John Kerry spoke about Ukraine and reserved some "verbal bullets" for the Kremlin-funded TV network, Russia Today.
The full speech is available.
I think that such an overall attack by a top politician against an important media outlet (which has surpassed 1 billion total views on YouTube, for example) is pretty incredible in a free country. Needless to say, I remember pretty much the same attacks against the "seditious transmitters of the imperialists" (including Radio Free Europe) we would hear during communism. (RFE/RL stopped its direct broadcast from Russian transmitters in 2012 when the new Russian bill outlawed the broadcasting of content paid for by foreign owners.)
It would be OK if Kerry – and/or the media that consider him a good politician who is right on important issues – had presented evidence against particular wrong claims and misinterpretations. But for a Secretary of State to try to sling mud on a whole network is beyond the pale.
Just for you to have a realistic idea, I think that about 1/5 of my exposure to politics is coming from Russia Today, usually their YouTube channel (and much more rarely, from the RT Chrome extension). The percentage has jumped considerably when the chaos in Ukraine began because I consider the coverage by the Western media – especially the U.S. media, but to a lesser extent, even e.g. Czech media – completely inadequate.
Russia Today has offered pretty good stories on events in science, and so on. You shouldn't imagine that I am an uncritical consumer of everything they present. For example, their incorporation of the hardcore left-wing financial terrorist Max Keiser – who would propose a "don't drink, short the stocks" algorithm to destroy the CocaCola company a decade ago, seems counterproductive to me. He is a loon; check e.g. this high-pitch pro-Bitcoin meltdown of Max Keiser (OK, it was a staged event but he is still a loon). And there are some other hardcore Marxists working for Russia Today, too. I try to avoid them because they make me upset but I may often tolerate them, too (e.g. this Comrade Pepe Escobar who is a clear commie but he's sometimes right about things, too).
On the other hand, the high-quality news and programs offered by RT paint a different story and in the context of the Ukrainian chaos, I think that RT is the world's most informative yet balanced source of news. For example, Peter Lavelle's CrossTalk is the best political debate program that is alive in the current world. And correct me if I am wrong but in all controversies between the official Western press and RT that I experienced in the recent months, RT turned out to be right.
For example, there was this uncritical report that the anti-Semitic "register or be chased away" rant in Donetsk was written by the actual leaders of the pro-Russian resistance. I think it's agreed by now that the stamps were counterfeited and the document was written by someone else – well, probably by the pro-Maidan forces that 1) have the interest to discredit the pro-Russians and 2) that often want the Jews to disappear from Ukraine, anyway.
Also, some photographs were supposed to show that particular Russian bearded men operate in Ukraine. It was pointed out by the author of the photograph that the photographs were used without his permission and, more importantly, all pictures of the bearded men were taken in Ukraine so there is no evidence that the men are Putin's employees of any sort (or Russian citizens). The New York Times apologized for the untrue story – but the correction was posted on Page 9 so that almost no one reads it.
There have been many other examples like that.
But even if Russia Today were less accurate or correct than the "mainstream" Western outlets in some cases, they have the right to operate and they are bringing important information or viewpoints for viewers like me. Thank you.
Kerry's effort to "discredit" Russia Today by pointing out that it is funded by Vladimir Putin and pals seems bizarre to me. Every media outlet is funded in some way and that doesn't imply that the outlet is accurate or inaccurate. All combinations of funding strategies and accuracy are possible. After all, before the fall of communism, my most important source of the big-picture political information about Czechoslovakia was Radio Free Europe that has always been funded by the U.S. Congress. I didn't have a problem with that. It seems natural to me that many such important projects are funded by governments or parliaments. They may still be very good and important and be sure that Radio Free Europe was bringing us more faithful information about communism (vs prospective democracy) in Czechoslovakia than the official Czechoslovak press.
Within some tolerance window, the journalists employed by someone enjoy partial or complete freedom. I think that the RT journalists have more actual freedom than e.g. MSNBC's employees.
Ironically enough, the current headquarters of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty is the building that has belonged to the communist federal parliament in Prague. My point is that it is just silly to automatically indicate that some network is bad because it is funded by someone who should be "disliked". While I am no hardcore fan, I don't dislike Putin in any way, either. He is an excellent strategist who is serving his nation. I don't like his past. Those things would pose a problem for me if I were supposed to vote for him. But there would be tons of positives, too. I have no idea what the outcome would be if I were a Russian man who would be deciding if he is "my president".
At any rate, the analogy between Kerry's remarks and the censorship in communism looks accurate and therefore scary to me.
Why don't you turn on the jammers to prevent the viewers from seeing Russia Today, comrade Kerry? Why doesn't your administration start to dismiss children of parents who watch Russia Today from good schools? To arrest folks? Your beyond-the-pale criticism of Russia Today surely indicates that you're pretty close to these policies. In the real world, Russia Today offers some "different than the nearly omnipresent politically correct" coverage of many topics. It is not regulated by various taboos. It doesn't think that the "minorities with special rights" such as the women, Muslims, gays, and people of color are uncriticizable holy cows. It doesn't pretend that people who mindlessly devour everything coming from the official Western media are intelligent. It doesn't mask the hypocrisy and double standards of many people, including people like John Kerry. These people may find the existence of Russia Today uncomfortable but you know, it is not the task of the media to maximize the comfort of politicians like John Kerry.
And this is how Kerry's spokesman answers questions:
OK, I apologize for the politically incorrect term "spokesman" – I meant a spokeslut. I hope it's better. This arrogant reply just drives me up the wall. It's so disgusting. The cute RT correspondent Gayane Chichikyan just points out a certain repeated coincidence (Kiev has sent troops to the East twice, always after a major U.S. official's visit) and asks whether it is due to pure chance or whether the obvious explanation of these coincidences is right. One may answer in one way or another. Someone could lie, too. Jep Psaki's "reply" is that the correspondent only restates "Lavrov's ludicrous claim from yesterday". Except that it doesn't matter. If the observation is first made by Lavrov, it doesn't mean that it doesn't need a genuine answer. After all, Lavrov seems extremely profound and hot to the cute granddaughter of his Soviet predecessor Shevarnadze. ;-)
At any rate, it is very clear that people like Kerry enjoy the life in the environment of brainwashed and intellectually degenerated masses who can be fed all kinds of official junk – including the global warming orthodoxy, to mention a truly atrocious example – and who never question anything. I understand that people who owe everything to the dwindling quality-of-information standards of many people in the West must be annoyed by inconvenient questions and by media outlets who point out that the emperor has no clothes if he or she has no clothes. But their inconvenience doesn't change anything about the fact that they are those who are on the wrong side of the history.
(An hour after I posted this text, RT posted a fun video of a very lucky Czech man under a train in Rájec-JestÅ™ebÃ, Czechia. It's the first time I see this one-week-old Czech police video. This guy must be guarded by an angel, indeed.)
The full speech is available.
I think that such an overall attack by a top politician against an important media outlet (which has surpassed 1 billion total views on YouTube, for example) is pretty incredible in a free country. Needless to say, I remember pretty much the same attacks against the "seditious transmitters of the imperialists" (including Radio Free Europe) we would hear during communism. (RFE/RL stopped its direct broadcast from Russian transmitters in 2012 when the new Russian bill outlawed the broadcasting of content paid for by foreign owners.)
It would be OK if Kerry – and/or the media that consider him a good politician who is right on important issues – had presented evidence against particular wrong claims and misinterpretations. But for a Secretary of State to try to sling mud on a whole network is beyond the pale.
Just for you to have a realistic idea, I think that about 1/5 of my exposure to politics is coming from Russia Today, usually their YouTube channel (and much more rarely, from the RT Chrome extension). The percentage has jumped considerably when the chaos in Ukraine began because I consider the coverage by the Western media – especially the U.S. media, but to a lesser extent, even e.g. Czech media – completely inadequate.
Russia Today has offered pretty good stories on events in science, and so on. You shouldn't imagine that I am an uncritical consumer of everything they present. For example, their incorporation of the hardcore left-wing financial terrorist Max Keiser – who would propose a "don't drink, short the stocks" algorithm to destroy the CocaCola company a decade ago, seems counterproductive to me. He is a loon; check e.g. this high-pitch pro-Bitcoin meltdown of Max Keiser (OK, it was a staged event but he is still a loon). And there are some other hardcore Marxists working for Russia Today, too. I try to avoid them because they make me upset but I may often tolerate them, too (e.g. this Comrade Pepe Escobar who is a clear commie but he's sometimes right about things, too).
On the other hand, the high-quality news and programs offered by RT paint a different story and in the context of the Ukrainian chaos, I think that RT is the world's most informative yet balanced source of news. For example, Peter Lavelle's CrossTalk is the best political debate program that is alive in the current world. And correct me if I am wrong but in all controversies between the official Western press and RT that I experienced in the recent months, RT turned out to be right.
For example, there was this uncritical report that the anti-Semitic "register or be chased away" rant in Donetsk was written by the actual leaders of the pro-Russian resistance. I think it's agreed by now that the stamps were counterfeited and the document was written by someone else – well, probably by the pro-Maidan forces that 1) have the interest to discredit the pro-Russians and 2) that often want the Jews to disappear from Ukraine, anyway.
Also, some photographs were supposed to show that particular Russian bearded men operate in Ukraine. It was pointed out by the author of the photograph that the photographs were used without his permission and, more importantly, all pictures of the bearded men were taken in Ukraine so there is no evidence that the men are Putin's employees of any sort (or Russian citizens). The New York Times apologized for the untrue story – but the correction was posted on Page 9 so that almost no one reads it.
There have been many other examples like that.
But even if Russia Today were less accurate or correct than the "mainstream" Western outlets in some cases, they have the right to operate and they are bringing important information or viewpoints for viewers like me. Thank you.
Kerry's effort to "discredit" Russia Today by pointing out that it is funded by Vladimir Putin and pals seems bizarre to me. Every media outlet is funded in some way and that doesn't imply that the outlet is accurate or inaccurate. All combinations of funding strategies and accuracy are possible. After all, before the fall of communism, my most important source of the big-picture political information about Czechoslovakia was Radio Free Europe that has always been funded by the U.S. Congress. I didn't have a problem with that. It seems natural to me that many such important projects are funded by governments or parliaments. They may still be very good and important and be sure that Radio Free Europe was bringing us more faithful information about communism (vs prospective democracy) in Czechoslovakia than the official Czechoslovak press.
Within some tolerance window, the journalists employed by someone enjoy partial or complete freedom. I think that the RT journalists have more actual freedom than e.g. MSNBC's employees.
Ironically enough, the current headquarters of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty is the building that has belonged to the communist federal parliament in Prague. My point is that it is just silly to automatically indicate that some network is bad because it is funded by someone who should be "disliked". While I am no hardcore fan, I don't dislike Putin in any way, either. He is an excellent strategist who is serving his nation. I don't like his past. Those things would pose a problem for me if I were supposed to vote for him. But there would be tons of positives, too. I have no idea what the outcome would be if I were a Russian man who would be deciding if he is "my president".
At any rate, the analogy between Kerry's remarks and the censorship in communism looks accurate and therefore scary to me.
Why don't you turn on the jammers to prevent the viewers from seeing Russia Today, comrade Kerry? Why doesn't your administration start to dismiss children of parents who watch Russia Today from good schools? To arrest folks? Your beyond-the-pale criticism of Russia Today surely indicates that you're pretty close to these policies. In the real world, Russia Today offers some "different than the nearly omnipresent politically correct" coverage of many topics. It is not regulated by various taboos. It doesn't think that the "minorities with special rights" such as the women, Muslims, gays, and people of color are uncriticizable holy cows. It doesn't pretend that people who mindlessly devour everything coming from the official Western media are intelligent. It doesn't mask the hypocrisy and double standards of many people, including people like John Kerry. These people may find the existence of Russia Today uncomfortable but you know, it is not the task of the media to maximize the comfort of politicians like John Kerry.
And this is how Kerry's spokesman answers questions:
OK, I apologize for the politically incorrect term "spokesman" – I meant a spokeslut. I hope it's better. This arrogant reply just drives me up the wall. It's so disgusting. The cute RT correspondent Gayane Chichikyan just points out a certain repeated coincidence (Kiev has sent troops to the East twice, always after a major U.S. official's visit) and asks whether it is due to pure chance or whether the obvious explanation of these coincidences is right. One may answer in one way or another. Someone could lie, too. Jep Psaki's "reply" is that the correspondent only restates "Lavrov's ludicrous claim from yesterday". Except that it doesn't matter. If the observation is first made by Lavrov, it doesn't mean that it doesn't need a genuine answer. After all, Lavrov seems extremely profound and hot to the cute granddaughter of his Soviet predecessor Shevarnadze. ;-)
At any rate, it is very clear that people like Kerry enjoy the life in the environment of brainwashed and intellectually degenerated masses who can be fed all kinds of official junk – including the global warming orthodoxy, to mention a truly atrocious example – and who never question anything. I understand that people who owe everything to the dwindling quality-of-information standards of many people in the West must be annoyed by inconvenient questions and by media outlets who point out that the emperor has no clothes if he or she has no clothes. But their inconvenience doesn't change anything about the fact that they are those who are on the wrong side of the history.
(An hour after I posted this text, RT posted a fun video of a very lucky Czech man under a train in Rájec-JestÅ™ebÃ, Czechia. It's the first time I see this one-week-old Czech police video. This guy must be guarded by an angel, indeed.)
John Kerry vs freedom of press, Russia Today
Reviewed by MCH
on
April 25, 2014
Rating:
Reviewed by MCH
on
April 25, 2014
Rating:
No comments: