digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

Russia's Signal to Stations Is Clear: Cut U.S. Radio

washingtonpost.com — "Russian regulators have forced more than 60 radio stations to stop broadcasting news reports produced by Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, according to radio managers and Russian officials."

show profanity settings
expand all
  • slundal, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Oh come on Russia! The cold war is long over, no need to be paranoid.
  • deff, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Communism revival?
    • baxtermadux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5while your comment may have been agitative, it isnt entirely untrue.
      i watched an interview tonight with Stephen Cohen on Charlie Rose, which is free to watch on google video, who is a new york professor focused on russian studies, and he suggests that Putin is merely following a trend of rolling back Democracy that was started in the early 90's. I dont think that Putin is any worse than Yeltsin and vice versa.
  • niudun, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Wow!
  • scratt, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21As far as the Russians are concerned the cold war is over.. Unfortunately the US propoganda machine is still trying to topple any government that doesn't bow down and kiss ass.. Hence this wise move by a country that does not want that poison enterring it's veins.
  • Francky, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19As the article states, this was "U.S.-government-funded broadcast services". Gee I wonder how Unbiased those new report where ?!

    Can you really blame Russia for not wanting "FOX news" level journalism on it's airways ?! I say Good for them ! :-D
  • NYNEx2600, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7* cough * How does it go... " History Repeats Itself "
  • Slono, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14You guys still sticking to non-biased definitions of "democracy" and "freedom". Before you start with tomatoes and cabbagges, let me put it this way: would you NOT revolt if the US radio stations would air Russian programs? Ah, OK, Dubbya would not prohibit it, yeah right!! Think about it. Look at yourself before talking about others...

    @Francky: got it right, dude!
    • MikeHinds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Reality check:
      Under six years of increasingly hostile press coverage, "Dubbya" has NOT prohibited the free press. The administration has tolerated David Gregory, Helen Thomas, Dan Rather, and the worst that CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and NPR have been able to put out, not even to mention Michael Moore, Daily Kos, MoveOn.org and FactCheck.com, et al.

      None of these are "prohibited", or even a little bit inhibited, to those who actually read the news instead of parroting catch-phrases.
    • Slono, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Hey Mike!
      "Under six years of increasingly hostile press coverage, "Dubbya" has NOT prohibited the free press. "
      Probably because they outpower him. Besides, there are no Russia funded radio stations or press in US, that is the topic we are discussing here.

      Finally, why is VOA a "free" radio station?
    • MikeHinds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3They may outnumber him, but he was elected, and thus represents a majority, as has every elected president as long as the electoral college has been around.

      Since there are no Russia-funded radio stations or press, how would you validate whether "Dubbya would prohibit it"? The nearest equivalent would be non-Russian press with a track record that is outwardly hostile to the administration. It's more valid to state such a judgment based on evidence than by innuendo.
    • owenstarkiller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I have a pro-socialist radio station in my neck of the woods. In a conservative county no less. Hasn't been closed down by the gestapo yet.
  • h4ppydotcom, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Personally, I wish the UK would ban US news feeds. Sometimes I flick over to FOX News purely for amusement value, until I realise that a sizable proportion of 250 million Americans treat the content as important and factual. It sends a shudder down my spine.
    • scratt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Damn right.. We have that on our cable in our condo by the beach in Thailand.. I have Fox on the entire time, even instead of movies.. I treat it like a comedy channel. It is not far removed from a really out of whack right wing version of the Daily Show!
    • Sukino, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Factual but biased? Something is either factual OR biased.
    • CoryTrevor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I'm so sick of people saying fox news is biased toward the right and cnn, msnbc, etc are all biased toward the left. that IS NOT true! air america is biased toward the left and their message is a hell of a lot different than cnn, msnbc, etc. just because they report on the ***** up things this administration is doing doesn't make them lefties.
    • Egoist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Something is either factual OR biased."

      Incorrect. You can spin facts however you like to create whatever you want. Here's a scenario of two bylines describing the same event and both factual (to this scenario):

      Newspaper 1: "American forces wipe out Iraqi family in their home."
      Newspaper 2: "American forces, coming under fire from sniper and mortar attacks from house, respond with a tank shell"
      Newspaper 3: "American forces destroy insurgent snipers"

      All are true, but 1 and 3 are slanted. You'll find #1 in most newspapers as, like Digg, sensationalism is what sells. #2 is the only one that describes what truly happened, but it's not going to sell papers.
    • Reweave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4> xen0blue
      Interesting of you to accuse corporately owned stations of left-wing bias.
      CNN, MSNBC, CBS & al are the voice of corporate america, and whatever bias they may carry is most definitely NOT socialistic (is that a word?).
      FOX News on the other hand, is the voice of the neo-con (used to be republican) party, and as such carries right-wing _partisan_ bias.
    • owenstarkiller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So large owners and editors in those companies are *incapable* of leaning left? That doesn't make sense. Are you saying that Ted Kennedy is a conservative then based on wealth?
  • b403, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7In soviet russia, radio listens to you
  • birdwatcher3000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I wish Greece would ban ...Greek broadcasts!
    Too much talk, too many ads, not enough music.
  • RomaGluskin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1They're probably concerned about copyright issues :)
  • xtremdav45, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Ah, so I guess its America bashing time on Digg right now. I guess nobody read the article, because everybody seems to equate RFE/RL to FOX News.

    I guess that in the blind America hating, most of the people commenting here forgot to read this paragraph:

    "After Vladimir Putin became president in 2000, the country's major TV channels, the most important media because of their reach, were quickly brought under state control or shut down. State-controlled or state-friendly businesses have been buying up newspapers and radio stations. Outside Moscow and St. Petersburg, media outlets routinely come under the sway of local governors, most of whom are loyal to the Kremlin."

    So its OK for Putin to nationalize the press, but god forbid the USA try to fund media abroad that isnt the line of the Russian Governmnt
    • NYNEx2600, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Agreed.
    • Reweave, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Putin may be an ***** dictator wannabe, but people may not like USA meddling in other countries' business either.
  • ErnstHot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6xtremdav45: indeed, this is a symptom of a country with a sorry state of democracy... People who cannot see beyond their contempt for the US in a case like this, are no better than those who consider Fox to be unbiased.
  • scrubadub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2dunno about radio free Europe but voice of America is more of a propaganda station

    "VOA was organized in 1942 under the Office of War Information with news programs aimed at German-occupied Europe and North Africa. Voice of America began to transmit radio broadcasts into the Soviet Union on February 17, 1947. During the Cold War, VOA was placed under the U.S. Information Agency."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_america
  • infonote, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I won't be surprise if USA and EU do the same thing.
  • thund3rstruck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@h4ppydotcom

    "until I realise that a sizable proportion of 250 million Americans treat the content as important and factual"

    Give me a break, first of all there are less than 300 million people in America in total and at least 1/3rd of them could give a ***** less about news of any kind, let alone Fox News. Fox News airs on a cable channel and it's audience is somewhere in the 1 million person range. Perhaps Rupert Murdoch is overstating his importance overseas because here in the USA Fox News is taken seriously only by the most radical conservative fringe groups...

    in other news... Fox News proposes New Office of Cencorship
    http://mediamatters.org/items/200606290009
    • thatguy25, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh, no sir, there are well over 300 million people in America. It's just that 10~20 million of them are illegals. (And thus aren't counted on official census.)
  • JorgeGT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's not a matter of listen to that radios or not, it's a matter of being able to listen to them if you want. That's a right of every individual. The Government shouldn't decide for you what must you hear. Why?
    It starts banning american radios. Then european radios. Then, non-gov-friendly radios...
    I agree with "this is a symptom of a country with a sorry state of democracy"
    • JorgeGT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2..."this is a symptom of a country with a sorry state of democracy." In a true democracy a person should be able to use any source of information he wants.

      Sorry for double post but the *edit* system is terrible!
  • aps1ngh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I'm sorry but Scratt (near the top), you are a total idiot. The US propaganda machine? Right now Russia is sitting on top of the world's largest untapped oil field and is busting ass to drill it. Their relations with the US have not even come close to being patched since the Cold War. During and after the Cold War, there was widespread enforced social stagnation by the government. Russian officials cut off its population from the world's most powerful country (as well as everyone else in the world during the Cold War) for one reason: fear of its population being infiltrated with new freedoms of expression and ideas (ideas that typically lead to DEMOCRACY).
  • Slono, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@aps1ngh

    Why would Russia want to patch relations with USA?
    -To me, no apparent reason. Self-sufficient country, smart people, own rich culture
    Why would USA want to patch relations with Russia?
    -One (of many) very clear reasons is OIL and naturak riches.

    It seems to me that you say freedom is only in countries who open their doors to oil scavengers ...and sell hamburgers, Yeah, e.g., Irak is much more of a free country now....ppfffff!
    • Egoist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Aren't you late for your flag burning party?

      No country in the world is self-sufficient, not even the US. Without trade, all of our economies would tank. Yes, Russia has oil, but they also have cheap labor, which is attractive to American companies. I also believe that they are a large exporter of textiles, but that could be incorrect. And the vodka, don't forget the vodka.

      I know your hatred of the US keeps you warm at night, but it's in both country's best intrests to maintain good relations.
    • Slono, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@Egoist

      "No country in the world is self-sufficient, not even the US. Without trade, all of our economies would tank. "
      There you are right.
      "I know your hatred of the US keeps you warm at night, but it's in both country's best intrests to maintain good relations."
      That's not true. I use electricity :) No seriously: I don't hate anybody. I can learn a lot from US: e.g., in research, enterpreneurship and so on, but almost nothing about democracy, particularly now, when I see how international conflicts and ecology policy is being managed by US and what for reasons!

      I am just being critic, that's also part of DEMOCRACY and FREEDOM. If you cannot take it, I am sorry.
  • jaikar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Can't blame the Russians. Good move, as long as they do actually keep the news balanced, fair, and propaganda-free.
    • mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What you are saying is that it is OK to censor the press, as for propaganda-free, WHAT do you think the russian media is? It is state-controlled. In the US we have various media outlets that lean right to left so you can get both sides if you want.
  • astraka, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Voice of America? It's a propaganda radio station run by CIA that used to broadcast to Russia during the Cold War. I was surprised that it still exists.
  • dvdklnr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0For all practical purposes, independent TV news is no more in Russia. Actually, there is no television independent from the government in Russia, it has ceased to be. While radio used to be forgotten by the government, the screws are getting tightened. No matter what you think of the source of funding for VoA or Radio Liberty, they do provide an independent channel of information, independent from either Russian government or US censors. RL uses local correspondents in Russia, it has studios in Russia. Again, no matter what one thinks of the real or imaginary bias in their editorial conent, their existence is still needed, more so now than maybe 10 years ago. RFERL.org (go there, for goodness sake!) remains one of the best up-to-date sources of analysis of current Russian and former Soviet Uniion.
  • dvdklnr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Right. VoA started broadcasting in 1942. It broadcasts in 44 languages. Its Russian broadcasts were jammed (like those by RL, Deutsche Welle, BBC, others) during the cold war. It's funded by the US congress:

    http://www.voanews.com/english/About/FastFacts.cfm#
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.