Talk:Media freedom in Russia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

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. --Lysy^talk 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)

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)

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)

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" 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."

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. 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)

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)

sources

• СТАНОВЛЕНИЕ СМИ В РОССИИ КАК ИНСТРУМЕНТА ДЕМОКРАТИИ: ПОЛИТИКА ГОСУДАРСТВА И ЧАСТНЫХ КОРПОРАЦИЙ
• Общестатистическая информация о российском рынке печатных СМИ, Mediastat
• Российский рынок периодической печати 2007 год, доклад Федерального агентства по печати и массовым коммуникациям

Andrey Kuznetsov's analysis

Krawndawg why are you dedicating FOUR paragraphs to the obeservations of a russian journalist? One who doesn't seem notable at all too. Wikipedia is not the place to add every mans opinion. - Pieter_v (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This journalist has no established reputation. We can not include every post here.Biophys (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't say 4 paragraphs need to be dedicated to it, but as long as you keep deleting the entire bit, I'll keep reverting. He makes important points and what you're doing is plain old censorship. If you want to trim it, go ahead, but keep the important points. Krawndawg (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Pieter_v, just one question, shouldn't this be understood as discrimination of a Russian journalist by his national pertinence? I hope you do not have prejudice against Russian journalists, regardless of their ideological points (if any). ellol (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter if he is Russian or not. He is a non-notable journalist. His non-notable personal opinion occupied ~20% of the article. Therefore, I have reduced his citation two times as was agreed in the discussion above.Biophys (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What are the criteria? Kuznetsov is a staff writer of Lenta.Ru. Lenta.Ru is in top ten of sites visited in RU domain ([4] [5]). Number of internet users in Russia approaches 40 million. [6] I would say that doesn't allow to blame him unnoticeable.

Please, shorten his statement, but do not remove. ellol (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What newspaper he works for doesn't change the fact that he's not notable. His opinion is cherry picked, are we supposed to insert every mans opinion here? It's an editorial which doesn't fit anyway. Place a small reference that some random Russian journalist disputed the report, but entire paragraphs is far too much. - Pieter_v (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, what are you criteria? Kuznetsov's report is for the most part fact-based. Each fact can be verified. It doesn't mean if he's "notable", but if he's professional. And he is. (And nope, that is not an editorial, it is an article signed by that author.)

I'll try to clarify my point. Kuznetsov's writing is much of response to the points made in the Freedom House report. And for the most part, it's fact-based response: Freedom House sais a journalist was apparently killed for criticizing government, Kuznetsov sais the journalist was killed by irrelevant motif, like robbery. It does not mean situation with Media freedom in Russia is good, but it means that Freedom House report is bad. And Kuznetsov has more or less proved that.

About cherry picking. If more than a half of the report is flawed, that's more than cherry picking. Do you think it's okey using a flawed report in a Wiki article?

Any trimming to this section can be fact-to-fact annihilation of Kuznetsov's claims and Media Freedom's ones -- just in order not to overwhelm reader with tons of information. If you want, I can do that. ellol (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Kuznetsov's report fact-based? I think you're a bit confused. The Freedom house report states "Other journalists who were killed in 2006—likely for reasons tied to their work". The fact that Kuznetsov believes that one of those journalists wasn't murdered because of his/her work is nothing but an allegation. Don't jump to conclusions, since Freedom House is pretty much one of the best sources you can get for wikipedia. Your idea that Freedom House is "flawed" is nothing but an allegation and Kuznetsov's cherry picked opinion fails WP:NOTOPINION. - Pieter_v (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes. We do not even have an article about this journalist, although a cutoff for including person to WP is pretty low. What we actually should do is to remove his opinion piece completely and to summarize the Freedom House report more briefly. It is also way too long, although yes, it weights a lot more than Kuznetsov's opinion as an official report by a notable international human rights organization.Biophys (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

1)That's wonderful, these are two different opinions about the same events: "Other journalists who were killed in 2006—likely for reasons tied to their work, according to media watchdogs—included Ilya Zimin, a correspondent for the national television station NTV;" and "According to Kuznetsov, death of journalist Ilya Zimin was classified as murder on everyday grounds,". You can't say one is worse than the other. They are not contradictory, but the way of covering the events is sufficiently different. That's why I propose either to keep either, or to delete both.

2)Of course, you can't have articles for every good journalist. Unless they are killed... ellol (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the whole subject is of not too much significance. We can greately reduce Freedom House report and leave shortened Kuznetsov's comment. ellol (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is you're putting off the Freedom House report as equally reliable as the analysis by "Kuznetsov". Kuznetsov is just one of many editors of lenta.ru who writes opinion pieces (check his other articles). Freedom House is a an independent human rights organisation. Those are two completely different things. On the other hand a person who is notable enough to dismiss the freedom house report is a Russian official, and you're likely to find one of those. I think the idea to shorten the Freedom Press report and exclude Kuznetsov's writing is fine. - Pieter_v (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

May be we do not need any Russian journalism at all? Instead of Russian media we could just have Freedom House annually registering absense of media in Russia. That would fill this article equally well. ellol (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

More criticism of Freedom House -- as requested

• Глава Совета при президенте РФ по содействию развитию институтов гражданского общества и правам человека Элла Памфилова считает, что результаты исследования в отношении России выглядят «смешно, нелепо и натянуто». «Многие авторитетные международные организации прекрасно знают, что собой представляет Freedom Нouse, – сказала г-жа Памфилова «НИ». – Там в руководстве бывший руководитель ЦРУ и много людей, по сути, ненавидящих Россию. Эта организация уже давно инструмент политики США, такая откровенная правозащитная дубинка». По мнению Эллы Памфиловой, исследования Freedom House резко контрастируют с деятельностью авторитетных международных правозащитных организаций, таких как «Международная амнистия», Human Rights Watch. В Общественной палате также сочли оценку Freedom Нouse необъективной и провокационной. [7]

• Адвокат Анатолий Кучерена: "Я не против критики, тем более что у нас много недостатков. Но когда я читаю рейтинги Freedom House, который считает, что выборы в Ираке, Афганистане или в Грузии были <свободными>, а в России и Белоруссии <несвободными>, я не могу не видеть, что в выводах этой организации, претендующей на экспертизу, сквозят предвзятость и идеологический подтекст." [8]

• Алексей Пушков: "Конечно, до полноценной демократии нам достаточно далеко. Но список американской правозащитной организации поражает своей тотальной предвзятостью. Я думаю, что есть смысл заставить экспертов Freedom House несколько месяцев пожить в Северной Корее, чтобы они, как говорится, почувствовали разницу. Потому что, я думаю, это не только политическая предвзятость, но еще и откровенная глупость, которая, на мой взгляд, доказывает две вещи: либо Freedom House - абсолютно некомпетентная организация, либо она действует по заданию неких структур, которым очень выгодно создавать и поддерживать негативный имидж России как в Соединенных Штатах, так и на Западе в целом.

На мой взгляд, те оценки, которые дает эта организация, находятся на грани между политической ангажированностью и банальным непрофессионализмом. Вообще, я достаточно много общался с представителями подобного рода организаций. И, как правило (при всей своей предвзятости), они все же стараются сохранять какой-то уровень объективности. Потому что в противном случае им просто перестают верить. Однако в случае с рейтингом стран, по версии Freedom House, мы имеем дело с явным политическим бредом. Это абсолютно нетерпимая ситуация с точки зрения соответствия тем критериям, которые используются американскими организациями для оценки внешнего мира." [9]

• NEWSRU.com: "Москва обвиняет Вашингтон в давлении на Россию, используя как во времена СССР правозащитную тематику, и подвергает в этой связи резкой критике последний доклад американской правозащитной организации Freedom House."[10] Официальный комментарий МИД: "Так зачем же эти постоянные упражнения в очернительстве России? Наверное, сейчас это кому-то нужно. Кто-то хочет сохранить давление на нас, используя по привычке правозащитную тематику, как во времена Советского Союза. Схема опробована, дело отлажено. Зачем выдумывать что-то новое?" [11]

ellol (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Now take a guess why all these critical reports are from Russian newspapers. Seriously, one reference that Russian officials dismiss the freedom house report is fine. It's just when Chinese officials dismiss a report from Amnesty International. You don't fill an article like that with 20 references from Chinese journalists that share the same view either. (I'm not saying that's your plan ;) ) - Pieter_v (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Here, the reply from Russian officials[12]. Not surprisingly they dismiss the report, I doubt they would have said "Freedom House, you're absolutely right!". The reply from Russian human rights groups is notable too. I think writing a short summary of this article is the best way to go. - Pieter_v (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it tells: "The annual Freedom in the World report caused a real uproar in Russia. The Foreign Ministry declined to comment, calling the findings in the report “absurd”. Ella Pamfilova, head of the presidential council on civil society institutions and human rights, told Kommersant that it is former CIA employees who shape Freedom House’s ideology.". Let's include this opinion of Ella Pamfilova instead of this unknown journalist.Biophys (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with removal of Kuznetsov's response. Indirectly, it shows reaction of Russian journalists to the "care" of Freedom House. If people who Freedom House seeks to protect, aren't very happy of such protection -- it's a sign. If you know some better in your opinion response of a Russian journalist or some journalist society -- go ahead. If we can have it better, okey. If we can't, let's stick to what we have.

Of the people listed above, only Alexey Pushkov is a media worker -- chief editor of analytical program Postscriptum at TVC national channel. But he's a bit more of an usual journalist -- he sets rules himself, as Postscriptum is known internationally. ellol (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And what makes you think Kuznetsov represents those who Freedom House seeks to protect? Kuznetsov hardly criticizes the Russian government in all of his articles, so he doesn't need protection. - Pieter_v (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Continue your thought. Freedom House is not about protecting Russian journalists. Rights and freedoms are such social good that they either exist for the whole society, either do not exist at all.

But you made an interesting point. Is Freedom House participating any way in daily routine job of Russian human rights societies -- providing legal and other aid to people persecuted by the power. The answer is no. Amnesty International does. Some other organizations do. But Freedom House is good only to make a big poo once a year. ellol (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Note also, that Pamfilova, Pushkov, Kucherena aren't against international critique of Russia. Moreover they say critique is needed, Russia has lots of drawbacks, and they approve or at least tolerate such organizations as Amnesty International. But nobody likes Freedom House. Everybody's sick of it. ellol (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"nobody", "everybody". Is this collection supposed to prove that?

Anyway, the reaction from Russian officials is more important than one of a random non-notable Russian journalist, so we should definitely go by that. - Pieter_v (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Summary, serious breach of NPOV, correction required

"However, Russian TV broadcasting has come under greater state control during the same time and is now dominated by channels that are either run directly by the state or owned by companies with close links to the Government of Russia. Critics say independent reporting has suffered as a result." source: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/IB17Ag02.html

• The source in question reports quite the opposite:
  "Today it is not the Russian state but foreign companies that own shares in more than half of all Russian broadcasting companies. Critics, however, have zeroed in on the one area of the media where the state's presence still predominates - national television. Through its control of seats on the board of the joint stock companies that control the media corporations that own particular stations, it is argued, the government exerts undue influence on national television channels. What does the evidence actually show?
  ...Medialogia's detailed statistics also demolish the myth that Putin dominates national television and allows no critical reporting.
  ...To sum up, under Putin, for the first time in modern Russian history, independent media have become profitable." --TanankaRU (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Replaced with "In 2007, a report reaffirmed that foreign companies owned shares in over half of all Russian broadcasting companies and not the state. However, critics concentrated solely on national television media. The myth that Putin dominated national television and allowed no critical reporting was demolished by a 2006 annual survey. For the first time in modern Russian history, independent media had become profitable." --TanankaRU (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Censorship in Russia?

Censorship in Russia redirects to here. This article does not cover censorship. Only "Freedom of the press". Is there/was there an article that covered censorship, and if so, where is it, or how do I fLostinlodos (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)ind the old page?

There was censorship in the Soviet Union. In Russia, the principle of freedom of press is declared, at least, officially (As of Article 29/5 of the Constitution: "The freedom of mass communication shall be guaranteed. Censorship shall be banned." [13]). This Wikipedia article is devoted to different views on, how well (or not) does this principle (of press freedom) work in Russian reality. ellol (talk) 06:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I was looking more fore a covering of the banning of items, issues, not an ability to report on it. Was there at one time an article that covered WHAT was banned as opposed to who was banned from producing/seeing what was banned. I could always pull it from a dump file if it ever existed. Lostinlodos (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not actually getting your idea.

In Soviet Union, a book to be published had to come through a formal procedure called censorship. E.g., if your book contained mentions of certain military units (the easiest example) it would be officially banned, i.e. not admitted to be published. Certain books, in particular, The GULAG Archipelago were banned until Perestroika, e.g. first edition of this book was published in Soviet Union only in 1989 (see samizdat for more information).

In Russia, according to 1993 Constitution censorship is banned. Indeed, any book can be published, and if by some reason nobody publishes your book you can establish your own publishing agency.

However it doesn't mean the publisher remains intact under whatever circumstances. There's a law on extremist activity, according to which "the activity of the respective provider of mass information may be discontinued by court order" in case one published extremist stuff and it's proven in court. In 2006 the definition of extremism was redefined, including now public slander of state officials. [14]

You can see the full Federal List of Extremist Information, citing all media items recognized as extremist by courts so far. (in Russian)

http://www.rosregistr.ru/index.php?menu=3014000000

http://www.rg.ru/2008/08/15/spisok-dok.html

http://www.rg.ru/2008/09/03/spisok-dok.html

More or less, that's all. And oh, there's also Article 282 of the Russian Criminal Code banning incitement of interracial and interreligious strife. [15] E.g., in Russia you can legally publish "Mein Kampf", but that must result in your inprisonment. (see also e.g. Boris Stomakhin)

ellol (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The laws on extremism are often used to silence opposition. They will charge whatever newspaper is critical of the government with extremism and close it, even when its not extremist in nature according to most analysts, and its condemned by press freedom agencies all over the world. Grey Fox (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The laws on extremism are used to silence extremism. The List of extremist information doesn't contain a single opposition source -- but a lot of sources calling like to "kill all jews", "kill all russians", "kill all muslims", or "kill all the government". None of these documents would be considered opposition in any country. ellol (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No, many organisations have already been forbidden falsely under disguise of "extremism", such as the voice of beslan group, recently a dagestani newspaper, and the owner of the website ingushetiya.ru. All of them reported on human rights abuse by the Russian government. Grey Fox (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"Censorship" and "Freedom" [of the press] are two very different things. There is no article "Censorship in Russia" although it could be created (there are enough sources describing censorship in Tsarist, Soviet and contemporary Russia. That was actually the scope of an "Censorship in Russia" article in ruwiki.Biophys (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you understand, Grey Fox, that in any ambiguous situation positions of all involved sides must be viewed. If you say any organization is falsely forbidden, OK, please, provide sources from Article 19, AI, CPJ, Memorial, or any other reputable human rights organization -- it would be the best way to do.

As a Wikipedian I try not to care, if somebody spoke against Russian Government, pro Russian Government, or anything else. I care about reputable source to be used. Thank you, ellol (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering Kuznetsov's article, I believe, Grey Fox, there's certain misunderstanding on your side. Lenta.Ru is one of the most popular Russian internet newspapers with extensive history (started in 1999) and liberal background.

You are repeatedly removing information cited in a Russian liberal newspaper. My congrats, ellol (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Which newspaper it is is of no importance, the paragraphs cited are the the opinions of one author. "Russian journalist Andrey Kuznetsov" is completely unknown and his personal opinions do not belong on an encyclopedia, let alone dedicate 30% of a page to it. See WP:NOTOPINION, and WP:RS which states We only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.. Then there's WP:UNDUE; Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. We're indeed dealing with a minority view, so it's absurd to try to dedicate 30% of this page to it.

As for your request of links to reliable sources condemning Russia's constant attribution of 'extremist' when closing independent newspapers, it would take me some effort to go through my history to find them. I don't think it's of much use for me to show them to you though, because you don't seem like someone willing to change his attitude towards the Russian government anytime soon. Grey Fox (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder, what makes you thinking Lenta.Ru is an unreliable source? It's one of the top Russian internet media. It's reaction is notable, at least. Besides, Freedom House report was widely criticised in Russia by various people and organization. ellol (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Lenta.Ru isn't what I call a "high-quality news organization", and the journalist in question is unknown. Find some better sources and then let someone translate it (because the current version is really badly translated-I can hardly read it) and then maybe we can dedicate a small section to it, but also with countercriticism included per WP:UNDUE. Grey Fox (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting: [16] ellol (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, not another discussion on WP:RS. Of course, Lenta.ru is a WP:RS; it fulfills the requirements of a WP:RS. But it depends what is the subject whether it should be cited as attribution or not, as this is the case with all sources. Just because an editor has not heard of a journalist is no reason to exclude the information; does said editor know the names of every single journalist in the world? In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used. - I fail to see how this comes into the argument in relation to this topic, as WP:BLP is not a concern here; the journalist is questioning Freedom House, which is not a legal person. What that part of WP:RS means, is that we can't use Chechenpress to make the statement "Putin is a paedophile". Additionally, I am questioning why Freedom_of_the_press_in_Russia#Marches_of_discontent is even in this article? It has nothing to do with Freedom of the press in Russia, so unless a very good reason can be made for even having this here, it should be removed post haste. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have also reverted the information garnished via Lenta.ru. Nearly a third of this article is devoted to an American think tanks opinion on Freedom of the press in Russia. If Lenta's statements need to go per WP:UNDUE, then so do Freedom Houses for the same reason. The entire section needs to be copy-edited, and reduced in importance to the overall subject. But to delete a Russian media sources opinion of a foreign think tanks opinion on Freedom of the press in Russia is akin to exactly the same type of behaviour that Freedom House accuses the Russian government of. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting subject for WP could be Western media skewing of events in Russia. Take for example, the other day, Medvedev is delivering a speech on the Constitution of Russia which was interrupted by a heckler who shouted out "Why are you listening to him? He's violated the rights and freedoms of people and citizens!" What was the response of Medvedev? Well look here and here. Did Medvedev only say "the purpose of the Constitution is to allow everyone to voice his opinion"? Of course not, he said, "Really there is no need to take anyone away. Let him speak and listen,"..."The constitution was accepted for that -- so that everyone had a right to express their own positions. It is also a position which can be respected."...of course, this wasn't very widely reported out there in freedom of the press land. Of course, some media would try and skew it into such a way that Putin would be eating the heckler for breakfast.....oh wait, The Scotsman already did that........ --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 20:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Just because an editor has not heard of a journalist is no reason to exclude the information; does said editor know the names of every single journalist in the world?" His name hardly comes up in google. I wouldn't call that a source with a reputation for "fact-checking and accuracy" as the header of WP:RS quite clearly states.

"I have also reverted the information garnished via Lenta.ru. Nearly a third of this article is devoted to an American think tanks opinion on Freedom of the press in Russia. If Lenta's statements need to go per WP:UNDUE, then so do Freedom Houses for the same reason" As you continue to make the same mistake over and over again, the words of said article are not that of "Lenta.Ru", but of the writer of that article. He's unknown. Unlike this cherry picked editorial, the Freedom House is not the opinion of a single author, but of an entire board of researchers, and it's a well-respected source. Grey Fox (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A possibly solution is if we don't use the giant quote from Freedom House report either. Their message could be attributed in a few sentences. Grey Fox (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Lenta.ru is a reliable source. It is used in plenty of scholarly sources. The solution is indeed to reduce the amount of both sources in the article. The position taken by Lenta.ru is not one that is only unique to Lenta either, other sources could be found for it also I am certain. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Again the article are not the words of Lenta.ru but that of "Kuznetsov". At the same time there's also many other sources, including probably those of the highest quality news papers, that describe the huge amount of censorship in the Russian Federation. So far this page is still very soft. Having witnessed, live, how editor staff described the murder of Magomed Yevloyev whose website I read every day, I find it amazing his murder by federals didn't even cause the smallest amount of shock in Russia. Instead people went on with buying Putin Toys, Medvedev stickers, Troshev gloves, Kadyrov pillows etc. And none of that is covered here. Yes this page could do with a lot of improvement. Grey Fox (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed solution to shorten both statements.

Regarding the situation with "censorship" in Russia, I do not wonder. People are tired of shocks -- 1917, Communists; 1941, Nazis; 1991, Democrats -- a bit too much. Many are truly working 24/7 to make their living. As a recent survey shows, 70% population trust central TV -- that is, I guess, 3 state or semi-state TV channels and private REN-TV. [17]

Besides, what makes you thinking Russians weren't shocked? I was. It's wrong if people, oppositioners, are being murdered. Yevloyev was known mostly locally -- in Ingushetia -- and in Ingustetia, indeed, crowds of people were protesting the event[18]. Not surprisingly, Governor of Ingushetia Zyazikov was soon dismissed.

But you also do not cry over every American dead during the Iraq War, do you? ellol (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking a bit of abstractly, I see nothing wrong that people can buy Putin's portraits if nearby they can buy Khodorkovsky's books (a real picture I saw in a Moscow book shop -- these items were placed nearby, because, I guess, they both relate to politics). ellol (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course it was protested in Ingushetia, they are oppressed people. I meant that it didn't cause much shock amongst Russian civilians. It did in the caucasus. And officialy Zyazikov wasn't dismissed, but "volunteerily" stepped down (this is how dismissal was dubbed during Soviet times as well). Anyway this happened only much later, and not because of human rights abuse which still exists, but because he was losing the war against the rebels (shortly before he stepped down reportedly 50 russian soldiers were killed in a single ambush).

What's with "American casualties in Iraq"? That question comes out of the blue. Grey Fox (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think Ingushs are oppressed people? Why? Besides, I made no difference between "dismissed" or "stepped down", anyway he had to leave and it became clear after Yevloyev's murder. ellol (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

And what the fairy tales about 50 Russian soldiers? ellol (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No he was dismissed long after. And usually, in a free democratic society, someone responsible for murder is brought to trial and condemned, not honorably discharged. I don't "think" that Ingush are oppressed people, I know. Here's what the Moscow Helsinki Group had to say: Situation in Ingushetia Today Resembles Stalin-era Terror. Grey Fox (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

1) In free democratic societies, the guilt of suspects is only determined by a court. While it looks like you are ready to speak alone for judicial system, and have you the authority, for penitentiary system as well.

2) Indeed, situation in Ingushetia looks way strange. Lives of people there are insecure. I can't imagine that happening in e.g. the Moscow District. Again, why does you think Ingushs are oppressed? ellol (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

1) there won't be a free and fair trial 2) read the source Grey Fox (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

1) And that, dear Grey Fox, is called Russophobia. My congratulations. 2) I know Ingushetian stuff, sort of. ellol (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm yes, caring about human rights equals "Russophobia". Are you ok? Grey Fox (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The official version is, Yevloyev attempted to take cop's gun while seating in the police car, an accidental shot followed. It's good of course, that it was not a suicide with two gun shots in the head. But I can't be sure the version is outright lie — it's highly unprobable, but there's so much lie from all sides, one can't be sure in anything. ellol (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's easy for you, of course. Putin, bloody regime, oppressed Ingushs. Take a flag and go marching around the White House. ellol (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Claiming free and fair trial is impossible in Russia is russophobia. One day free and fair trials will be a rule, these days, corruption is of course atop, but sometimes they are free and fair, especially if citizens are insistent enough. ellol (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The 'official version' is pretty insulting really, and pretty much symbolizes how extraducial killings are covered up by corrupt officials and military systematically. The only thing which propelled this crime to fame is that Yevloyev was an opposition leader. Hundreds of similar cases have been registered by human rights groups over the past years, but they don't receive much attention because the victims are unknown.

I do think free and fair trials are possible in Russia, just not under a corrupt government. That has nothing to do with Russophobia, but with human rights. I have Russian friends and think that Russian girls are pretty, ok?

I also don't live in America, but in Europe like you. Protesting the Russian government is of no use here, that's something Russians should do themselves, especially patriotic people like you. Grey Fox (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not that simple. Russian laws are far from defining the life at Caucasus. Have you heard about the custom (adat) of blood feud there? For those who read Russian, a recent article about how the system works there [19]. It just is not that much about laws, but about justice as people understand it.

Some Chechens I talked to say they would prefer Sharia law over Russian one. Again, that's not that simple.

I guess for people there being Chechens or Ingushs means much more than being pro- or anti- Moscow. ellol (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

None of that will bring back Yevloyev, so whatever. Grey Fox (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes. Perhaps you know the way to resurrect the dead? ellol (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd Travel back in time and prevent "United Russia" from installing a former KGB officer as president of Ingushetia who terrorizes the local population. Grey Fox (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Want to have fun? Better have a look on this: [20] It just went on the national television (NTV), a way the discussion between 2 top politicians (Nadezhdin from Right cause and Zhirinovsky from LDPR) reached the edge of a fighting. ellol (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro

The introductory paragraph discusses ownership of media outlets extensively - I think it should be rewritten in a more concise way. I also think the high-profile murders of journalists should at least be mentioned there. Currently, it reeks of apologism. Discuss. Muad (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

acording to the BBC the state owns the main Russian TV channels, I believe the BBC is more realiable then an internet publication who says not! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I agree with your last edit. The opinion of a non-notable journalist in the end of the article should be also shortened (see discussion above - Kuznetsov about Freedom House). Do you agree?Biophys (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole section is a bit too long, no need to cite a report what is aviable online Mariah-Yulia (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agree, please also see arguments above.Biophys (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Could you please reduce both Freedom House report and the Kuznetsov opinion piece?Biophys (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in Putin-bashing, but I think sentences like: However, critics concentrated solely on national television media. The myth that Putin dominated national television and allowed no critical reporting was demolished by a 2006 annual survey do not belong in a encyclopaedia. The myth is not even mentioned in the intro and the sentence is OK in a novel but not in an encyclopaedia. Dear User:Ellol can you please rewrite your last edit? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mariah-Yulia, thank you for a useful comment. Let me see what can be made to improve the style of the edit. If you have any further comments, I'm ready for cooperation. ellol (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There's an interesting possibility to introduce into the article raw Medialogy data about Putin's mentions in media in 2006. This would be more informative, perhaps. ellol (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't know what happend while I didn't pay any attention to this article but the current version of the intro speaks about how the Russian press is organised, not about freedom of the press in Russia. See WP:INTRO for how a intro is supposed to look. Will make changes soon. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 12:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear, Mariah-Yulia.

I know what happened to the intro. Let me explain my point.

Before the Perestroika and Glasnost there was no free press in Russia. The development of the media freedom started from the initially worse positions that in most of the countries. It's simply not fair to await the rapid development and compare Russia to other countries. Russia is a special case.

The more important issue is, that there are different estimations of the situation with the media freedom. Many estimates are politically motivated, besides. It's not fair to overburden the reader with the whole lot of contradictory information, until at least introducing the reader to the legal basics of media freedom in Russia.

Therefore, I moved (I didn't erase any bit of information; only moved it one section below!) the various assessments of the situation with the media freedom to the section Trends which immediately follows the section with legal basics.

Regards,

ellol (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:Lead: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article, and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article" + The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. The current lead paragraph thus not do this, while the article has plenty of content to summarise. Exactly it tells nothing about the subject so it is not a stand alone as a concise overview of the article either. Surely it should be possible to make some sort of summary? I will give it a go as soon as it's rainy weather... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Legal position?

I would delete or move the section of "Legal position". The section is outdated, and mostly dead letters, in 2009. Furthermore, after a visit by Alvaro Gil-Robles in 2004, the freedom of the press in Russia has turned from bad to worse. (This is, of course, totally unrelevant to this subject, but 1936 Soviet Constitution was much more advanced and guaranteed better freedoms as similar constitution in the Western world in that time.) Peltimikko (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

How is the description of the law outdated? Since Gil-Robles is commenting on the law itself, and not on the media freedom in general, I fail to see how that would be outdated either. Description of the legal situation seems to be a standard way of opening these kinds of articles; Human rights in Estonia is another example. Offliner (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The law becomes outdated when it's cancelled. Same about the Constitution -- its article on speech freedom can't be cancelled until Russia exists. The law on mass media isn't cancelled. I'm only aware of terrorism-related amendments to it in 2002 [21], before Gil-Robles's visit. As the law is acting, it must be viewed.

The report of Gil Robles is very thorough. He actually discussed the issues with the journalists, in different regions and in Moscow -- this makes this report an unique source of information. The European Commissioner for Human Rights once in several years visits an European country and composes a report about its condition. That are not some casual visits, but they are related to the international obligations of Russia as a member of the Council of Europe. As long as a newer report of a European Commissioner is not available, I believe it's OK to use the 2005 version.

Most international criticism of Putin took place before 2004. That relates to such issues as state's overtake of NTV and ORT TV channels, that happened in 2001. In recent years, however, the criticism ceased greately. Instead of the cries of "Tsar Putin" and "neo-Stalinism" we can see more accurate reports. That also indicates that the West over-reacted in the previous years. ellol (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty International: "Human rights defenders, journalists and lawyers who spoke openly about human rights abuses faced threats and intimidation." (Amnesty International Report 2009), Human Rights Watch: "The government continues tightening control over civil society through selective implementation of the law on NGOs, restriction and censure of protected expression and the media, and harassment of activists and human rights defenders." (WORLD REPORT 2009), Human Right Report of United States Department of State: "Government pressure weakened freedom of expression and media independence, particularly of the major television networks." (2008 Human Rights Report: Russia) and so on. Peltimikko (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Alvaro Gil-Robles also writes about assaults on journalists, and we have his statements on that in this article. For example: "Finally, Russia counts amongst the countries in which attacks and acts of violence against journalists have noticeable risen in recent years."

But he also sees positive traits in the overall picture. For example: "I was impressed by the strong motivation of the journalists, their keenness to preserve and reinforce their rights and their everyday efforts to uphold freedom of expression."

Moveover, a whole section in this article is devoted to assaults on journalists. ellol (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I tell you a (true) story: In the 1930s lot of Western reporters visited Stalin's Soviet Union. They were shown miracles of the modern Soviet Union society (they were not allowed to travel freely), and they saw for example a model prison were prisoners were so happy that they did not want leave after the served time. Western reporters returned back to their home countries and wrote lot of positive reports of this wonderful "Worker's Paradise". Lenin had a right term for these people: Useful idiots. Peltimikko (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That's nice, but please remember WP:NOTFORUM. Try to stay on the topic. Offliner (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a nice story, but one we all know of. So I must ask, what's your point? Russia isn't the Soviet Union. Why do some people have such a hard time grasping this? The only reason that was possible back then is because they were restricted from traveling freely. Such is not the case today. LokiiT (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, relating to your claim that the law is "outdated", that's complete nonsense. All I can gather from your argument is that you want to remove it because it conflicts with your opinion, which is mind bogglingly ridiculous. LokiiT (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Gil-Robles chose himself people who he spoke to. You can consider him a sort of a "big boss" of Russia in the aspect of human rights, while he was a Commissioner. Often, troublesome cases listed in his report were later solved. A good example is the case of Meskhetian Turks. Gil-Robles reported their troublesome situation in Russia. Some moves were taken by authorities. But after a year the Russian Commissioner for Human Rights Vladimir Lukin noted in his report with indignation that the situation with Meskhetian Turks was not solved by authorities yet. And only after that, finally the situation was resolved. ellol (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

And actually, it's what makes the real job to defend the human rights, that brings real results.

While the many human rights groups that have no legally stated influence on Russia, can use only the social resonance to be heard. So they may overreact to the real troubles. ellol (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I follow some blogs of Russian journalists. They are often critical of the authorities. It's normal for journalists. One of them -- Vladimir Glinsky [22] reports actually tough conditions for journalists in a Russian region of Bashkortostan. Other journalist, Oleg Kashin, works in Moscow. The newspaper he worked for for the last year ("Russian life") closed down for financial issues. Just recently, Kashin became a reporter of a major newspaper Kommersant. So, a great difference between the Moscow and regions is, that the Moscow provides much more choices and opportunities for a journalist. The other journalist, Maxim Kononenko, just writes any random stuff he enjoys. He started as a blog owner, but in last years he also got published in various internet and traditional media. His specific worldview doesn't let him to notice any difficulties. He just does what he likes, and if that also brings money that's excellent.

So, overall, from my personal observations, I do not see facts that would break Gil-Robles'es observations. ellol (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV or not?

According to User:Offliner, this version is NPOV [23]. The article is about FREEDOM of the press in Russia - not "Press in Russia"/"Media in Russia". Peltimikko (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edit seriously compromised the neutrality of the article. One should never start an article by presenting an opinion as a fact. LokiiT (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

1) Most of international press freedom/human rights organisations see Freedom of the press in Russia very weak. For example Reporters without borders says in its latest report, that the freedom of the press in now even worse than in Belarus. Maybe you have provide controversal material? 2) Secondly, the version suggested by Offliner and LokiiT contains only general sentences of press freedom in general. This article should tell its readers the freedom of the press in RUSSIA. 3) Thirdly, your version has overweighted SELECTIVE opinions by one EU-representive. General international organisations reports are less encouring - and actually very negative. I do not claim all organisations, but probably so - at least I did not find any reports saying the freedom of the press in Russia is rising/improving/high. Peltimikko (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Your attempt to insert your POV into the article via editwarring is very disruptive. Please stop. Your changes are obviously controversial, and you don't have consensus to make it. I suggest you revert back and further discuss how to improve the article.

In response to the above, it's all irrelevant because of the fact that you're inserting a highly POV opinion right in the first sentence of the article. This is unacceptable for what should be a neutral article on a controversial topic. LokiiT (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And this edit [24] was of course NPOV? If a country ends up at nr 153 out of 175 it must be among the freest in the world! Of course, how could I miss that! Närking (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What does that edit have to do with this discussion? Surely you aren't suggesting tit-for-tat POV inserting? Wikipedia is not a battleground. For the record, I sincerely doubt that edit was an attempt to make Russia's ranking seem less bad. LokiiT (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"153th freest" is a completely valid wording (although I wouldn't personally use it because it doesn't sound good). It is valid English, just as much as "Central African Republic is the 400th richest country in the world" is. Who said "among the freest" in the world? You are misrepresenting others here. Offliner (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I created the article Media of Russia. Hopefully, we can now separate two different issues: "freedom of..." and "media of...". Peltimikko (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but note that that doesn't make your current changes to this article any more neutral. LokiiT (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I see it's OK to present Amnesty International as a one-sided authority when critical of Estonia, but it's only an opinion to be deleted as such when critical of Russia. Rather an obvious double standard. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  03:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, the Amnesty International is the organization which works in interests of political prisoners in various countries. And currently it doesn't list any political prisoners in Russia. ellol (talk) 10:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article covers the topics of media freedom in Russia, not limited to press freedom. I think it's the natural topic selection. For example, if you speak about dangers for journalists, no single human rights organization cares of diffirentiating whether they are TV, press, or Internet journalists. I suggest renaming the article to Freedom of the media in Russia. ellol (talk) 10:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Gil-Robles in his report notes that "Freedom of expression and information is intrinsically linked to citizens' right to know." He doesn't separate the topics of Media freedom from the topics of Media development. Viewing the situation as the whole allowed him to cover such topics as troubles of development of the traditional media, which are often lacking of money resources, that being the great danger for their independence from the authorities. ellol (talk) 10:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

1) So, basicly you value Gil-Robles reports, with selective quotes, more than unilateral negative reports by international organisations? 2) Can you find ANY human rights and/or press freedom organisation which do not see a current media freedom in Russia in very negative light? Peltimikko (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe (Russia is a member of the Council of Europe) is a very influential advocate of human rights, and reports of the Commissioner are very thorough, impartial and unambiguous in the meaning. The Commissioner spend the entire month in 2004 in Russia to gather the data, then the report was prepared for a year. I believe, there are no reasons to blame his report unjustified. It's a very good analytics which relies on factual information in support of various points.

I hope to be mistaken, but it occurs to me your criticism of the Gil-Robles report is primarily based on the assumption he doesn't "see a current media freedom in Russia in very negative light". But the approach based on emotions can never be constructive. ellol (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

2004 is not 2009. Unfortunately, the press freedom in Russia has became even worse every year. Emotional or not. Peltimikko (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

According to whom? The freedom of press index says that Russia was worse in 2004 than 2008, and only took a significant drop this year. LokiiT (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A) Reporters Without Borders: "Russia (153rd) tumbled 12 places, below Belarus for the first time." [25] B) International Press Institute: "Pressure on Russian independent media outlets and their employees increased considerably in 2007." [26] (2009: IPI will publish a full report in November 2009.). C) Freedom House: "Media freedom continued to decline in 2008, with the Kremlin relying on Soviet-style media management..." [27] D) Human Rights Watch: "The government continues tightening control over civil society through selective implementation of the law on NGOs, restriction and censure of protected expression and the media...." [28] E) Amnesty International: "In a climate of growing intolerance towards independent views, several human rights defenders and supporters of opposition groups faced criminal charges for expressing dissenting opinions or criticizing government authorities." [29] F) And we can also add numerous newspaper sources such as BBC "In Moscow and elsewhere journalists have been harassed or physically abused. Reporters investigating the affairs of the political and corporate elite are said to be particularly at risk." [30]. Notice: lack of freedom of the press in Russia is not even a controversial issue - evidences are just crushing. Or do you have other sources saying these sources are not correct? Or the issue is controversial? Peltimikko (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Sure.

For readability of the talk, I hid my comment (and a bit of your reply). You can read it here. My major point: Freedom House is propaganda.

ellol (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

About "anti-Kremlin" propaganda

In response to Ellol's "Once again, to make it perfect clear:..." above: Well then, I can simply delete anything negative anywhere on WP about Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania as anti-Tallinn, anti-Riga, and anti-Vilnius as propaganda and be done with it. But really, it would be a shame to delete all of Offliner's and Anti-Nationalist's (nèe PasswordUsername's)—well, does it really matter who created it?, it's the viewpoint being espoused, after all—the carefully researched content now that it's been mostly balanced, although the same bits keep popping up in new places in their initial unbalanced fashion.
   What you (obfuscated with insulting cultural references regarding editors not knowing what is proper in Western, Asian, and Muslin cultures) propose, Ellol, is that:

anything negative about the current Russian administration = negative propaganda

Please feel free to balance this article with observations regarding positive movements in opening up freedom of the press in Russia, which per your talk preceeding the aforementioned appear to be readily available. That is how balanced content is created. I see no need to delete, for example, Amnesty International's assessment of the situation, feel free to include reputable commentary questioning their assessment. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  17:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

My point was about the Freedom House. But yes, I agree, that negative information about the current Russian administration is political in nature. It's OK to supplement it with the positive information about the current Russian administration; other way the article will be politically biased. ellol (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Multiple Russian sources criticize Freedom House as propaganda. This doesn't speak about other international organizations, though. Instead, Ella Pamfilova views Amnesty International and HRW as respectable organizations, for example.

Peltimikko, I moved the data from various organizations into the approppriate sections. For example, someone speaks about assaults on journalists, someone speaks about media development, someone speaks about censorship, etc. It's merely the topic classification. ellol (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I included Lukin's overview of the situation with press freedom. It's highly topical information. ellol (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A) You seem driving this article "Freedom House vs. rest" attitude. I think it is not proper point of view, as multiple international organisations (and international media) are critizing current development of the Russian freedom of the press. B) I think it is very good that we receive other points of view, but keep them both clear. Now, everythink is a bit messy (though by recent edits a direction is better). C) Generally, it would be could idea to pick ideas and comments by Russian human rights / press freedom organisations and individuals (for example Mikhail Gorbachev [31]), not just international POWs. Peltimikko (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A) Considering the point about "Freedom House vs. rest" -- the concern of Russian criticist of that organization is not the idea that Freedom House is critical about the situation in Russia, but their carelessness about facts and conclusions. What's more important is that the criticism of FH comes from a rather wide political spectra -- Pamfilova is a human rights defender (albeit officially employed, her background is of human rights defence), while Pushkov is a known journalist of patriotic mind. ellol (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

B) Surely the article is a bit of messy.

C) Mikhail Gorbachev? Why not? As for the press freedom organizations, there's a need for some googling. If you are asking me, I am not in that topic right now. Perhaps I will manage to look for it, some time later. ellol (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Gil-Robles and its use of deliberately

Maybe it is a lack of sources, but somehow Gil-Robles has been lifted the "King of all ideas". All respect to him, but there are still many times more international organisations and individuals, whose opinion and researches are much more quoted. And secondly, time was 2004, and after that the situation has become worse in Russia. So, I suggest we put Gil-Robles's reports and interview into right context, and not use as wide as it is now. Unfortunately, he's report is maybe the only just a bit of comforting among all these reports. Peltimikko (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Per my expansion of one of the quotes, if you actually read through the entire report, it's not as rosy as it has been picked out to be here. One of the major issues with this and similar articles is that the narrative and quotes all need to be chronological. With regard to Gil-Robles,

1. first, represent fairly and accurately; not that consolidation in the press is merely economic, for example;
2. second, he's good for when he was there, but not for 5 years later.

A first step might be to leave the content as is for the moment and restructure the narrative to be more appropriate so it can grow by adding over time. I rather suspect the defenders of Russia's honor will otherwise rush to delete any past negative comments as soon as someone says something positive as the old ones "not being applicable" anymore. When, in fact, you need what came before to demonstrate progress, which is the hope and goal regarding Russia whether one considers themselves a defender or critic. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 16:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Explain my revert.

1) The European Commissioner for human rights viewed the situation in great many details. It's far better detailed than the reports by other organizations.

2) The report of European Commissioner is no way rosy. It's no deliberate blackening of the situation in Russia, as well. I see that some may not like it.

3) Other reports may be freely used, when they are put into the proper place. There is no such thing as criticism of something "as a whole". ellol (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

4) The index of RWB shows there's no much difference between 2009 and 2002. ellol (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

re: 4), In absolute terms Russia has gone down significantly--the scoring scale has not changed. However, the entire world is going to hell in a hand basket so Russia's relative position has remained virtually unchanged (up buy the very smallest of margins, relatively). So there is, in fact, little relative difference with regard to other countries (more being added to populate the bottom, along with minor slips at the top), but its absolute score has gone down noticeably. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 17:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea. But we don't work with the original research. Try to publish an article in a respectable magazine. ellol (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have misused the Gil-Robles report of 2004 to your own purposes to revert overhelming majority of reports, where Russian government's recent actions against press freedom are see very negative. And again: do you have any recent report by any international organisation, where Russia's actions are NOT seen negative? Or do you deny that international organisations have reported anything negative about the press freedom in Russia? Peltimikko (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not remove the information from the other international organization. Their criticism is cited in the article.

The information lag you speak about is entirely possible. Yet, until the new report of the European Commissioner Hammarberg is published, the old one is in use, as a good information source.

Please, clarify, what way did I misuse the Gil-Robles report of 2004. I made accurate use of it. And, when the European Commissioner says something is white, it's improper to write he said it's black. I think so.

I agree, that the international organisations noted a number of negative aspects of the situation with the press freedom in Russia. I do not have the authority to assess their correctness, but they are reliable source to use -- and they are used now. ellol (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ellol, in your zeal to oppose me, you failed to note that I was discussing Russia with respect to the rankings already presented, as presented, in the article. I'm (personally) not saying anything (personally) about Russia going up or down. That being said, Peltimikko is completely correct, the article can't just be your personal ode to Gil-Robles, whose report is 5 years old now. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 21:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If a reputable source says "something as a whole" either positive or negative regarding freedom of the press in Russia, it is perfectly admissible as content. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 21:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

But your sources do not say something "as a whole". They don't make "yes-no" points. ellol (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the British Guardian, the press freedom will become worse: Two remaining semi-indenpendent television channels Ren TV and Fifth Channel will become under state control 2010 [32]. Personally: I'm one of few percentage of Finns who actually speaks (some) Russian and loves the country itself. I feel bad about the current affairs, and hope that Russia will be truly democratic, respectable and free country someday. Peltimikko (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The news that "Russia Today will take over responsibility for their news broadcasts from 2010" proved to be false, few days later, as these channels announced they aren't refusing of their own news programs.

“ According to Nazarov [press secretary of REN-TV channel], REN-TV and "Fifth Channel" will receive from the "Russia Today" "exclusively technological support", and the state channel will impose no influence on the informational part of the news. ”

[33]

Head of the National Media Group [the structure that owns REN-TV and Fifth Channel] Alexander Orjonikize [previously he was a head of REN-TV since 2005] was quoted as saying:

“ In the scopes of the strategy to raise the efficiency of TV channels activity a possibility of partnership to produce news is discussed with the aim to make them more intensive and interesting. With that it's important to note that whatever business stratery would be chosen in that direction, editorial policy regarding news and its informational contents will not be altered. ”

[34]

ellol (talk) 07:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

p.s. Don't hurry to mourn the Russian press freedom. It's not dead yet. ellol (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

+ Added RTVi information. ellol (talk) 07:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The greatest opposition party in the country are the Communists. To avoid misunderstanding, I made use of the commonly recognized term "liberal opposition" in cases it doesn't refer to the Communists. ellol (talk) 08:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions of new sections

The article is confusing and disorganized. I suggest there should much more clear structure, where everyone can make their point of view.

• Administrative acts
  • Legal position
  • Ombusman
• Issues under criticism
  • Government ownership and control
  • Pressure on independent media
  • Selective use of regulations
  • Criminal investigations
  • Assault on journalists
• Media outlets
  • The Press
  • Television
  • Radio
  • Internet
• Resposenses to criticism

This structure will guarantee that the article has a) what are bases of freedom of press in Russia (law, onbudsman) b) what issues are under criticism by international/internal organisations and press c) what is current situation in different media outlets d) and finally: response to criticism. Peltimikko (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't see how response to criticism can be separated from the criticism. If criticism is criticised, then something may be wrong with it, and it can't serve as independent information source without criticism of it. ellol (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly dislike such structure. "Issues under criticism" implies at the start that the first reaction to the words "freedom of the press in Russia" must mean "there is so much criticism of it". It's surely not proper. 20 years ago the vast majority of the modern Russian media did not exist yet. The brief glimpse on the history may be important, as well as it's more correct to speak of the modern trends, than mere criticisms. ellol (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Now think over what you wrote: "The freedom of the press is widely critized by multiple international organisations". That means: Freedom of the press is bad. It's wrong. Censorship is good. ellol (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ombudsman is appointed for a certain term (like 5 years) by the Parliament. The Ombudsman, however, can't be dismissed before the end of his term, and is not subordinate to any body of power, including the President, the Government, whatever. The regions may choose to have their local ombudsman whose authority is limited to that region, and 48 regions do that now. Yet, nevertheless, the single major Ombudsman helds responsible for all the situation across the country. Full information in Russian, you can also try to view the annual reports translated into English (see links with the words 'English version') (available up to year 2007), sometimes they contain a section about the institute of the Ombudsman. ellol (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Peltimikko, please, explain, why are you keeping on removing the Constitution article and Gil-Robles assessment of the 1991 Law on Mass Media? This information is not merely notable, but very important. ellol (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not want to repeat myself. Read previous discussions above. Peltimikko (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You did not answer it above. Please, care to explain. ellol (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Very well, I explain again. A) You have misused Gil-Robles travel report of 2004 to your own purposes, as you do not have found any internatonal, serious and recent reports that supports your view. B) Constitution text is similar everywhere in the world, so short summary should be enough. And as explained before, for some reason you purposely edit the article to not neutral view, but collection of complex quotation. Peltimikko (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

1) The report of the European Commissioner for Human Rights is entirely international, serious and recent. It's used as properly as it's ever possible. 2) It's the original research. I don't know if the Constitution texts about speech freedom are similar in different countries. But it's the most basic legal document on speech freedom in Russia, it's entirely important to quote. 3) Of course, it's not necessary to express any idea as a big quote. Same ideas can be expressed without direct citing.

I hope, I answered your criticism. ellol (talk) 07:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly oppose the moves to introduce into the article the deliberately false statements that all Russian major TV channels are owned by the state or controlled by it any way. There are private TV channels REN-TV and Channel 5 with a cover of the majority of the population, and a certain rating among usual watchers, and these channels are assessed high by such a notable newspaper as Kommersant.

The only source speaking of the possible ban of independent news was an anonymous source cited by Kommersant. Since that, one of the most notable channel anchormen Maksimovskaya and several people representing channel owners stated that there will be no change in editorial policy.

There is nothing to "debate", just to depict this controversy fairly to all these people and statements. I respect any further attempts to introduce such a deceitful statement as deliberate vandalism. ellol (talk) 08:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

New possible sources

Regional media and RWB report

According to the Reporters Without Borders, seems there are some differences between different regions in Russia. [35] Moscow is 100% under Kremlin command, but some regions have some independent content but under self-censorship. And as Anna Koshman says in report "“The Kremlin allows an independent press to exist in the regions". But unfortunately a big picture remains the same: "The threshold for criticism has been raised". Anyway, this will be useful editing the section Regional media. Peltimikko (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Vyacheslav Bogdanov

Bogdanov is the head of the Russian Union of Journalists.

In 2009 interview he sais that only 10-20% of journalist murders are disclosed in Russia: [36]

International Federation of Journalists

Interesting organization unifying 600,000 journalists across the globe. But they seem to be hesitant to speak about the general situation in Russia, while issuing statements on certain single cases.

“ In Russia violence is there all the time, the situation has been bad for many years now. Investigative journalism in Russia is a tough trade.

The European Federation of Journalists is working hand in hand with the International Federation of Journalists to put pressure on Russian authorities to make sure that in the future there will be serious investigations into violence against journalists. No impunity for murderers of journalists, wherever they are, that is the simple and important rule to follow. [37]

”

“ The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) today welcomed signs of a "fresh start'" in relations between the authorities and independent media in Russia after meetings between media leaders and President Medvedev and a court victory for a leading press freedom campaigner.

On Tuesday a Russian court ruled as unconstitutional criminal charges brought against Manana Aslamazyan, former head of the Russian-based Educated Media Foundation, the successor to Internews Russia, which organised extensive work in the country to assist and develop independent media outlets.

Last month the President of the Russian Union of Journalists Vsevelod Bogdanov held a meeting with the new President. His union, which has protested over violations of press rights, has been under official pressure during the past two years. This exchange led to a series of meetings with senior media leaders, which journalists' leaders hope is a sign of Kremlin doors opening to a new and constructive dialogue.

"This week's court victory adds to a mood of cautious optimism in some corners of journalism that the new President and Government are open to a fresh dialogue," said Aidan White, IFJ General Secretary. "If this is the case it is most welcome. We will support efforts to create better relations between independent journalism and media and the authorities."[38]

”

THE IFJ launched a "Campaign against Impunity in Russia". It published a "Partial Justice Report", an investigation into deaths of Russian journalists since 1993. Partial Justice report in English

ellol (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The UN Refusee Agency

Lots of recent reports from different organizations [39]. Let's see just couple of heading "Russian journalist in hiding after Soviet critique", "Reporters Without Borders prevented from going to Moscow for third anniversary of Anna Politkovskaya's murder", "Journalist in hiding after getting death threats for criticising defence of Soviet Union" etc. Peltimikko (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)