands entirely apart from the issue here, which is the relevance of the Russian government’s near-monopoly on TV coverage to domestic political developments in Russia.
Comparing the situation in Russia to domestic political coverage on US TV, as things stand currently none of the major Russian networks would ever stick it to an heir-apparent presidential candidate like Dan Rather stuck it to George H.W. Bush in 1988; or try to do an expose on one of Putin’s anointed (much less VVP himself) as Rather did to George W. Bush in ’04. Andy has already stated that UK TV programming is more critical of Blair et al. than not. This is simply not the case in Russia, where the lead story on the ORT or RTR evening news is often a staged five-minute clip of Putin meeting with some Minister in the Kremlin. NTV has gone way downhill (evidenced by Parfyonov’s departure and such anecdotes as this one) and by 2005-06 no longer provided the soft opposition perspective I described a few years ago, and Ren-TV – a station which does not have the national reach of the big three – seemed as of a year ago to be the only station providing any meaningful televised opposition to the party line. Apologies for linking to my own blog posts etc., I know there is a lot of other stuff out there on Russian media, I just don’t have time to go on a big link-search at the moment.
Lyndon wrote:
“Mike, you’re comparing the BBC’s coverage
of foreign political events to Russian TV’s
coverage of domestic political events -
apples and oranges.”
Exactly. That was my point when I wrote that we should actually compare how British and American TV cover their own respective leaders (Blair and Bush) with how Russian TV covers Putin. The difference is tremenodus.
Mike,
to-reiterare what Lyndon said, I’m talking about Russian domestic tv, not the BBC’s foreign coverage, Again you dont compare like with like at all. Its frankly ridiculous.
Would you please tell me exactly which shows are cutting edge? I’d really like to know, because I’d actually watch them. To be honest, I know there arent any. And please, dont respond with the same line as above. Actually name the programmes please. If you dont name them I can take it that there are arent any.
I stated above how tv in Britain and Ireland treat our leaders in comparison to Russia. Ours savage our leaders, which is entirely appropriate, and also how policies and events are dissected and criticised. This does not happen in Russia.
Again, you go back to Anglo-American media, which is completely off the point.
Ger:
I’m speaking from a point of view of someone who actually watches Russian tv regularily. And relative to Irish and British tv – who do have a high standard of freedom -Russia is censored.
Exactly. It’s amazing how insightful ones opinions on political coverage on Russian TV can be when you have actually seen what you are talking about, as opposed to relying on sombody else’s second-hand accounts.
This is simply not the case in Russia, where the lead story on the ORT or RTR evening news is often a staged five-minute clip of Putin meeting with some Minister in the Kremlin.
Yup. Political news related to Russia is simply flattering coverage of Putin’s day.
“Exactly. It’s amazing how insightful ones opinions on political coverage on Russian TV can be when you have actually seen what you are talking about, as opposed to relying on sombody else’s second-hand accounts.”
****
First hand accounts. As per the references to Bush and Blair – Putin is more popular in his country for reasons not having to do with a censored media. On the supposed lack of coverage of other Russian political figures: considering their lack of popularity, they get plenty of coverage.
Here’s where the market forces concept (bandied about elsewhere on another issue) has some credibility.
First hand accounts.
Unless RTR and ORT has started broadcasting to New York, your commentary on the political content of Russian TV is second hand, unlike that of Ger, Lyndon, and I who have had it beamed into our living rooms on a daily basis.
Your commentary on political issues are second hand as shown by how you aren’t addressing other points.
Ever hear of satellite TV and once gain note that Russians typically get between 15-20 other channels which do news features.
A samizdat message to SG and some others:
Those who “vote” to block out comments opposed to misinformation are in no credible position to critique Russian TV.
*****
As per my last post here: those other TV channels do more critical news coverage. What happened to the market forces concept? I.e. Putin being a gernuinely popular leader.
We see how non-Democrat/non-Republican politicans are covered in the US. Many see the Republicans/Democrats as a one party system subdivided into two.
Which of the minor channels do news features (other than REN-TV, which I mentioned, and TVC/TVTs, and perhaps other local channels in local markets)? Most of the other channels are strictly entertainment (e.g., STS/CTC, DTV), music videos (MUZ-TV / Russian MTV), sport or culture (RTR Sport and Kul’tura); in Moscow, there’s one channel (can’t remember which) that runs the Euronews headlines dubbed in Russian for part of the day, but these are not generally Russia-focused.
And I think the only things available in the US via satellite are the big 3 and some internationally oriented services of NTV and RTR Planeta.
Your commentary on political issues are second hand as shown by how you aren’t addressing other points.
Is this another Mike Averko redefinition of common words, to the effect that “second hand” is now dependent on whether or not I have addressed points in one of your posts?
We are talking about the content of Russian TV. Unless you have actually seen this content for yourself, then your opinions on it are second hand. Nobody would take a book reviewe seriously if he had not read the book in question; likewise, few will take your opinions on the content of Russian TV seriously if you have not seen it for yourself.
Many see the Republicans/Democrats as a one party system subdivided into two.
One-party systems subdivided into two parties are more commonly known as two-party systems.
Speaking from my first-hand experience, I’ve yet to see any substantial news on the minor Russian cable channels, let alone substantial political coverage. We get the local news on one of the Sakhalin channels, the typical content of which I described here.
Not if they think pretty much the same with limited differences of opinion.
In the comparative sense, my stated views on “free” media are on par with determining how free is Russia’s media.
After the three top networks, other Russian TV channles do news stories, which are more cutting edge. It’s bogus to pooh pooh the diverse views found in Russian radio, print and electronic media.
What happened to the market forces concept? I.e. Putin being a gernuinely popular leader.
It is probably true that there would be very little interest in a TV show which regularly attacked Putin politically. But that is not what is under discussion, at least from me. I am making the point that the domestic political news in Russia is limited to flattering coverage of Putin’s day. I am also saying that there are only about 2 channels on which you can get political coverage.
There are probably many reasons why this is the case, but the case it is. You seem to be suggesting that the situation is different.
After the three top networks, other Russian TV channles do news stories, which are more cutting edge.
They do? Which ones?
First sentence of my last post was in reply to Tim Newman’s misunderstanding of the valid concept of a one party system subdivided into two.
Impressions of Russian Television
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/9107-6.cfm
Since the above linked article, other accounts have expressed the same view.
The “market forces” are at work in Russia. Putin is popular without censorship.
The “market forces” are at work in Russia. Putin is popular without censorship.
I’ve yet to hear anyone suggest otherwise. But the censorship exists, nonetheless.
Regarding Tim Newman’s use of “censorship”: it exists in the UK, US and elsewhere on any given number of covered topics.
Meantime, I’ve no reason to not believe the views of Petro, two Russian TV execs I’ve spoken with and several other viewers of Russian TV media. Once again, I’ve had my share of first hand samplings as well.
Michael, it seems to me that you are saying that Russian TV is as free to criticize their own leader as the US and UK TV are. This is simply not true, and it is hard for me to imagine that you actually believe that.
Regarding Tim Newman’s use of “censorship”: it exists in the UK, US and elsewhere on any given number of covered topics.
Actually, I think the number of topics which are censored in the press by the US and UK governments is rather low.
Nobody is saying that the UK and US press is 100% free, we are just pointing out that, from first hand experience, the Russian TV is far less critical of Putin than the UK and US TV is of Blair and Bush respectively.
Mike, the JRL article of Petro’s that you linked to above is more than two years old. Things change fast in the new Russia, and in the area of the media I don’t know of anyone who suggests they are changing in the direction of more criticism of the powers-that-be.
I also loved this little chestnut from that article:
The implausibility lies in the fact that, if people were truly dissatisfied with what they were seeing on television, they could very easily subscribe to their favorite national (or international) newspaper. This can be done at your local post office.
One wonders if Dr. Petro has ever seen the inside of a Russian post office or attempted to get anything done inside one. The one that served our apartment building in downtown Moscow was a complete mess, with undelivered mail scattered all over the place, staffed by two or three elderly postal workers. Apparently there is not much new blood in Pochta Rossii, and mail was delivered to our building about once every week or two. Now, things may be better in the provinces, and of course some of the Russian print media’s diverse offerings are available at newsstands, but that particular argument (admittedly, not the only one in the article) is not very convincing.
What happened to the market forces concept? I.e. Putin being a gernuinely popular leader.
So, because he’s popular, he shouldn’t be subjected to critical reporting or scrutiny by the media? Is the function of TV news to simply deliver to the population views that it wants to see? Certainly US news programs make some compromises in that regard in order to sell advertising, but they also try to engage in hard news reporting at times and they do critically cover major political figures.
We see how non-Democrat/non-Republican politicans are covered in the US.
I don’t think the comparison to the US is particularly fruitful, but if you insist on making it, at least get it right. The fact is that Ralph Nader got a fairly large amount of coverage in recent election cycles in the US – more than any less-than-5%-vote-getting Russian politician or political bloc (not counting innocuous clowns like Zhirinovsky, who in any event probably still polls more than 5%) that I can think of in recent years. And remember Ross Perot in ’92? He wasn’t exactly marginalized due to a lack of media coverage. If you want to get technical, Joe Lieberman now identifies himself politically as an Independent – did he stop getting media coverage when he made that switch? Not exactly.
One wonders if Dr. Petro has ever seen the inside of a Russian post office or attempted to get anything done inside one.
LOL!! So true…
My St. Petersburg post office is better than the one in the Boston neighborhood I lived in.
The non-Russians here emphasize one media point and ignore others raised by Petro and Averko. It’s all in the eyes of the beholder.
Lieberman isn’t exactly different from many democrats and Republicans. Why should Kasparov get more air time than his popularity?
So true Sergei. This discussion confirms your observation.
Note: Interestingly, this comment, and Sergei’s immediately above came from exactly the same IP address. Andy
Tim: Political news related to Russia is simply flattering coverage of Putin’s day.
On my last visits to Russia, it seems like the flattering clip of local news is usually followed by the international news during which Zhirinovsky is allowed to spend several minutes “analyzing” world events.
The non-Russians here emphasize one media point and ignore others raised by Petro and Averko. It’s all in the eyes of the beholder.
With respect to post offices, I guess it may be all in the eye of the beholder. Whereabouts in Piter do you live, Sergei, that you have such an efficient pochtovoe otdelenie? I agree that post offices in the US are often not models of efficiency and shouldn’t be anyone’s benchmark, but I’ve also never seen a properly functioning Russian post office, and I’ve been in several.
Anyway, with respect to the discussion of Russian TV coverage of Putin, I think it’s much less in the eye of the beholder – it is generally agreed that TV – and especially the three nationwide networks – are the single greatest media force in Russian domestic politics, which is why the discussion has focused on TV as opposed to the relative diversity of print and internet media (the latter of which is only available to roughly 20% of the population in any event).
Also, without wanting to open a whole can of worms, what exactly does being “Russian” or “non-Russian” have to do with anything, if I may ask?
I’ve also never seen a properly functioning Russian post office, and I’ve been in several.
I take that back – the place we used to go by Palace Square in SPB when I spent the summer there in ’96 was fairly efficient about letting us send emails and receive printouts of emails sent to us using some kind of generic address. A very interesting cross between the telegraph and modern email connectivity.
But as far as sending and receiving actual mail, Russia’s postal service is horrible, even in comparison with other post-Soviet countries (it takes much longer for a letter sent from the US to be delivered to a Moscow address than to an address in Chisinau, for example), which is what my point was with respect to subscribing to (and actually receiving) newspapers and magazines by mail.
Anglo-American mass media coverage of former Yugoslavia and many FSU issues is often horribly one sided. That’s of little or no concern to many Westerners. The neocons and Soros funded neolibs don’t disagree with that bias because it suits them.
Someone I went to high school and college with is an administrator at a Prague based academic institute. His biases are more in line with those opposing me here. He nevertheless acknowledged (privately) my points in this note. At Soros funded orgs., the thinking is very one sided on a number of issues.
Soros and the BBC aren’t ideal role models for Russian media. Russian media needs people who fully know the faults of Western media and have Russia’s best interests at heart.
I’m all for different views clashing and not phony debates between people whose views aren’t so far apart.
In Anglo-American mass media, Putin critics tend to be of the Gessen/Latynina type. How about those critics of Putin arguing for a more assertive policy on any number of issues like:
- being tougher on the oligarchs
- Russia’s stance on disputed former Communist bloc territories (I.e. utilizing the reverse Holbrooke)
On the post office matter: it was brought up regarding the purchasing of foreign publications. These can be bought and-or read elsewhere in Russia. The Russian net is free flow unlike China’s. Russian radio is pretty open as well.
Anglo-American mass media coverage of former Yugoslavia and many FSU issues is often horribly one sided. That’s of little or no concern to many Westerners. The neocons and Soros funded neolibs don’t disagree with that bias because it suits them. [...]
Soros and the BBC aren’t ideal role models for Russian media. Russian media needs people who fully know the faults of Western media and have Russia’s best interests at heart.
What does this (or much of the rest of your comment) have to do with Russian domestic media coverage of Russian domestic politics, and the influence of that coverage on Russian voters?
On the post office matter: it was brought up regarding the purchasing of foreign publications. These can be bought and-or read elsewhere in Russia.
Incorrect. This is the passage I quoted from Petro’s article:
The implausibility lies in the fact that, if people were truly dissatisfied with what they were seeing on television, they could very easily subscribe to their favorite national (or international) newspaper. This can be done at your local post office.
Subscription to publications in Russia traditionally takes place through the post office. My point was that it’s notoriously inefficient and unreliable, therefore it’s hardly something to be touting as an example of how various media are available to Russians.
And where exactly can one get foreign analytical periodicals in Russia outside of Moscow & SPB (even there, the selection is often limited and includes outdated issues)? I’m talking about print publications, not online ones.
I know Russia is better than China (or Uzbekistan, for that matter) when it comes to freedom of the internet – are you sure you want to go down the road of using China as a benchmark on civil liberties issues?
Not “incorrect”. Russians can pick these other outlets up elsewhere as noted in the rest of your note. Many of them can be accessed on line.
As per the net, how much more unfree is Russia than America?
We’re discussing media issues at large and comparing them.
As for domestic political issues, a panel of Republicans and Democrats determine which presidential candidates appear on presidential TV debates. In one instance, this group decided to keep Nader off. How “free” is that process?
Does China get critiqued on HR as much as Russia?
Mike,
once again you go off into tangents like the Former Yugoslavia and Anglo-American media which have nothing to do with the issue at hand. I can take it from your failure to mention any of those ”cutting edge” Russian political programmes that they in fact do not exist.
Firing shots at the BBC because the have given Putin a hard time does not make them censored or in any way comparable to the situation in Russia. British and Irish tv are I daresay almost 100% uncensored. In the last few weeks our Prime Minister is Ireland is being savaged by the media because of his ‘financial affairs’, with just 2 weeks left to election. There isnt a hope you’d see that happen with Putin or his cabinet or indeed any Russian politician unless they’d fallen foul of the Kremlin. In Britain and Ireland the media take absolute pleasure in catching out politicians and thats how it should be.
You seem to have a bit of confusion as to the function of media and you seem to think Russia is entitled to some sort of special case status. The job of the media is to report and analyse news. It shouldnt have anyones best interest at heart, except to give unbiased information to the public. You are excusing an appalling situation Russia using that most ridiculous and tired of arguments – that Russia is ‘different’. Its not different at all Mike. Its a country same as any other and the people are entitled to proper reporting and news and not a load of old claptrap about Putin’s jaunts in MiG fighters or slapping Ivanov on the back. From your tone I get the feeling you think that having some Russian-ness in you gives you an ‘insight’ into Russia and allows you to excuse its ills. It doesnt, no more than JFK hadnt an insight into Ireland. You claim to speak for Russians as well which you dont. A lot of Russians are deeply offended by the rubbish put in front of them on tv every night and would rather watch people getting laid in Dom-2 than the news. And I agree. I’d rather watch Buzova in her thong than listen to more Kremlin rubbish anyday. They are resigned to this situation, but that doesnt mean they like it and it doesnt make it right.
I think that the basis of most of your arguments are very simple – back up the Kremlin, irresprective, and damn the consequences, because the most important thing for you is to be seen as ‘Russocentric’. Its an extraordinarily childish and narrow minded view and baffles me. I’m married to a Russian and have heavy involvment with the country – but there’s no way I’ll support Russia willy-nilly nor attempt to mask its obvious faults with factually incorrect nonsense.