Dedicated Russian thread

Journalism in Muscovite Russia:

My only beef with this is that its being reported as something new and particular toPutin's current government.

And yet, one has only got to look at the numerous historical precendents, to see that this is business as usual, when it comes to the imposition of the "Muscovite Mindset".
 
In an interview with RFE/RL during a one-day visit to Kyiv on May 6, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken vowed to stand up “for the right of journalists to do their jobs.” His comments came as RFE/RL finds itself under increasing pressure in Russia, where authorities demand that it identify itself as a “foreign agent” in accordance with legislation that critics say is designed to crack down on independent media and NGOs.
"We are aware that Russia has withdrawn some forces from the border... but we also see that significant forces remain there [and] significant equipment remains there," Mr Blinken said.
Mr.Blinken is an experienced politician and diplomat. Probably he hints where pres.Putin could make steps toward Washington. In this context attitude of Putin's regime to Radio Freedom and its journalists will show willingness of pres.Putin to improve relations with the USA.
Btw, I noted that from certain point Putin's agitprop machine stopped to mention mr.Assange and now doesn't accuse Washington in suppression of freedom of speech.
 


Mr.Blinken is an experienced politician and diplomat. Probably he hints where pres.Putin could make steps toward Washington. In this context attitude of Putin's regime to Radio Freedom and its journalists will show willingness of pres.Putin to improve relations with the USA.
Btw, I noted that from certain point Putin's agitprop machine stopped to mention mr.Assange and now doesn't accuse Washington in suppression of freedom of speech.
I suspect the RFE/RL issue is part of the continuing tit-for-tat mutual expulsions and sanctions. The US made RT register as foreign agents in the US, so the Russians are returning the favour with respect to the US government controlled RFE/RL in Russia.
 
I suspect the RFE/RL issue is part of the continuing tit-for-tat mutual expulsions and sanctions. The US made RT register as foreign agents in the US, so the Russians are returning the favour with respect to the US government controlled RFE/RL in Russia.
Exactly. The very law about foreign agents in Russia appeared to mirror respective US law.
However, it should be noted that in Russian the term 'foreign agent' sounds sinister almost as 'foreign spy'. As I understand in English, the term 'foreign agent' is voided such an extremely negative colouring.
Btw, RT was fined by Ofcom in the UK for biased coverage of Salisbury poisoning. Of course RT was and is biased mass media. But, notably BBC in Russia was not fined in tit-for-tat style.
 
Btw, RT was fined by Ofcom in the UK for biased coverage of Salisbury poisoning. Of course RT was and is biased mass media. But, notably BBC in Russia was not fined in tit-for-tat style.
No? But on a tit for tat basis they had a good try at finding something, and leaked the identities of BBC journalists.

In a country where journalism is hazardous for your health



 
No? But on a tit for tat basis they had a good try at finding something, and leaked the identities of BBC journalists.

In a country where journalism is hazardous for your health



Anyway BBC in Russia was not fined. As for other measures then
1. BBC has an office in Moscow with more than 50 working journalists. Their personal data and photos appeared in social networks and marginal sites after the same information about journalists working for Sputnik news agency appeared in the Times. It is an abnormal situation but what do you propose in this context? To allow similar publication in British newspapers and prohibit it in social networks?
2. I have heard about warning toward BBC that direct qoutation of terrorist leaders is not acceptable. However, nothing (in practical terms) have been done. BBC was not fined and continue to work in Moscow.
3. I don't understand what exactly do you mean. Maybe you mean that Assange style journalist activity is being punished in Russia? That Putin's regime keeps its critics in the jail? On many occasions it is true.
 
Anyway BBC in Russia was not fined. As for other measures then
1. BBC has an office in Moscow with more than 50 working journalists. Their personal data and photos appeared in social networks and marginal sites after the same information about journalists working for Sputnik news agency appeared in the Times. It is an abnormal situation but what do you propose in this context? To allow similar publication in British newspapers and prohibit it in social networks?
2. I have heard about warning toward BBC that direct qoutation of terrorist leaders is not acceptable. However, nothing (in practical terms) have been done. BBC was not fined and continue to work in Moscow.
3. I don't understand what exactly do you mean. Maybe you mean that Assange style journalist activity is being punished in Russia? That Putin's regime keeps its critics in the jail? On many occasions it is true.
Anyway BBC in Russia was not fined. As for other measures then
1. BBC has an office in Moscow with more than 50 working journalists. Their personal data and photos appeared in social networks and marginal sites after the same information about journalists working for Sputnik news agency appeared in the Times. It is an abnormal situation but what do you propose in this context? To allow similar publication in British newspapers and prohibit it in social networks?
2. I have heard about warning toward BBC that direct qoutation of terrorist leaders is not acceptable. However, nothing (in practical terms) have been done. BBC was not fined and continue to work in Moscow.
3. I don't understand what exactly do you mean. Maybe you mean that Assange style journalist activity is being punished in Russia? That Putin's regime keeps its critics in the jail? On many occasions it is true.
1) that’s ‘tit for tat’ which you claim Russia hasn’t done
..... and the BBC are not the Times

2) maybe not fined - but Russia sought out ‘tit for tat’ action which you claimed they had not done

3) I mean that Russia is a dangerous place for any form of reporter. Not Assange type hosting fit ‘whistle blowers’
Russia is an oppressive bully based state that kills people who it doesn’t like. Either on an establishment basis or turns a blind eye to murder
Russia imprisons people that it doesn’t like, it also pushes them off tall buildings, shoots them in the back of the head and poisons them

I don’t subscribe to the times so can’t read the article

But according to this:

..... the times published photos with names as part of its article.


The Sputnik website shows photos and names on its website. Which means that in a country where it is safe to be a journalist the Times wrote an article with publicly available information, and on a ‘tit for tat’ basis RT published names of unrelated BBC journalists in a country where it is OK, encouraged and common to murder journalists
 
Last edited:
1) that’s ‘tit for tat’ which you claim Russia hasn’t done
..... and the BBC are not the Times

2) maybe not fined - but Russia sought out ‘tit for tat’ action which you claimed they had not done

3) I mean that Russia is a dangerous place for any form of reporter. Not Assange type hosting fit ‘whistle blowers’
Russia is an oppressive bully based state that kills people who it doesn’t like. Either on an establishment basis or turns a blind eye to murder
Russia imprisons people that it doesn’t like, it also pushes them off tall buildings, shoots them in the back of the head and poisons them

I don’t subscribe to the times so can’t read the article

But according to this:

..... the times published photos with names as part of its article.


The Sputnik website shows photos and names on its website. Which means that in a country where it is safe to be a journalist the Times wrote an article with publicly available information, and on a ‘tit for tat’ basis RT published names of unrelated BBC journalists in a country where it is OK, encouraged and common to murder journalists
I never claimed that Moscow doesn't use 'tit for tat' approach. Putin's regime is actively using this method. I only mentioned that BBC was not fined in Russia while RT was. That's all.
Af for publication of full names and photos of journalists without their consent then it is not right in any country. The Times did first.
 
I wonder why???
I suppose that if Moscow would fine BBC then it could lead to expulsion of RT and other agitprop outlets from the UK and other Western countries.
 
I suppose that if Moscow would fine BBC then it could lead to expulsion of RT and other agitprop outlets from the UK and other Western countries.
Well considering the Beeb is hardly flavour of the month in the UK- would it matter? We're slightly more discerning in the UK, you'd have to agree.
 
I never claimed that Moscow doesn't use 'tit for tat' approach. Putin's regime is actively using this method. I only mentioned that BBC was not fined in Russia while RT was. That's all.
Af for publication of full names and photos of journalists without their consent then it is not right in any country. The Times did first.
No you didn’t

You very specifically said that they did not fine the bbc on a tit for tat basis, and excluded the fact that they did act on a tit for tat basis

I ‘just’ pointed that out to you
 
I never claimed that Moscow doesn't use 'tit for tat' approach. Putin's regime is actively using this method. I only mentioned that BBC was not fined in Russia while RT was. That's all.
Af for publication of full names and photos of journalists without their consent then it is not right in any country. The Times did first.
The Times ‘did it first’, but Russia got their ‘revenge’ on someone else
 
Because for some reason Russia did not find anything to justify a fine
It is not so hard as you may think.
RT was fined for biased coverage of Salisbury poisoning.
BBC-Russian could be fined for falsehoods, incorrect information about Salisbury poisoning. For example
По данным полиции, Сергей и Юлия Скрипаль впервые уехали из дома около 9:00, вернулись около 11:00, пробыли дома около полутора часов и примерно в 13:00-13:30 вышли из дома.
According to the police, Sergei and Yulia Skripal first left home at about 9:00, returned at about 11:00, stayed at home for about an hour and a half and left the house at about 13: 00-13: 30.
You know pretty well the the police didn't claim that the Skripals returned home. There are no comments in this respect. So there is an example of primitive falsehood by BBC-Russian.
 
The Times ‘did it first’, but Russia got their ‘revenge’ on someone else
But note it as done in Russian social networks and repeated in marginal sites. No one serious Russian newspaper did it.
 
It is not so hard as you may think.
RT was fined for biased coverage of Salisbury poisoning.
BBC-Russian could be fined for falsehoods, incorrect information about Salisbury poisoning. For example


You know pretty well the the police didn't claim that the Skripals returned home. There are no comments in this respect. So there is an example of primitive falsehood by BBC-Russian.
No.
I don’t ‘know’ that the police have not claimed that the Skripals returned home.

What inside knowledge do you have with regards to communications between the police and the BBC?
 
It is not so hard as you may think.
RT was fined for biased coverage of Salisbury poisoning.
BBC-Russian could be fined for falsehoods, incorrect information about Salisbury poisoning. For example


You know pretty well the the police didn't claim that the Skripals returned home. There are no comments in this respect. So there is an example of primitive falsehood by BBC-Russian.
7 specific breaches, and all you can come up with is the BBC with regard to the Skripals coming home



The seven breaches were from the following news and current affairs programmes:
  • Sputnik, RT, 17 March 2018, 19:30
  • News, RT, 18 March 2018, 08:00
  • Sputnik, RT, 7 April 2018, 19:30
  • Crosstalk, RT, 13 April 2018, 20:30
  • Crosstalk, RT, 16 April 2018, 20:30
  • Crosstalk, RT, 20 April 2018, 08:30
  • News, RT, 26 April 2018, 08:00
Ofcom added that three further programmes were found not in breach of its impartiality rules.
 
No.
I don’t ‘know’ that the police have not claimed that the Skripals returned home.

What inside knowledge do you have with regards to communications between the police and the BBC?
There a statement made in the article on BBC-Russian site where it is written that the Police claimed that from 11:00 until 13:00 or 13:30 the Skripals were at home anf thus returned home.
But I tried hard to find similar information on BBC-English site. I'm absolutely sure that there is no similar statement on BBC-English site because I have red all articles where the Skripals were mentioned for relevant period. Also I tried to find similar statement in other British mass media and haven't found anything.
Let's look at Wikipedia.
  • At 14:40 GMT on 3 March 2018, Yulia Skripal, the 33-year-old daughter of Sergei Skripal, a 66-year-old resident of Salisbury, flew into Heathrow Airport from Russia.
  • At 09:15 on 4 March Sergei Skripal's burgundy 2009 BMW 320d was seen in the area of London Road, Churchill Way North and Wilton Road at Salisbury.
  • At 13:30 Skripal's car was seen on Devizes Road on the way towards the town centre.
As you may see there is nothing about the return in the chronology of events.
So 'the return' was invented by journalists in BBC-Russian.

So if you are sure that the police indeed told that the Skripals returned home then just provide me with the source.
 
Last edited:
7 specific breaches, and all you can come up with is the BBC with regard to the Skripals coming home



The seven breaches were from the following news and current affairs programmes:
  • Sputnik, RT, 17 March 2018, 19:30
  • News, RT, 18 March 2018, 08:00
  • Sputnik, RT, 7 April 2018, 19:30
  • Crosstalk, RT, 13 April 2018, 20:30
  • Crosstalk, RT, 16 April 2018, 20:30
  • Crosstalk, RT, 20 April 2018, 08:30
  • News, RT, 26 April 2018, 08:00
Ofcom added that three further programmes were found not in breach of its impartiality rules.
I'm well aware about so called 'breaches'. In one case a guest was interrupted, in another case alternative viewpoint was not described in sufficient details and so on.
However there was no one case of false information.
But BBC Russian published just fake news.
 

Latest Threads

Top