A couple of snippets of media-related news - neither of which, on the face of it, look good.
First up, a spat between the Russian Union of Journalists, and their landlords:
The Russian Union of Journalists, the RUJ, says it faces eviction from its Moscow headquarters to make room for a state-run satellite TV station, Russia Today.
The move comes as the union is about to host a global gathering of journalists, organised by a leading international press freedom body.
RUJ general secretary Igor Yakovenko said the eviction was based on an order from President Vladimir Putin to accommodate the expansion plans of the English-language news channel, which aims to foster a positive image of Russia abroad.
The details of the story are a little unclear, and arguably it makes sense for the RUJ to move away from its (presumably subsidised) government owned accomodation. If nothing else, I would have thought that such a move would would give them an increased aura of independence from government.
Interestingly, the article makes no mention of whether the RUJ are likely to be able to secure alternative accomodation.
In other news, a group of journalists at the state owned Russian News Service have resigned, protesting about their lack of freedom:
Eight reporters from the Russian News Service said they could not work under new rules that required them not to interview or mention opposition leaders such as Garry Kasparov and to ensure 50% coverage of “positive news”.
Sadly, as they’ve resigned, I assume that their Union can’t really do all that much help them…
- What next?
Stumble it
Digg it
Save to Delicious
Leave a comment
Subscribe
{ 8 comments }
Michael Averko 05.21.07 at 12:41 pm
Not to be overlooked is the ongoing hack “journalism” of Anglo-American mass media outlets like the BBC.
This morning’s aired in NY BBC featured Jos De Putter, who was soft peddled when he spewed pro-Litvinenko propaganda.
The stated “evidence” of the FSB planting apartment bombings in Moscow was without foundation. Just prior to those bombings, Chechen separatists had already attacked Dagestan, in addition to increasing havoc in Checehnya. De Puter then stated that Politkovskaya supported Litvinenko’s contention about the FSB. SOME PROOF! All one has to do is quote the great Politikovskaya for “proof”.
Amruschik 05.21.07 at 8:27 pm
(on RJU eviction)….The details of the story are a little unclear
Maybe in BBC details seem that way because some are missing, but they seem clear enough here-
Scandal over Russia’s Union of Journalists has acquired commercial flavor
copydude 05.22.07 at 12:14 am
Liked the logo graphic, Andy. Wondering why the background is a plate? You only have to bribe British journalists with a beer and a sandwich.
Michael Averko 05.22.07 at 5:58 am
At times, some of those BBC folks carry on like how Russian mass media is caricatured.
A related brief of mine:
Johnson’s Russia List recently gave carte blanche to New York Times Bureau Chief Steven Lee Myers’ indignation
with University of Rhode Island Political Science Professor Nicolai Petro’s reasoned media critique. Leaving that exchange as is serves to further cover-up the sometimes less than perfect English language mass media coverage of the former USSR and other topics like former Yugoslavia.
Contrary to Myers, the NYT experiences of Jason Blair and Judith Miller prove that “the paper of record” has noticeable fault lines. The NYT fired those two for the embarrassment they caused. Their termination doesn’t mean that said news organization is in the clear. By no means is The NYT alone. It has plenty of company. The NYT is being highlighted in this instance vis-a-vis the JRL treatment of the Myers-Petro exchange.
NYT Russia beat reporter C.J. Chivers continues to erroneously suggest that Russia is guilty of double standards on the issue of disputed former Communist bloc territories (his most recent claim on this can be found in last Sunday’s Week in Review section of May 13). Coincidentally, Chivers’ slant matches that of The NYT Editorial Board. The latter readily cheerleads for an independent Kosovo, while ignoring Trans-Dniester’s significantly more valid independence claim. On the topic of disputed former Communist bloc territories, Russia can’t be legitimately be accused of hypocrisy, unlike the American government position.
The NYT has a history of slanting in favor of some key American foreign policy positions. Contrast how it covered Turkish actions against the Kurds with Serb ones against the Albanians. The NYT portrayed the Turks fighting an understandable war against terrorism, whereas the Serbs were depicted as quashing the legitimate aspirations of a wronged people. A comparison of the two reveals the Serbs were less aggressive, while offering greater cultural and political rights, to the ethnic group it has an adversarial relationship with.
If I’m not mistaken: awhile back, Myers authored a NYT article which uncritically quoted Elena Tregubova’s suggestion that she was a victim of an assassination attempt. The stated evidence was a bomb blast at her apartment complex. According to a Moscow area based American acquaintance of mine: that particular explosion happened closer to the building’s landlord, who at the time was reputed to have mob ties. This Moscow area based source received that information via assorted Russian mass media venues. Myers made no mention of it. Unlike the other examples in this piece, I can’t fully vouch for the mentioned Moscow area source.
There continues to be a grossly skewed coverage of former USSR affairs. This past week, a BBC segment had a news presenter tell Bush administration official Daniel Fried that Russia has been more diplomatically
provocative than the US. No mention was made of how Fried and Condoleezza Rice brazenly stated that Kosovo should be independent unlike other disputed former Communist bloc territories; just before each of them embarked on their respective Moscow visits. The following day, the BBC gave no opposition to former Lithuanian President Vytautus Landsbergis’ on air outburst likening present day Russia with Nazi Germany (said far more provocatively than Vladimir Putin’s recent reference to Nazi Germany). Within the same
time frame, the BBC used the word “allegedly” to describe discriminatory practices against ethnic Russians in Estonia.
This is the kind of “monitoring” that the JRL promoted “BBC Monitoring” doesn’t discuss. An environment complimented by the manner of those court appointed Russia friendlys, who readily defend instances like the recent softball Moscow News interview of the JRL editor. The ongoing sidestepping of imperfections runs counter to improving the coverage.
mait 05.22.07 at 6:37 am
Funny thing, free press. Both sides of each argument get airtime, where’s the fairness in that?
BBC is and remains the gold mean of independent journalism. And NYT does a fair job at it, too.
Michael Averko 05.22.07 at 7:27 am
For good reasons like those expressed in my prior post, media watch dog groups like FAIR and AIM aren’t so gloating of the BBC and NYT.
mait 05.22.07 at 9:54 am
Neither of which ‘watch dogs’ haven’t even taken a look at Russian media, being US-centric.
Would be nice to see a comparison of BBC and, say… ORT?
Michael Averko 05.22.07 at 10:55 am
How about comparing the freedom “state giant” Gazprom gives to Ekho Moskvy when compared to Derk Sauer run outlets like The Moscow Times?
The former media example shows the employment of some not so Russia/Putin friendly people, whereas the latter doesn’t employ Russocentric pundits. The latter being like Ekho Moskvy.
The type of media biases censored in the “free” (for those who can afford to influence it) press.
Comments on this entry are closed.