Putin And Russia's Free Press, Or Lack Thereof

[Elphaba]

So, Time Magazine has made Putin Man of the Year. I don’t follow Russian politics much, but one of the issues that I have been aware of for quite some time is the overt and purposeful steps taken by Russia’s government to ensure there will not be a free press in post-Soviet Russia.

Below is an article about the murder of Anna Politkoyskaya, a journalist whose exemplary reporting included “her investigations of the war in Chechnya and its messy, bloody consequences across the Northern Caucasus. Her reports - in Novaya Gazeta and in a book published in 2002 and called "The Second Chechen War" in Russian and "A Small Corner of Hell: Dispatches From Chechnya" in its English translation - served like few others in Russia to challenge the official view of the conflict.”

In Russie, free press comes with a price

International Herald Tribune

October 11, 2006

MOSCOW: The mourners stood in the rain, which fell heavily for moments, fulfilling their part in a ritual of sadness and anger and, politically speaking, inconsequence that has become strikingly common in Russia.

They gathered, in this case, on the western edge of Moscow on Tuesday for the funeral of

Anna Politkovskaya, a tenacious, sometimes reckless but always passionate journalist and activist who died three days earlier at the hands, as all clues make clear, of a professional killer.

Her slaying has made her a symbol of what Russia has become. Politkovskaya was 48, but the freedoms that she used to make her post-Soviet career - writing openly and critically about the deeds of a new Russian power - are much younger. And, it would seem, equally fragile.

"Anna was, in my opinion, a glimpse of hope," said Tatyana Ivanyenko, a doctor from Moscow who attended the funeral. "And now there is none."

Unnatural death occurs with alarming regularity here, despite the carefully cultivated notion that President Vladimir Putin has presided over an era of stability, economic progress and resurgent national pride.

"This state killed Anna Politkovskaya," Grigory Yavlinsky, a once- prominent democratic leader, declared bluntly as the mourners filed out into a cold, gray afternoon.

Russia is unquestionably a dangerous place for journalists. There have been 13 killings since Putin came to power in 2000, a little more than two a year on average.

<snip

Then he [Putin] went on: "I think that journalists should be aware that her influence on political life was extremely insignificant in scale," Putin said, according to Interfax. "She was known in journalist and human rights circles, but her influence on political life in Russia was minimal."

Some of those at the cemetery agreed, though hardly in the sense that Putin intended. "Our press long ago lost any influence over society," said Abdurashid Saidov, a journalist from Dagestan, a troubled southern republic.only to those in society willing to listen, which did not include the authorities.

<snip>

Elphaba

[prisonchaplain]

You don't know how disappointed I was to find out I wasn't in the running. LOL

[Fiannan]

Uh, okay...how can this thread be allowed but a thread on Hillary or Edwards gets pulled????Is this on the assumption that all viewers and participants in the forums are American -- so foreign political leaders are fair game to critisize?

How would the typical Russian feel (let's say an LDS member or one investigating) coming here and seeing someone ripping on a leader who, according to all opinion surveys, enjoys more respect from his population than any leader in the western world? I'd be ticked off. plain and simple, especially when one cannot deal with politicians from the USA.

I have been to Russia many times and I can assure you the people there support Putin as much as the people in Utah support the Republican party (probably more so). When I was there several weeks ago there were people handing out fliers on the streets for Putin's party United Russia, the communist party, Vladimir Zhirinovsky's nationalist party and even the tiny party that Kasparov is the leader for. On Russian TV there were tons of commercials for each of the parties and billboards dotted the landscape. This was not a rigged election and probably less improprieties existed than in some of the big city elections (where the Democratic Party is still in control in the USA) for the 2004 election.

[prisonchaplain]

How come Fiannan had nothing to say about my post??? :-)

[Elphaba]

Uh, okay...how can this thread be allowed but a thread on Hillary or Edwards gets pulled????Is this on the assumption that all viewers and participants in the forums are American -- so foreign political leaders are fair game to critisize?

How would the typical Russian feel (let's say an LDS member or one investigating) coming here and seeing someone ripping on a leader who, according to all opinion surveys, enjoys more respect from his population than any leader in the western world? I'd be ticked off. plain and simple, especially when one cannot deal with politicians from the USA.

I have been to Russia many times and I can assure you the people there support Putin as much as the people in Utah support the Republican party (probably more so). When I was there several weeks ago there were people handing out fliers on the streets for Putin's party United Russia, the communist party, Vladimir Zhirinovsky's nationalist party and even the tiny party that Kasparov is the leader for. On Russian TV there were tons of commercials for each of the parties and billboards dotted the landscape. This was not a rigged election and probably less improprieties existed than in some of the big city elections (where the Democratic Party is still in control in the USA) for the 2004 election.

My post has nothing to do with politics. It had to do Russian journalists and their oppression by the Russian government. It included quotes from Putin, but none of them were political.

Additionally, the initial rule regarding blogging about politics refers to political campaigns only. Each of your posts that has been closed has referred to political candidates.

However, I do believe Heather has decided to go beyond the scope of that and ban all political posts, and I support her in that.

Your post here is a political post.

Elphaba

How come Fiannan had nothing to say about my post??? :-)

Because I doubt he actually read it. I know he rarely reads mine, although he respnds to them as if he has.

I hereby announce that Prison Chaplain is LDS Talk's Man of the Year. After all, he is still ahead of Pushka in posts, a feat which took much effort and strategy.

He is also both profound and insightful, and one of the most generous contributors to this site.

So don't feel too bad about Time Magazine PC. LDS Talk is far more prestigious!

Elphaba

[drjme]

TIME's Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. It is not a popularity contest. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse. It is ultimately about leadership—bold, earth-changing leadership. Putin is not a boy scout. He is not a democrat in any way that the West would define it. He is not a paragon of free speech. He stands, above all, for stability—stability before freedom, stability before choice, stability in a country that has hardly seen it for a hundred years

besides the writing in bold, isn't he just the best?

Choosing order over freedom?

What did the presidents of the church have to say about communism?

Ezra Taft Benson 1960, So Shall Ye Reap

May I assure you that communism is not merely an economic program. It is a total philosophy of life, atheistic and utterly opposed to all we hold dear as a great Christian nation. While we might effectively bridle or destroy every so-called communist within our own borders, we shall not vanquish this political virus, and its common forerunner, state socialism, so long as people are determined to achieve security through state-imposed materialistic schemes rather than through righteous living and wholesome activity as free men.

When I was there several weeks ago there were people handing out fliers on the streets for Putin's party United Russia, the communist party, Vladimir Zhirinovsky's nationalist party and even the tiny party that Kasparov is the leader for. On Russian TV there were tons of commercials for each of the parties and billboards dotted the landscape

Regardless does this make communism OK?

"so long as people are determined to achieve security through state-imposed materialistic schemes rather than through righteous living and wholesome activity as free men."

Would you give up your God given rights for 'order'? Agency is God given. Freedom is God given. When you give those up whether by choice or by force, who is in control?

[Fiannan]

<div class='quotemain'>

Uh, okay...how can this thread be allowed but a thread on Hillary or Edwards gets pulled????Is this on the assumption that all viewers and participants in the forums are American -- so foreign political leaders are fair game to critisize?

How would the typical Russian feel (let's say an LDS member or one investigating) coming here and seeing someone ripping on a leader who, according to all opinion surveys, enjoys more respect from his population than any leader in the western world? I'd be ticked off. plain and simple, especially when one cannot deal with politicians from the USA.

I have been to Russia many times and I can assure you the people there support Putin as much as the people in Utah support the Republican party (probably more so). When I was there several weeks ago there were people handing out fliers on the streets for Putin's party United Russia, the communist party, Vladimir Zhirinovsky's nationalist party and even the tiny party that Kasparov is the leader for. On Russian TV there were tons of commercials for each of the parties and billboards dotted the landscape. This was not a rigged election and probably less improprieties existed than in some of the big city elections (where the Democratic Party is still in control in the USA) for the 2004 election.

My post has nothing to do with politics. It had to do Russian journalists and their oppression by the Russian government. It included quotes from Putin, but none of them were political.

Additionally, the initial rule regarding blogging about politics refers to political campaigns only. Each of your posts that has been closed has referred to political candidates.

However, I do believe Heather has decided to go beyond the scope of that and ban all political posts, and I support her in that.

Your post here is a political post.

Elphaba

How come Fiannan had nothing to say about my post??? :-)

Because I doubt he actually read it. I know he rarely reads mine, although he respnds to them as if he has.

I hereby announce that Prison Chaplain is LDS Talk's Man of the Year. After all, he is still ahead of Pushka in posts, a feat which took much effort and strategy.

He is also both profound and insightful, and one of the most generous contributors to this site.

So don't feel too bad about Time Magazine PC. LDS Talk is far more prestigious!

Elphaba

"Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves. "

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin

Speech at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy

02/10/2007

Elphaba, if my post defending Putin is political your's (quoting people implying the Russian government killed

Politkovskaya) is most certainly political. And tell me, if Putin is as bright as everyone claims then he would know a thing or two about PR -- so why would he have this journalist assasinated on his birthday????

Also, I still contend that not allowing discussions about American political candidates is unfair since, after all, Putin has endorsed Medvedev for president and those elections will occur in Russia in March. Remember, a Russian has as much chance on stumbling onto this site as an American so this thread should also be closed -- as with ALL the threads on Mitt Romney!

[drjme]

My post has nothing to do with politics. It had to do Russian journalists and their oppression by the Russian government. It included quotes from Putin, but none of them were political.

Additionally, the initial rule regarding blogging about politics refers to political campaigns only. Each of your posts that has been closed has referred to political candidates.

However, I do believe Heather has decided to go beyond the scope of that and ban all political posts, and I support her in that.

Your post here is a political post.

DAmmit, I think my one is too.

[Elphaba]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Uh, okay...how can this thread be allowed but a thread on Hillary or Edwards gets pulled????Is this on the assumption that all viewers and participants in the forums are American -- so foreign political leaders are fair game to critisize?

How would the typical Russian feel (let's say an LDS member or one investigating) coming here and seeing someone ripping on a leader who, according to all opinion surveys, enjoys more respect from his population than any leader in the western world? I'd be ticked off. plain and simple, especially when one cannot deal with politicians from the USA.

I have been to Russia many times and I can assure you the people there support Putin as much as the people in Utah support the Republican party (probably more so). When I was there several weeks ago there were people handing out fliers on the streets for Putin's party United Russia, the communist party, Vladimir Zhirinovsky's nationalist party and even the tiny party that Kasparov is the leader for. On Russian TV there were tons of commercials for each of the parties and billboards dotted the landscape. This was not a rigged election and probably less improprieties existed than in some of the big city elections (where the Democratic Party is still in control in the USA) for the 2004 election.

My post has nothing to do with politics. It had to do Russian journalists and their oppression by the Russian government. It included quotes from Putin, but none of them were political.

Additionally, the initial rule regarding blogging about politics refers to political campaigns only. Each of your posts that has been closed has referred to political candidates.

However, I do believe Heather has decided to go beyond the scope of that and ban all political posts, and I support her in that.

Your post here is a political post.

Elphaba

<div class='quotemain'>How come Fiannan had nothing to say about my post??? :-)

Because I doubt he actually read it. I know he rarely reads mine, although he respnds to them as if he has.

I hereby announce that Prison Chaplain is LDS Talk's Man of the Year. After all, he is still ahead of Pushka in posts, a feat which took much effort and strategy.

He is also both profound and insightful, and one of the most generous contributors to this site.

So don't feel too bad about Time Magazine PC. LDS Talk is far more prestigious!

Elphaba

"Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves. "

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin

Speech at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy

02/10/2007

Elphaba, if my post defending Putin is political your's (quoting people implying the Russian government killed

Politkovskaya) is most certainly political. And tell me, if Putin is as bright as everyone claims then he would know a thing or two about PR -- so why would he have this journalist assasinated on his birthday????

Also, I still contend that not allowing discussions about American political candidates is unfair since, after all, Putin has endorsed Medvedev for president and those elections will occur in Russia in March. Remember, a Russian has as much chance on stumbling onto this site as an American so this thread should also be closed -- as with ALL the threads on Mitt Romney!

Fine. Take it to the mods, and if they say my post is political, I'll abide by their decision.

However, I guarantee yours was.

And it doesn't matter whether you believe political discussions on the blog are fair or not. It is the law not to endorse candidates. Heather is just trying to ensure that doesn't happen by ruling there will be no political discussions.

I interpret that to mean discussions that have any connection whatsoever to the elections. Because Edwards is a candidate, claiming Edward's has a child from another woman is against the rules. However, if he were already president, then I don't think that would be against the rules.

Because Putin is not running in any election, it is not a political discussion.

Perhaps Heather's scope is larger than that and I am wrong.

In the future don't whine about it to me. Take it to her.

Elphaba

[Fiannan]

Because Putin is not running in any election, it is not a political discussion.

Yes he is, in an indirect way, running for an election. Like I said, the Russian elections for president are in the spring. Putin has endorsed Medvedev and has been given the promise that if United Russia and Medvedev win then he will appoint Putin as prime minister. Russian constitutional law says a president can only serve two terms in a row but says nothing about serving after someone else has. Most Russian people will vote for Medvedev in hopes that Putin will stay in power and maybe even serve again as president.

So yes, Putin is involved in an election.

[Canuck Mormon]

Here is the exact wording from Heather:

As a non-profit organization, 501©3, we are governed by legal constraints relative to writing, blogging, or otherwise endorsing any candidate running for political office. The law states, in effect, that no one acting on behalf of the nonprofit can intervene directly or indirectly in the election process by endorsing a political candidate. Any post that speaks favorably about one candidate, even in a religious context, can be construed as indirect intervention in the election process. While journalists are presently exempt from this provision, bloggers and forum-members are not.

Therefore, to be consistent and above reproach; to respect a diversity of website users and contributors' political views; and to remain in strict compliance with the law regarding our nonprofit status, More Good Foundation is asking all contributors to any of our social networking sites--LDSblogs.com , LDSforums.com, LDStalk.com, Sustaind.org, MormonWik.com, and LDS.net--to be respectful of people of different faiths, and not use the forums to campaign or endorse candidates.

I think to be on the safe side I'm just going to say no political discussion period. If there are a lot of people who want a political forum, I could set one up somewhere else, but it would need to be on my own site and done on my own time.

Please bear with us as we try and sort out the new rules. From what I read, and yes I read all of it, the opening post was nothing more than a conspiracy theory against the Russian Government. It did not endorse a candidate or try to influence an election. Fiannan's posts diddn't endorse a candidate either, it just talked about campaining in Russia. The post about Medvedev being endorsed by Putin is borderline, and I think it can slide for now. However, if stuff like that continues, we will examine it again.

Let's all try and play by the rules, and steer away from political discussions as much as possible, then no one gets offended when something is closed.

[Marsha]

Here is the exact wording from Heather:

As a non-profit organization, 501©3, we are governed by legal constraints relative to writing, blogging, or otherwise endorsing any candidate running for political office. The law states, in effect, that no one acting on behalf of the nonprofit can intervene directly or indirectly in the election process by endorsing a political candidate. Any post that speaks favorably about one candidate, even in a religious context, can be construed as indirect intervention in the election process. While journalists are presently exempt from this provision, bloggers and forum-members are not.

Therefore, to be consistent and above reproach; to respect a diversity of website users and contributors' political views; and to remain in strict compliance with the law regarding our nonprofit status, More Good Foundation is asking all contributors to any of our social networking sites--LDSblogs.com , LDSforums.com, LDStalk.com, Sustaind.org, MormonWik.com, and LDS.net--to be respectful of people of different faiths, and not use the forums to campaign or endorse candidates.

I think to be on the safe side I'm just going to say no political discussion period. If there are a lot of people who want a political forum, I could set one up somewhere else, but it would need to be on my own site and done on my own time.

Please bear with us as we try and sort out the new rules. From what I read, and yes I read all of it, the opening post was nothing more than a conspiracy theory against the Russian Government. It did not endorse a candidate or try to influence an election. Fiannan's posts diddn't endorse a candidate either, it just talked about campaining in Russia. The post about Medvedev being endorsed by Putin is borderline, and I think it can slide for now. However, if stuff like that continues, we will examine it again.

Let's all try and play by the rules, and steer away from political discussions as much as possible, then no one gets offended when something is closed.

I agree with this 100%. The OP was/ is not campaigning for any leader.

People need to quit picking about threads and read them as they are written, not seeing something that isn't there.

Can't we all agree to disagree at times and just get along with each other?

Thanks

Marsha

[Fiannan]

I agree with this 100%. The OP was/ is not campaigning for any leader.

Then under those criteria neither of the posts (one about an alleged Clinton affiar) and the other about an alleged Edward's baby would constitute being campaigning either since nowhere did I say "vote this way or that". One could construe that a negative story would damage the electability of a said candidate but under those criteria then attacking President Vladimir Putin during an election cycle where, if his party wins, he will become prime minister would definently be campaign related.

But nevermind, since this is current events maybe this is more appropriate:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/pets/2007/12/sp...es_to_pogo.html

"Sprite Likes to Pogo"

[Canuck Mormon]

I agree with this 100%. The OP was/ is not campaigning for any leader.

Then under those criteria neither of the posts (one about an alleged Clinton affiar) and the other about an alleged Edward's baby would constitute being campaigning either since nowhere did I say "vote this way or that". One could construe that a negative story would damage the electability of a said candidate but under those criteria then attacking President Vladimir Putin during an election cycle where, if his party wins, he will become prime minister would definently be campaign related.

But nevermind, since this is current events maybe this is more appropriate:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/pets/2007/12/sp...es_to_pogo.html

"Sprite Likes to Pogo"

By posting negative stories about them, you were indirectly swaying voters. Is Putin a candidate? Or will he just be appointed if his party wins? There is a diiference.

PS - Sarcasm is never a good thing.

[prisonchaplain]

IMHO, the "no politics" rule is meant to shield The More Good Foundation and LDSTalk.com from even the appearance of violating IRS regulations involving nonprofits and political campaigns. And, again imho, I doubt that strings raising questions about Putin would violate those IRS regulations. Of course, any poster is free to raise the question via a report to the moderators, so the matter can be discussed in greater detail.

[Palerider]

IMHO, the "no politics" rule is meant to shield The More Good Foundation and LDSTalk.com from even the appearance of violating IRS regulations involving nonprofits and political campaigns. And, again imho, I doubt that strings raising questions about Putin would violate those IRS regulations. Of course, any poster is free to raise the question via a report to the moderators, so the matter can be discussed in greater detail.

I say DITTO to that.... :)

[Elphaba]

I want to thank all of the mods who replied to my query for their input in this thread, as I found it very helpful in clarifying what is acceptable and what is not regarding political discussions.

I also want to apologize to Fiannan for my comments where I insisted his posts on this thread were political. I've gone back and read them, and realize they were not political. My insistence that they were political was strong, and out of line; therefore, I want him to know I do see where I was mistaken, and that I am sorry.

Elphaba

[Fiannan]

I want to thank all of the mods who replied to my query for their input in this thread, as I found it very helpful in clarifying what is acceptable and what is not regarding political discussions.

I also want to apologize to Fiannan for my comments where I insisted his posts on this thread were political. I've gone back and read them, and realize they were not political. My insistence that they were political was strong, and out of line; therefore, I want him to know I do see where I was mistaken, and that I am sorry.

Elphaba

Thank you! Here's wishing you a merry Christmas (note, just for the copyright thing I am using a more public domain pic for a card instead):

[Elphaba]

Thank you! Here's wishing you a merry Christmas (note, just for the copyright thing I am using a more public domain pic for a card instead):

Thanks Fiannan, thats very sweet of you.

Please don't take this the wrong way, as it is not meant to be personal. But, do you think it would be political if I say that's one of the ugliest trees I've ever seen?

Elphie

[Canuck Mormon]

<div class='quotemain'>

Thank you! Here's wishing you a merry Christmas (note, just for the copyright thing I am using a more public domain pic for a card instead):

Thanks Fiannan, thats very sweet of you.

Please don't take this the wrong way, as it is not meant to be personal. But, do you think it would be political if I say that's one of the ugliest trees I've ever seen?

Elphie

I would have to agree with you on that one Elphaba. That is one ugly tree

[Heather]

The rule only matters with US Politics. I don't think the IRS cares what we feel about politics in other Countries. :) Sorry I haven't been specific enough on this. The whole reason for this is that LDS Talk is owned by a non-profit foundation, and therefore not allowed to influence or contribute to political campaigns in the USA.

[Fiannan]

[Elphaba]

Okay, that is just creepy.

Elphaba

[Canuck Mormon]

So which one are you Fiannan?

You know I'm joking.

[Moksha]

<div align="center">

The White House Christmas tree bears some resemblance to the Sheliak from Star Trek.

Perhaps this is the only working remnant of Reagan's Star Wars initiative.</div>