Points well taken up to a certain point.

There’s no obligation for JRL to post me. It’s also clear that JRL isn’t reasonably fair in its selection process.

Sean, Russian mass media isn’t obligated to run some of the horseshit stated by Politkovskaya (when living), Felgenhauer, Albats, Latynina and Gessen. Only some would call that “censorship”.

JRL regularly posted from the now downed Intelligent.ru. Those postings didn’t include any of my Intelligent.ru material which was otherwise well received. Same experiences with Russia Blog and your site.

The reasons are political. The JRL editor is against intelligently presented Russocentric views in the Eng. language. He also appears inacapable of an earnest intellectual discourse.

A shameless promotion: In addition to this interview, I’m quite proud of my Intelligent.ru, Russia Blog, Tiraspol Times, and Sean’s Russia Blog articles and consider a good number of them to be far more worthy than some of the material regularly promoted by JRL. I know that I’m not the only one feeling this way.

As a whole, I accept Mike criticisms of JRL, but don’t exactly share them. It would be a mistake among any serious person interested in Russia to use JRL as the only source. I happen to use it a lot and find it valuable because it contains a lot of articles (even some in translation) about Russia. But it is by no means a one stop shop. As far as JRL’s influence, I have no idea.

I don’t know why Johnson doesn’t include Mike’s work or other essential articles he claims are missing. It certainly could be personal, political, or something else entirely. Sorry Mike, I also don’t think Johnson has any obligation to include you and the publications you promote no more than I or Andy or even LR has an obligation to include anyone we don’t want to.

On traffic, and maybe I should put this comment on the evaluating Russian blogs thread, but to my knowledge, a hit gets recorded on site meter even if a site comes up on a google search. I get hits based on a number of strange searches that deal with Russia. For example, I recently got a hit from someone doing a search for “grandfather stories during soviet repressions.” If a blogger, like LR, simply republishes articles from other news sites, the number of hits are bound to increase just based on google searches. But whatever. Hits are merely a one way to gauge readership. I happen to think that the real measure of being read at least on Site meter is “average visit length” and comments.

LR is a shameless promoter and more power to her. We all are to some extent because we want to be read and by having a blog we feel we should be read. As Ger said here or on another thread (I can’t remember), blogging is about egoism.

Something which was directly addressed to David Johnson of Johnson’s Russia List.

In addition to some other points, he has so far done the turtle on this.

LR criticises everyone/thing that doesnt suit her flawed arguments. She operates on the opposite principle which scientists do -she selectively uses opinions(rather than facts) that suit her already-formed theories, rather than forming her theories from actual facts. She wouldnt be published in scientific journals. I should know I’m a chemist. Apart from anything else scientific papers have to be refereed by two independent anonymous experts and she’d struggle to find even one such person who’d agree with her. I have to say I know I’m well able to cause grief myself but i do wonder if she actually stirs up genuine debate or just trouble. Her blog is comment free and everywhere she goes she simply attacks. All the while actual issues arent discussed at all.

JRL has limits, but is still influential when it comes to Eng. language media folks covering the Russia beat.

Venues like Siberian Light are providing a much added punch. One that needs to be further ignited.

Unlike some other editors, I’m extremely impressed with Andy Young and Sean Guillory. Their respective knowledge level and non-politicization approach to the subject matter is refreshing from what’s typically present at the highly promoted/funded venues.

JRL got someone I am familiar with a job with an indirectly Rusisan government funded Moscow paper. No one was picking up his articles. JRL was the only one. Media people covering Russia get JRL.

JRL’s prejudices just might have screwed others from getting jobs. The Russian government funded media should be made aware of this situation.

Boo JRL.

Sorry to have missed your last post. It’s politically unhealthy for some some to feel free to criticize The Wall Street Journal, while not doing the same with JRL, for promoting an ongoing imperfection which can be easily improved upon.

Andy:

Okay. There’s still no legitimate excuse for JRL’s track record.

If we go by the LR posted comments, number of hits, cited elsewhere mode – I’ve done quite well, beyond a reasonable doubt. Unlike LR – my appeal is one that’s more academic, to go along with a pop mass culture enough level of being interesting for the masses.

IMHO, that’s what good media is about.

It does promote web sites. Check its home page:

http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson

All of those sites no doubt gave JRL some $$$$.

In a number of instances, JRL’s record in selecting material has qualititively hindered the Eng. language flow of news and commentary regarding the former USSR.

There’s no legitimate excuse whatsoever for JRL to have censored in the way that it has.

Points detailed in the above interview.

Mike – I checked quite carefully through the incoming traffic statistics around the time of the LR interview, and David Johnson’s decision to include the full interview on JRL. I think it resulted in an additional two or three readers which, in the scheme of things, is not all that overwhelming. The interview was posted towards the end of the JRL email, if I recall correctly, so there may have been more inbound traffic had it featured higher.

JRL has a role – a valuable one – to play in discourse about Russia. But, based on my experience, it isn’t a good forum for promoting websites, and shouldn’t be seen as such.

As for posting comments, she banned critical people like me from commenting. Hence no comments, because I daresay there are very few except the ill informed who would agree with her spin on things. I say spin specifically because the articles themselves are from elsewhere. It/he/she whatever hasnt an original bone in its body.

Re: http://russophobe.blogspot.com/2007/03/tracking-sl-interviews-lr-sl-have-last.html

The above linked chatter was forwarded to my attention and is being specifically addressed to Johnson’s Russia List.

La Russophobe continues to cite questionable numbers to legitimize its existence. In this recent episode, are the number of posted comments to its Siberian Light interview. Of all the Siberian Light interviews, JRL only chose to post LR’s. This no doubt generated an enhanced feedback to LR’s interview.

JRL’s posting of LR has to do with the former’s bias conforming to the views of LR. Note that LR has critiqued the JRL editor in a manner far more “personal” than what yours truly could ever be legitimately accused of. My media critiques are done in a point by point academic manner, as opposed to LR using such terms as “nut job”, “screwball”, and “loco” to describe those individuals who he/she disagrees with. The JRL editor known (by a good number) for lecturing on proper manners isn’t being so proper in his selection of posted material.

Of a related note to JRL’s bias, there has recently been an article about Chechnya’s case for independence featured at the JRL home page http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson. It’s quite another story for JRL to feature a firm English language article showing how Pridnestrovie (Trans-Dniester) has the best case for independence among all of the disputed former Communist bloc territories (which Chechnya isn’t in a category with, since it’s firmly recognized as a part of Russia).

On LR’s supposedly great hit numbers, how come so few people post comments at his/her blog? Even if we’re to believe LR’s self professed popularity, this should in no way warrant JRL promoting that venue which insults and distorts others in a way not evident at some really good Russia related material being censored by JRL. In addition to LR, note how JRL promotes some blogs with very little in terms of posted feedback and getting picked up at other venues besides JRL and the repeat JRL section at The Moscow Times influenced Russia Profile.

As previously noted, hit numbers can reflect a desire for the bizarre, as many of those viewing simultaneously ridicule the viewed product. This factor definitely exists with LR.

Seeing how JRL and LR toot their own politically partisan agendas, I’ll end by noting how my last four articles at Russia Blog and Sean’s Russia Blog respectively drew replies of 38, 35, 34 and 91 posted comments, in addition to being cited by other venues, but not by JRL.

Once again, the English language media coverage of the former USSR continues to lack, with the same inadequacies being repeated.

Is it not clear that Johnson’s Russia List is flawed in the way it posted LR’s interview but not Mike’s? Also keep in mind the other instance of JRL posting LR’s tennis rant (described in Mike’s interview) without posting any replies to it.

Is there not an intimidation factor explaining why JRL is rarely criticized?

Johnson’s Russia List as implemented should not be playing the kind of role it does.

Sorry to have missed your last comments.

Looks like David Johnosn cancelled my subscription from JRL. If so, this reveals the kind of person being given lucrative and influential powers.

The man allows criticism of others at his venue, while censoring those of himself. I know him to have done this to others.

I openly challenge him to a debate.

No salary comes with these offers. Meantime, others are working in the field who IMHO aren’t more qualified than yours truly.

The bottom line being that I should have a $$$ offer.

While his emails are fascinating, I feel that the nature of the format means they lack interactivity and debate. And, although Mike does make extensive use of online forums, I personally find that, because they are scattered over a number of sites, I rarely have the time to keep up with them – or to find them in the first place.

I’m sure Mike could get to grips with the blog format pretty quickly, and overcoming the editing problem should be relatively straightforward. Additionally, I think if all of Mike’s work were available from one centrally accessible site, it would increase your exposure.

Having said that, the way in which people choose to communicate is entirely their own personal preference. If Mike writes about Russia because of his love of the subject, then what works for Mike is what’s most important.

I know a computer science Phd who teaches computer science at a major university. He had a bit of a struggle making edits to a blog and added that someone like myself would struggle even more.

If I wanted to, I could get the hang of it. The interview explains my preference.

High time for a $$$ return,seeing what the market is like vis-a-vis some of the paid (and well paid at that) folks.

http://seansrusskiiblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/media-critique-on-recent-coverage-of.html

What really disappoints me are those orgs., claiming to represent different views about Russia in the English language. I understand that some of them have shelled out good money to individuals who have either been disasters (and since fired) or continue to produce material that can be improved upon.

As a comparison, I’ve done my share of top notch work. It’s high time for a return.