EDITORIAL: Ross Cameron, Treacherous Russophile Bastard


Ross Cameron, Treacherous Russophile Bastard

Aussie MP Ross Cameron, Rat Bastard

Back in 2004, a nasty little Australian rat named Ross Cameron was sitting in his comfy seat in the Aussie parliament when something rather uncomfortable happened.  Cameron, who had “marketed himself in previous election campaigns as a staunch family man with deep Christian convictions,” was caught cheating on his wife.  And not just cheating, but carrying on with a variety of bimbos while his wife was pregnant with twins.  Maybe God told him it was OK?

He was then drummed out of office and divorced. He remarried with his new wife five months pregnant. Yikes. Yuck. And that’s only the beginning, dear reader.  Hold on to your chair, because it gets worse.  Much, much worse. This fellow is truly pond scum.

Right-wing wackos of his ilk, like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul, are drawn to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin like flies to a pile of rotting garbage, like swastikas to a neo-Nazi.  Undoubtedly, they see in Putin some kind of kindred soul, who can satisfyingly liquidate anyone who criticizes them, obliterate “undesirables” like homosexuals and Jews and Blacks, and build the kind of world they’d like to live in. They are, quite simply, as un-American as you can get.  That they lay claim to the ideological or political lineage of Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower is nothing short of blasphemy.

But even still, the fetid cesspool of utter filth that Herr Cameron spewed out on the pages of the Sydney Morning Herald recently was shocking and disturbing, a clear reminder that there are still plenty of treacherous rat bastards among us who will jump at the chance to help Putin create a neo-Soviet state and a new Iron Curtain, applauding as he wipes out democracy using the most bloody and brutal tactics imaginable.  As one commenter on the article points out:  “The author is either deliberately distorting truth or simply repeating Kremlin lies about Putin’s deeds.”  Whether Cameron, who has of course never lived a day in Putin’s Russia, speaks out of apelike ignorance or malignant complicity with the regime hardly matters.  He’s evil either way, and a threat to not only Russia’s future but the security of the Western democracies.

We condemn him. Pravda, meanwhile, thinks he’s the bee’s knees.

Let’s be clear:  This man has absolutely no credentials where Russia is concerned, yet he purports to lecture the world on what a wonderful fellow this proud KGB spy really is.  What you read next will turn your stomach. You have been warned.

Upon leaving office, Cameron went into the banking business.  It seems he has a fervent desire to insinuate himself into the good graces of the Putin regime in order to drum up business for his new employer, because there is no other way to explain the repulsive love letter he published to the proud KGB spy who is throttling the democratic life out of Russia.

He begins like this:  “Putin is Russia’s finest leader since Peter the Great.”    Would that be the same Peter the Great who worked tens of thousands of slaves to cruel extinction struggling to build his network of palaces in the swamps that became St. Petersburg?

He states:  “Western profiles of Putin usually begin with ”ex-KGB agent” but that is misleading. As a spy in West Germany in the 1980s, Putin witnessed the superiority of the free markets.”   Those profiles are certainly wrong if they refer to Putin as “ex-KGB.”  He’s never renounced or resigned from the KGB, and proudly declares himself a “chekist” to this very day.  He’s filled the halls of power in Moscow with KGB cohorts, not exactly a free-market homily.  This is only the beginning of the torrent, the tsunami of shameless lies.

The comes this:  “After the 1989 revolutions, Putin moved to St Petersburg to join his friend and former university lecturer, the mayor, Anatoly Sobchak – the Milton Friedman of Russia – and was appointed to attract foreign investment to Russia’s second largest city.”  Milton Friedman?  Sobchak fled Russia to avoid indictment on corruption charges and left Piter a pathetic basket case, an utter mess.  He was a law professor, not an economist.  Oops. Another avalanche of lies.  Herr Cameron is also apparently unaware of Putin’s shameless plagiarism of his PhD thesis, a neat trick he undoubtedly learned from his mentor Mr. Sobchak.

Next he claims Putin “ended the Chechen revolt.”  Readers of our blog over the past few issues know only too well just how very much un-ended that conflict really is.  The violence is spreading unchecked through the entire Caucasus region and Russia has actually gone to war against Georgia.

He states that after Yeltsin resigned Putin “called an election, further entrenching the rule of law.”  No, that election was already scheduled as Yeltsin’s fixed term as president was ending.  Putin liquidated every political opponent and ran without a serious rival other than the Communist Party or any debates.

He claims:  “Four years later he was re-elected with a thumping 71 per cent mandate and has since enjoyed the highest approval rating of any political leader in the democratic world.”  In fact, Putin has seized control of all the major TV stations and most of the leading newspapers, which now publish nothing but praise for the Kremlin.

He moves on to economics:  “Putin inherited an economic catastrophe. In 1998, Russia defaulted on its foreign debt and the rouble collapsed. His first public commitment – to double the productive capacity of the Russian economy in 10 years – was met with derision, but has been fulfilled.”  In fact, Putin has done nothing to improve the Russian economy, he has simply been the beneficiary of rising world oil prices, a windfall which all credible experts agree he did not maximize to the benefit of his countrymen, but rather squandered on a new cold war.  All this became quite clear when Putin’s country suffered far more than any major economy from the global economic downturn, its stock market losing three-quarters of its value.

He asserts: “In 2001, Putin achieved the holy grail of progressive reform – a flat income tax of 13 per cent, creating a wave of incentive to work while reducing the appeal of the black market.”  Oops. Transparency International has repeatedly found Russia to have one of the most pernicious black markets on the entire planet.

Then he goes for broke with a barrage of maniacal lies that would put even Herr Goebbels to shame:

Putin’s Russia has floated its currency and liberalised its current and capital accounts, completing the troika required for full integration into international capital markets. In 2000, Russia’s economy was ranked 22nd in the world – now it is seventh. The power of oligarchs diminished under Putin, with the growing counterweight of parliament, the rule of law and a middle class that has exploded from 8 million to 55 million. Those living in poverty fell from 30 per cent to 14 per cent under his watch.Western critics predicted Putin would use the global financial crisis as a pretext to increase state control, but the reverse has been the case. Russia has embarked on a new round of privatisation, with 5500 state-owned enterprises earmarked for sale.

Well.  Notice how this creep blindly regurgitates facts and figures issued by the regime of a proud KGB spy without questioning them or even telling his readers his source.   Russia hasn’t been integrated into world capital markets, and there is no reason to think a proud KGB spy would ever want such a thing, which would dramatically undercut his power, to occur.  Russia’s economy is only larger because the price of oil has risen. What happens when it falls, or Russia runs out of oil?  Oops, he forgot to think about that.  The power of some oligarchs diminished, the power of Putin-friendly ones dramatically increased, as did their wealth.  Middle class?  The average wage in Russia is $3/hour. By Western standards, Russia has no middle class, only a vast sea of desperately poor with a tiny ship of ultra-rich bobbing on top, the same situation as in Tsarist Russia, which led to revolution.  Poverty?  Again, this word has no relationship to the Western context in which the author speaks.  Earmarked?  Putin has earmarked and that’s the same as divesting?  Please don’t insult our intelligence sir.  And anyone who would claim that state control hasn’t dramatically increased during the Putin years is hysterically insane.  A weeks worth of reading on this blog would conclusively establish that.

His take on Georgia:

John McCain wrongly attempted to characterise the Georgia skirmish as a “resurgence of the Soviet bear”. South Ossetia was historically part of Georgia but during the Soviet era its population became dominated by ethnic Russians. Today the vast majority of South Osettians want to be part of Russia. Georgians launched an offensive to retake South Ossetia during the Beijing Olympics and Russia resisted. South Ossetia may be a complex story but comparisons with Budapest in 1956 are wrong.

The vast majority of Southerners wanted to be separate from the North in 1865. Does that mean Abraham Lincoln was evil for denying them that right? The vast majority of Chechens wanted to be free from Russia; does that mean Vladimir Putin was evil for denying them that right?   Russia didn’t “resist” Georgia, it invaded Georgia and killed many civilians in so doing. It has been condemned for egregious violations of law by the European Union, and not one single major nation has recognized the annexation of Ossetia.  It’s impossible to separate the lies from the stupidity where this ignorant, illiterate moron is concerned. He’s just plain scary.

He turns to the law:

It seems likely that Putin will stand again for president in 2012, as the constitution permits. In view of his extraordinary record of achievement in office, its hard for me to see how anyone of good faith could regret his continued influence in Russia and the world.

You read that right:  This so-called “democrat” from Australia is endorsing Putin’s return to office for another twelve years.  He approves of Putin becoming the new Brezhnev. Rhetoric this unhinged makes us suspect that Herr Cameron may already be directly on Putin’s payroll.

Then comes religion, of course:  “While the Soviets repressed all religious faith, Putin happily wears a cross, admits to studying the Bible and has largely restored the prestige of the Russian Orthodox Church.”  No mention of the fact that Putin has inserted a KGB spy as primate of the Orthodox Church and aggressively sought to liquidate and exclude all other faiths from the country entirely.  As long as Putin intends to fuse church and state, he’s on the right track.

Worst of all, Herr Cameron totally ignores the terrifying litany of murders of political rivals that has shadowed Putin from his first days in the Kremlin, and the stunning crackdown on civil society that has gone right along with it.

He does admit that journalists have been murdered by the dozen, but he’s prepared to take the word of a proud KGB spy that the Kremlin is not involved:  “It is distressing and disturbing that several Russian journalists have been murdered during Putin’s administration. In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, I can only accept Putin’s own logic that their deaths have caused him more damage than anything they could have written or spoken.”

This is a truly frightening madman, who is thankfully far from the corridors of power because of his own demented and depraved hypocrisy.  But he is very characteristic of a swarm of amoral insects buzzing around Russia’s oil money in the hopes of getting a taste, and as such is actively contributing to the demise of democracy in Russia. He is a traitor to our basic values, selling his soul the Kremlin devil, and according to his own beliefs he will pay the ultimate price.

It’s too good for him.

71 responses to “EDITORIAL: Ross Cameron, Treacherous Russophile Bastard

  1. putin controls TV, dumbass, of course he’s popular.
    if putin just for one month got the treatment foxnews gives obama—-just one month—-he’d be through, it’d be over.
    there are just so many lies and coverups at this point, like the ussr in ’85—-that exposure will be the end of putin’s regime.
    the truth, you see, never goes away, its like a persistent hunting dog—-and eventually—you’re dead.

  2. Cameron also got it wrong on where Putin was a spy. He was based in Dresden, East Germany, and I’ve never heard evidence that he went to West Germany in those days. Apparently he learned about free-market capitalism in the Democratic Republic of Germany.

  3. Historically, this is nothing new. There have always been what we used to call “fellow travelers.” Some of them were ignorant, other not so ignorant but money-hungry, some other probably just stupid, or poorly informed, or blinded by ideology, or combination of all these.

    Walter Duranty somehow overlooked dead peasant in the Ukraine, even though he was one of a very few Westerners allowed to travel there.

    Lion Feuchtwanger saw the dawn of civilization in Moscow in 1937, and H.G. Wells wrote admiringly about “the Kremlin dreamers.” Never mind millions of corpses those dreamers left in their wake.

    And the list of these fellow travelers goes on and on: Bernard Shaw, Berthold Brecht, Heinrich Mann, Howard Fast (who later saw the light, however), Paul Robson of course, etc etc. The full list of Russia lovers among Western European and American cultural and intellectual figures would probably have hundreds of names.

    This creep Cameron is just one in a very long line; of course, unlike any of those mentioned he does not seem to have any particular talent in literature or art.

  4. John if Putin controls Russian TV can you tell me how he controls Euronews which is broadcast on terrestrial TV for example. Considering your view will you also make the same point about Gordon Brown the British Prime Minister for the British governments influence on the BBC. As for the US and its so called free speech maybe you can point out why US airports banned certain Russia Today adverts despite being accepted in the UK and other countries.

    The author of the article knows little or nothing about life in Russia. I was in Vladikavkaz north ossetia over the new year. The author of the article and most of the US and European press fails to mention the thousands of South Ossetian refugees not only since last August but the early 90s victims of the Georgian ethnic cleansing policies such as Georgia for Georgians, he will talk about Russian passports but not mention the 10s of thousands of Georgians also claiming Russian passports as per there legal entitlement as former citizens of the USSR. I don’t blame the author he’s just regurgitating western spin or propaganda that he’s heard. One of the ads banned in the US by Russia Today has a TV camera super imposed over a gun and asks which is the most powerful. The problem with propaganda or spin for it to work it needs to be based on the truth and seam reasonable. This article stinks of the old 60 commie witch hunts and lacks any real credibility.

    • Your comment is totally inane. Gordon Brown does NOT control the BBC, if he did it would not report so much negative information about him, you blockhead.

      What your comment demonstrates is that Russia is not satisfied with mere ownership of the media, it actively and aggressively controls the content of that media in a neo-Soviet manner.

      For you to suggest this is not the case disqualifies you from making any claims about Russia expertise. It’s laughably insane to suggest that ORT and RTR cover Putin the same way the BBC covers Brown. It marks you as a lunatic that you could suggest otherwise in public among those who follow Russia closely.

      It would also be really nice if you’d at least try to source your bizarre claims about Russia Today, which have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this post and as such are not only irrelevant but also idiotic and hypocritical. Nice hat trick there, you witless ape.

    • Are you denying, Peter, that the Russian TV is controlled by the Kremlin, and quite tightly, too? I’ve never seen any Russian TV programs and would not understand them anyhow, but I think this fact is recognized by hundreds partial an impartial observers alike. There are many convincing examples.

      Now, it may be interesting for you to know, that no civilian airports in the United States are owned and/or operated by the United States government (with a possible exception of Washington-Reagan, not sure about it). The owners are typically states, cities, counties, or other municipal authorities and in some case private parties.

      Of course, the U.S. government sets the security and safety rules at the airports, but is has absolutely no say as to what advertisements should or should not be displayed. We have a little thing known as freedom of speech, you know. If the airport owners decided to accept or not accept certain commercial messages, it’s up to them. Maybe Russia Today is unwilling to pay their rates?

      By the way, what’s “terrestrial TV?” Up to know, I was under impression that TV signals travel through air

      • [Are you denying, Peter, that the Russian TV is controlled by the Kremlin, and quite tightly?]

        Most networks are, but 3 aren’t: RenTV, Piter5 and Euronews.

        However, other media – radio, newspapers, magazines, internet – are free and highly anti-Putin. Especially Radio Liberty, an AM radio owned by the US Congress and the CIA, and Echo of Moscow, the most powerful radio network of all.

        [I’ve never seen any Russian TV programs and would not understand them anyhow]

        No problem. That makes you exactly as much of an expert on Russia as LR and other russophobes here. Don’t let ignorance stand in the way of your pontification.

        [ but I think this fact is recognized by hundreds partial an impartial observers alike.]

        You are following a great tradition. When Solzhenitsyn published his Archipelago Gulag in the West, the Soviet propaganda newspapers published hundreds of articles from “partial an impartial observers” about how vile the book was, followed by “letters from average citizens”, who all wrote: “I haven’t read this book, but I condemn it as anti-Soviet lies!”.

        • Well, I don’t say I know for sure they have censorship, I said I had no reasons to doubt the eyewitnesses’ reports; and even you just confirmed that all TV networks but three are tightly controlled

          • Yes. But radio and print media are free and often highly anti-Putin.


            That is a shameless LIE and we demand you source it.

            ALL the major national newspapers are Kremlin-controlled and there is ONLY ONE major radio station that is anti-Putin. For you to suggest that Obama could own NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC the NYT, the LAT and it wouldn’t matter because if there was still Rush Limbaugh is GIBBERISH and offensive to our intelligence.

            Cease your stupid lies or we’ll cease them for you. We have rules that require sourcing of claims like these. Follow them or you’ll be banned.

  5. If the BBC is not UK government controlled then perhaps you should tell that to the Lords select committee who say otherwise. Lord Fowler the committee chairman said “Crucial decisions affecting the BBC are taken by the government alone”. The government decides on the licence fee and BBC funding and the legal system enforces its payment. The British government decides on the structures and if the BBC are to be broken up or not. Nick Robinson for example admitted he toed the government line on the Iraq war and failed to seek out dissenting views. I could list many examples and reports into the British governments influence on the BBC and its naive to think they do not tow the government line when required too.

    If the Russian government are controlling TV or seeking to do so then why through a satellite TV program are they putting even more foreign uncontrollable TV stations into homes. A new government backed scheme puts a basic 46 channel system into a Russian home for a installation fee of $120 and then only $20 a year. The scheme aims to put satellite TV into every home as its cheaper than running a traditional transmitter system over a huge country like Russia. It adds further foreign stations to Euronews from western Europe, Central Asia, Scandinavia and yes even Georgia.

    Clearly you have never watched channel one in Russia or RTR, I watched it on new years day this year, the largest celebration I experienced in the Russian year and it had several piss takes of both Medvedev and Putin. The most famous of which was the dancing cartoon which you can find on youtube with English subtitles. Just search for Medvedev Putin dancing. Clearly you have never watched either channel.

    The comment about Russia Today and the BBC are more than relevant to points you made in the article. Especially when you claim “In fact, Putin has seized control of all the major TV stations and most of the leading newspapers, which now publish nothing but praise for the Kremlin. ” Censorship is just as rife in the US and the western world as in Russia and if Putin is or wants control of the Russian media why is his government encouraging foreign uncontrollable stations into the country. You claim Cameron has no credentials on Russia well my source to the RT ads is Heathrow airport London on my way back from the Caucasus though somehow I think your credentials are all second hand not much different from Cameron. If you want to see them just google russia today ads banned.

    RV you mean impartial observers like this website. There is no doubt that some channels are pro government though some are not. Most media outlets have political views and stances. However the Russia government has no control over foreign stations so why encourage them into the country if your aim is to control the media. The Russian government cannot control Euronews for example which is on every TV receiving signals weather it be satellite or terrestrial. PS Terrestrial TV is what Europeans call broadcast TV.

    As for the RT ads, they are extremely thought provoking and in-case you do not know it airport authorities or port authorities in the US are either controlled by or created by government.

    • I don’t know much how they run the BBC, but I heard before that the government does not seek to control the content. I don’t know if this is or is not 100 % true, but I do watch the BBC news from time to time and find it quite interesting. I have detected no sign of censorship so far.

      I take a strong exception to your statement that the censorship is as strong in the West (and you have included the United States) as it is in Russia. This is just laughable, and at best is an extremely unconventional view.

      I don’t know about censorship in the Western Europe, but please do prove to me that it exists in the United States.

      The United States government owns no TV stations, no radio stations (except the Voice of America) and no newspapers. There are limitations on pornography and graphic violence for the broadcast networks, that’s true. Perhaps, you meant that. But that’s not censorship as most people understand it, is it?

      Finally, if you read my message, you’ll see that I stated that I know who owns airports. That’s LOCAL government, do you know the difference between local and federal governments here?

      • [I don’t know much how they run the BBC,]

        Stop apologizing about your ignorance. You are no more ignorant than all other US and UK boobs, brainwashed by their media.

        [but I heard before that the government does not seek to control the content. I don’t know if this is or is not 100 % true, but I do watch the BBC news from time to time and find it quite interesting. I have detected no sign of censorship so far.]

        How do you know that certain reports were NOT censored out? To know that BBC and other US and UK mass media censor out some important information, you would need to read sources other than the US and UK mass media themselves, wouldn’t you?

        And, as you admit yourself, you take the US mass media propaganda as Gospell. [Finally, if you read my message, you’ll see that I stated that I know who owns airports. That’s LOCAL government, do you know the difference between local and federal governments here?]

        So what? A powerful Russian TV network – TVC – is owned by the local Moscow government, which doesn’t prevent it from being most pro-Putin.

        Local US governments are ruled by exactly the same two monopolistic political parties – Democrats and Republicans – as the federal government.

  6. You see here is where the problem for me lies, you claim their are many impartial observers who claim the Kremlin control the Russian media therefore you accept it as true. Yet if this was true, then why would the Kremlin not only allow foreign stations to broadcast on terrestrial TV but invest in a program that would increase the amount of channels that they would have no control over at all?

    Yet when it comes to the BBC an official report from the house of Lords no less is extremely critical of the control the British government has over the BBC. The BBC on issue after issue promotes near identical government views. such as global warming, sanctions against Iraq, the bombing of Serbia, Western support of Indonesia, inaction over East Timor, the history of US and British support of Third World tyrants etc etc. It was at its creation used as a propaganda tool to break strikes and again in the 80s by Thatcher leading to the “British Falsehood Corporation”. Its also true that BBC appointments are vetted by M15 and the process is officially called colleging by the BBC. Despite this and much more you have still believe the BBC not biased. How during last years

    Actually my view that censorship in the west is not actually an unconventional view at all. Just look at how anti war protesters like John Lennon where treated during Vietnam. Elton John just recently commented on how the lack of anti war protesters is due to fear. Then we could look at how immigration law is being used still by Obama’s administration to keep academics and writers such as Professor Tariq Ramadan a critic of US foreign policy out of the US. First telling a few fibs that he was a terrorist since which they have retracted.

    “Ideological exclusion impoverishes academic and political debate inside the United States, and it sends the message to the world that the United States is more interested in silencing its critics than engaging them. Ideological exclusion is a petty and misguided practice that the Obama administration should retire immediately.”

    American Civil Liberties Union

    I could list many other groups within the US of the same opinion and in Europe opinion that US political censorship exists is quite high I would imagine. we know of the famous CNN editing of Putins interview in Sochi after the Georgian conflict and the obvious bias in the reporting.

    Local government is still government and they have censored ads from RT. RT did pay enough money as different RT ads where allowed just not these particular ones.

    • Lack of Anti-War protestors is due to fear?

      Jeez Peter, you are a bit dim aren’t you!

      Do you forget the hundereds of thousands of people who protested the Iraq war.

      Compare this to the silent assent of Russians to their government sponsored genocide in Chechnya, and the eradication of the indiginous population of Shvida Kartli (South Ossetia) by the Russian military and separatist forces.

      As for “Georgian ethnic cleansing policies”, sorry Pete, can you explain why more Ossetians live in Tbilisi than in South Ossetia, and why they have Ossetian language schools in Georgia, and why Ossetians serve in the Georgian military and police, and are treated without discrimination by the state, when in South Ossetia they actually DO suffer genocidal policies of ethnic cleansing?

    • I don’t know how the BBC functions, but you have not provided any proof of censorship in the U.S., although you promised to do so. I am waiting.

      Now, I don’t know your age but mine is such that I remember John Lennon and how he was treated in the 60’s quite vividly. He was treated as the greatest hero who ever lived. As I recall it, I think he was equal to Abe Lincoln and George Washington back then. What’s the complaint, exactly? Was he jailed by the U.S. Government? Was he denied entry? Not from what I remember.

      Now, if the United States denies entry to the country to Muslim radicals such as the aforementioned “professor,” we have an absolute right to do so. Foreigners don’t have a vested right to entry the U.S., or any country, without that country’s permission, isn’t that so? We have a right to expel any foreigner or turn him back for any reason whatsoever, and we owe him no apology or explanation. Any country is entitled to that. So, how does that constitute censorship? Isn’t that professor free to publish whatever he wants? Of course, he is, and there is nothing the U.S. government can do about that. By the way, that includes publishing in the U.S. based publications. That does not require physical travel to the U.S.

      So, again, where is your PROOF? Not pontification, but tangible facts. I am not naive and think it is conceivable that there might have been some attempt to censor or something like that. But I am not aware of it, and if you are, let’s have the facts.

      By the way, bias may exist, but that’s not the same as censorship. The difference is obvious enough

  7. Peter Murphy:
    [ we know of the famous CNN editing of Putins interview in Sochi after the Georgian conflict]

    Thanks for the heads-up. Here are the details:


    CNN distorted Putin’s interview

    You probably didn’t know that CNN censored Putin for being too sensible. About two weeks ago, Putin gave the network an exclusive 30-minute interview. It was never allowed to air.

    On August 29, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin met with senior political correspondent Matthew Chance for a CNN exclusive interview. “This was unprecedented access to Russia’s powerful prime minister, the former KGB spy now increasingly at odds with Washington,” an overly dramatic voice-over introduced the segment as Chance and Putin enjoyed pre-game banter and a walk through the courtyard of Putin’s palatial Sochi residence. Once seated, Chance didn’t waste any time with his provocative questions:

    Matthew Chance: Wasn’t this conflict a way of demonstrating that in this region, it’s Russia that’s the power, not NATO and certainly not the United States?

    Vladimir Putin: Of course not. What is more, we did not seek such conflicts and do not want them in the future. That this conflict has taken place—that it broke out nevertheless—is only due to the fact that no one had heeded our concerns. I think both you and your—our—viewers today will be interested to learn a little more about the history of relations between the peoples and ethnic groups in this regions of the world. Because people know little or nothing about it. If you think that this is unimportant, you may cut it from the program. Don’t hesitate, I wouldn’t mind.

    It was a prescient comment. Not only did CNN delete Putin’s historical roundup of relations between Russia, Georgia and South Ossetia going back to the 18th century that followed, the network cut out almost everything else as well. Despite the “unprecedented access” hook, for its U.S. feed, CNN reduced the 30-minute interview into a series of sound bites that seized and ridiculed Putin. CNN’s intentions were clear: Putin must come off looking like a fool. You can see the heavily edited interview clips on CNN website, but the network never made the full version available. But you can see it on Russian TV.

    And then there’s the issue of Saakashvili’s CNN time. Just in the past month, Saakashvili has appeared a dozen times on the network giving interviews averaging 5 to 10 minutes each.

    So why did CNN decide to cut the interview? The thing is, Putin came off pretty darn well. Georgia’s move makes no sense at all from a Georgian perspective. Somebody must have told those idiots they’d be safe to retake South Ossetia.

    In general, Putin was able to strike an unusually sympathetic chord during the interview. This time around, he was level headed, reasonable and, most importantly, very convincing and believable—not what you’d expect from the evil Stalin/Hitler hybrid personality being pushed on the American public. And that worried the hell out of CNN editorial staff, enough to make them crudely censor the entire thing and hope no one noticed.

    • Oh dear, now Arthur/Michael Tal/Phobodunce/Ostap the Bender is quoting Pravda at us?


      • 1. Pravda is no longer the same as it used to be 25 years ago.

        2. What matters is not the web site but the information. Is it false?

        3. I would gladly instead cite the same story from the CNN or other US media site, but they don’t like to cover the pro-Putin side of stories (see discussion above).

        • No Arthur, its worse than it was 25 years ago.

          Really Arthur, you need to try harder.

        • You haven’t had a look at the Pravda website in quite a while then. They’re developing a distinctly tabloid approach to news, together with big splashy UFOs, psi power agents, and mysterious astrological forces. To say nothing of their pro-Putin bent.

          I’m sorry, but you can’t cite precisely the one site in the world that would be expected to exaggerate these stories–given government control. You need outside sources, independent ones. And unless you want to claim there is a world-wide conspiracy — boo-hoo, every single country is against Pravda! — you should be able to find one. Or else… maybe, just maybe, just maybe… Pravda didn’t really tell the truth? You know, worse things have happened in history than Pravda telling a lie.

          • Well there is the saying from Soviet times:

            “There is no truth in Pravda, and no Pravda in the truth”

            Says it all about Pravda really, and about morons like Arthur.

    • I am not convinced. I know American public’s tastes and American media. Showing a 30 minute interview with any politician would bore the audience to death and that would be a blow to ratings, and therefore you get very little revenue from commercials. I hope you know that television was invented to show commercials and programming is just to attract viewers to watch them.

      They must cut and edit but not for crude reasons Pravda provides (“he came off very good”) but for business reasons. They don’t give a rat’s ass for Putin or anyone else — if it makes money, it goes, if not — then not.

      • [They don’t give a rat’s ass for Putin or anyone else — if it makes money, it goes, if not — then not.]

        God! You are as naive as those suckers in the USSR in the 1970s who also thought that their media was truthful, fair, and balanced. Just like Fox News!

        US media’s coverage of foreign events is indeed to a large degree driven by the financial considerations, such as the the fear that if they air reports, damaging to the interests of the US establishment, their financial sponsors and advertisers will withdraw finances and boycott them. For example:


        Peter Arnett

        Peter Gregg Arnett is a New Zealand-American journalist.

        On assignment for NBC and National Geographic, Arnett went to Iraq in 2003 to cover the U.S. invasion. After a press meeting there he granted an interview to state-run Iraq TV on March 31, 2003. When Arnett’s remarks sparked a “firestorm of protest”, NBC initially defended him, saying he had given the interview as a professional courtesy and that his remarks were “analytical in nature”. A day later, though, NBC, MSNBC and National Geographic all severed their relationships with Arnett[12]. In response to Arnett’s statement on Iraqi TV, the corporation stated: “It was wrong for Mr. Arnett to grant an interview with state-controlled Iraqi TV, especially at a time of war. ”

        “His [Arnett’s] firing was a direct result of Pentagon pressure. Perry Smith [a retired USAF major general and former CNN consultant] told the Wall Street Journal last July that CNN would not get cooperation from the Pentagon unless Peter Arnett was fired. […] They will do anything to stem the flow of information.”


        William “Bill” Maher, Jr. is an American stand-up comedian, television host, social critic, political commentator, and author. Maher gained fame as the host of Politically Incorrect, which aired on the Comedy Central television network and later ABC. He is currently the host of Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO.

        ABC decided not to renew Maher’s contract for Politically Incorrect in 2002 after he made a controversial on-air remark on September 17, 2001,[8] in which he agreed with guest conservative political commentator Dinesh D’Souza that the 9/11 terrorists were not cowards. He then went on to say, “We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it’s not cowardly.” Maher later clarified that his comment was not anti-military in any way whatsoever, mentioning his longstanding support for the American military.[9][10][11][12][13]

        In the context of the sensitive aftermath of the attacks, such a remark was deemed too controversial for some financial supporters. Although some pundits, including conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, supported Maher in pointing out the distinction between physical and moral cowardice,[14] companies including FedEx and Sears Roebuck pulled their advertisements from the show, costing the show more than it returned. Ari Fleischer, the White House Press Secretary at the time, responded: “…they’re reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that…”


        Well put. So, if you value your job, you, like all Americans, need to watch what you say. And so does CNN. He who pays the piper, calls the tune.

        • I am not saying the media is or should be truthful, fair, and balanced. I am saying, whether it is or it is not is none for the government’s business, and the government knows that very well and agrees. Their job is to make money for their owners, just as Procter and Gamble’s job is to make money from their soap.

          I am asking again, where is censorship? Financial considerations do not qualify. Sponsors cannot put a journalist to jail. They are not the government.

          I am very well aware of Mr. Arnett’s and Mr. Maher’s situations. The latter is one of most popular comedians, even though he is controversial to many. It’s true that ABC fired him for airing unpopular views. So? That’s how he thing works — ABC worried that more viewers would be alienated than attracted by his comments, with the net loss of viewership.

          That’s what this game is all about — viewership, ratings, money. ABC has a perfect right to do that — they are in a money making business not a charity or or think tank.

          I also remember Ari Fleischer and his remarks. He is free to say whatever he wants so long as the gobernment does not put this (“watch what you say”) in action. And what happened to Bill Maher? Is he in jail? Did the Bush administration make it so he is barred from TV? Not at all. He is on HBO, more popular than ever, richer than ever.

          I am asking one more time. Where is the censorship?

        • RV above is precisely right. This is not state-sponsered censorship (what you have in Russia), this is business interest. No jail time, no exile, no paid murder to kill him on the streets of the capital as they did with Markelov. Nooo… every single one of these guys is free to write books defending his viewpoints (Arnett certainly did), has new jobs, and so on.

          Indeed. Where is the censorship? Where are the killed journalists and human rights activists? Where are the big Nashi-led protests? If the American News system are so pro-government as the Putin ones, how the heck does Fox News continue to exist? Conservative radio shows? The birthers, teabaggers, and other weirdos?

          You are quick to claim others have been brainwashed by their media. Have you checked your own brains?

    • [I am asking again, where is censorship?]

      You mean **government** censorship? Re-read my post above, especially the following: “Arnett’s firing was a direct result of Pentagon pressure. CNN would not get cooperation from the Pentagon unless Peter Arnett was fired. They will do anything to stem the flow of information.”

      But **government** censorship is hardly the main point. Nobody is claiming that there is a US government censor who sits at CNN and who ordered CNN to maul the Putin interview. What the accusation is, is that when it comes to issues that most of their viewers/readers cannot observe for themselves, like foreign politics, CNN and other US mass media act like agitprop propaganda outlets and, in particular, censor and cut-and-paste speeches by foreign leaders to fit their agenda, to mislead the public, and to keep the public from hearing the truth.

      [And what happened to Bill Maher? Is he in jail? Did the Bush administration make it so he is barred from TV?]

      Well, Peter Arnett had to give up his US TV career and move to England. But in Russia too, vociferous anti-Putin observers do not get put in jail (unless they are investigative reporters digging dirt on medieval rulers like Kadyrov or FSB). Take, for example, Valeria Novodvorskaya. She is 100000 more insulting to her Russian and non-Aryan viewers than Maher is to the Americans, constantly saying that non-Aryan Russian people are scum and their own hope is that USA occupies Russia militarily, like Iraq, and teaches Russians how to live. Here are a few of her quotes:


      “The Russian people should all rot in jail, near the stinking toilet bowl”. “The Russian nation is the cancer of Humankind”. “5% of Russians are of European – Scandinavian and Slavic – origin. The rest are amoebas”. “I was close to understanding why Hitler persecuted mentally ill people. I wouldn’t do it myself, but I would feel sorry for them”. “Apartheid is a normal thing. South Africa will see yet what order will be established by the native population that is having fun of arsons, murders, violence… Civilian rights exist for educated, gorged, balanced people with good upbringing.”

      Yes, she is no longer a TV host on NTV, but she appears for 45 minutes every second Wednesday on the powerful Echo of Moscow radio, reported as one of the top 5 media outlets in Russia. Bill Maher has maybe ten 50-minute shows per year on HBO, Novodvorskaya has 25 shows per year on Echo of Moscow:


  8. @ Peter

    As for the BBC constantly following the government line, total BS old boy.

    Do you recall the BBC’s highly critical stance on the following items:

    1. The Iraq war, the BBC constantly questioned and was highly critical of HM governments take on WMD and the legality of the war.

    2. The suicide of Dr. David Kelly who cast doubt on the veracity of WMD intelligence, the BBC was pointing the finger at Blair and the security services for his death.

    And so on and so forth.

    Rather than being a “tool of the government” the BBC is described by Commonwealth soldiers in Afghanistan as the “British Broadcasting Communists” for its constant criticism of efforts to drag states like Afghanistan into the modern world.

  9. Would you mind if I placed a link to your blog on my own.

  10. The BBC is funded by the public through a licence fee, so of course this makes it a “state” broadcaster, regulated by a board of governors. But to claim that the government exercise “EDITORIAL control” is nonsense. Please bear in mind in Great Britain we have a strong parliamentary democracy with 3 main parties. Believe me the two out of power monitor the BBC very closely any government in power foolish enough to try to impose editorial control would be torn to pieces by the opposition and our free press. So I suggest Arthur and his cohorts pack up their conspiracy theories and take them back to Moscow, the home of censorship and media state control. There it is all neatly presided over by an aggressive one party state, which makes the process a breeze for Putin and his cronies.

    Anyway there an old saying “the proof of the pudding is in the eating” please just watch the BBC for a few days, you will find the government are given a very hard time their policies are scrutinised criticised lots of points of views are heard, all to give the viewer a range of opinions. This is balanced broadcasting.

    Then if you can stand it watch Russia Today, this is a state funded TV channel that broadcasts a Russian view point to the outside world. I can promise you this; you will hear absolutely no criticism of either Putin or Medvedev on any issue. This nauseating rubbish takes sycophancy to a whole new level. My I make one more suggestion if you are brave enough to take on the RT challenge please have a bucket within easy reaching distance; you’re going to need it!!.

    • I do watch the BBC from time to time on cable and agree. I’ve never detected any pro-government stance or bias. It’s a wonderful service, much better than our equivalent called PBS. Of course, those atrocious upper class British accents are irritating, but that’s all i can say of a negative kind

  11. Sorry if it’s slightly off-topic. Just some info I want to share with you. I am not Nostradamus but I think this is most likely scenario for Russia’s future. And also please note that there new secret operation of FSB in Russia against all people with money (any amount more than cost of several bottles of vodka and packs of cigarettes).

    There will be no revolution in Russia. At least what we expect when we say revolution. Fascists will come to power in Russia and build totalitarian state which will not last for long and will collapse into several more or less developed states. Many Russians will die. There is high possibility of nuclear explosion by terrorists in Moscow. Or nuclear meltdown of nuclear power station near St Petersburgh. We will soon no longer see Russia as it is today.

    There will be no civilized revolution in Russia because vast majority of Russians currently living in Russia are sons and grandsons of Stalins’s killers. Those who were not killers died in prisons or run away to other contries during 20th century. It does not mean that all of them covered in blood but it means that they are “oppressed” they are mentally slaves to killer’s ideology. They can’t be free.

    There will be no freedom in the current form of Russia. It will become after several catastrophes when population shrinks to 30-40 millions. 21 century will be as bleak for Russia as 20th.

    This is in general.

    And what is happening right now:

    Currently FSB (read cornered KGB) started secret program of eliminating of so called russian middle and upper middle class. There is cultivation of hate towards anyone more or less rich. Anyone who can’t be controlled must be eliminated. People with money, even comparatively small money, pose a direct threat of “orange” revolution. They will be made poor soon, by any means possible. Including imprisonment or killing.

    This operation will last for several years but it will be quite fast. But after that triumph of KGB regime won’t last long. Ultra right radicals will come to power. But for very short time. After that total chaos and collapse. Then several states will be formed. And only then after many years of conflicts between those states, some of them will become democratic and more or less free.

    There is a Russian saying “You have to live long in Russia to see some real change”.

    (sorry for typos I don’t like to check and write very fast, i don’t have much free time)

  12. [I am asking one more time. Where is the censorship?]

    CNN and other domestic media are safe from the violence on the part of the US government. USA and NATO exterminate **foreign** journalists who report information damaging to the US interests. In fact, when CNN reports negative news about USA’s actions, their foreign sources get murdered as punishment. For example:


    A BBC2 special, 12 March 2000
    Reporter Allan Little

    GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Nations beginning to ask us, in the region, said please get rid of Serb Television. It’s a legitimate military target you need to disable this. We finally concluded that the best way to do it was to bomb it.

    LITTLE: Serb Television RTS pictures were beamed around the world. Western television journalists in Belgrade used them too. The American network CNN was based in the RTS building itself.

    CNN’s Alessio Vinici: Serbian Television reported that the heavy bombing went on all night.

    LITTLE: When these pictures hit western television screens they became a real
    threat to NATO’s ability to sustain the war. Whenever NATO made mistakes, Western journalists were taken to film civilian casualties. At Djakovica, the allies bombed a convoy of Albanian refugees, wrongly believing it to be a Serbian military column, RTS pictures had an impact around the world.

    ALESSIO VINCI – CNN, BELGRADE – We heard from sources in Brussels and Washington that there was a lot of people were unhappy with the way RTS was broadcasting their own part of the story. It was also a time when NATO started making the first mistakes, hitting civilian areas, and RTS was obviously prominently showing that… and of course we were using those pictures because they were the only pictures that we had available.

    TONY BLAIR: This was one of the problems about waging a conflict in a modern communications and news world…we were aware that there would be pictures coming back, the convoys were the, in many ways the worst of the refugees, that were hit by NATO bombs. We were aware that those pictures would come back, and there would be an instinctive sympathy for the victims of the campaign.

    LITTLE: RTS journalists openly taunted the west.

    Newsreader: Let Clark take a shot, we are waiting for him. Our address is 10 Tarkovska street, I wont give you the co-ordinates, you’ll have to work them out yourselves.

    LITTLE: At six minutes past two, on the morning of April 23rd, an American stealth bomber did indeed target 10 Tarkovska Street.

    LITTLE: Ksenija Bankovic and fifteen others, mostly technicians, died.

    BORKA BANKOVIC: This was an outrage. I can’t just condemn RTS and say NATO was right, because NATO killed my child and RTS were accomplices. NATO is the murderer.

    Had Russia purposefully bombed a TV station and slaughtered 15 people in, say, Georgia or Chechnya during recent wars there – there would be a never-ending international outcry. But when USA did it – nobody even noticed. Why? Partly because the Western news media didn’t focus on this news, partly because this is a perfectly expected behaviour from USA.

    And this is hardly an isolated incident:


    December 14, 2005, the New York Times

    U.S. Ranks Sixth Among Countries Jailing Journalists, Report Says

    The United States has tied with Myanmar, the former Burma, for 6th place among countries that are holding the most journalists behind bars, according to a new report by the Committee to Protect Journalists. Each country is jailing 5 journalists. The United States is holding 4 Iraqi journalists in detention centers in Iraq and one Sudanese, a cameraman who works for Al Jazeera, at the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. None of the five have been charged with a
    specific crime. China topped the list: 32 in jail. Cuba – second with 24, Eritrea third – 15, Ethiopia fourth with 13 and Uzbekistan fifth, with 6.


    Al Jazeera is a Middle Eastern news network, headquartered in Doha, Qatar.

    On November 13, during the US invasion of Afghanistan, 2001 a U.S. missile strike destroyed Al Jazeera’s office in Kabul.

    Al Jazeera cameraman Sami Al Hajj, a Sudanese national, was detained while in transit to Afghanistan in December 2001, and as of 2007 continues to be held without charge, as an “enemy combatant” in Camp Delta at Guantánamo Bay. The reasons for his detention remain unknown.

    On April 8, 2003 Al Jazeera’s office in Baghdad was hit by a U.S. missile, killing reporter Tareq Ayyoub and wounding another.[52] Al Jazeera, in order to avoid coming under US fire, had informed the U.S. of the office’s precise coordinates prior to the incident.[53] [54]

    On November 22, 2005, the UK tabloid The Daily Mirror published a story claiming that it had obtained a leaked memo from 10 Downing Street saying that U.S. President George W. Bush had considered bombing Al Jazeera’s Doha headquarters in April 2004, when U.S. Marines were conducting a contentious assault on Fallujah.

    In the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the U.S. Pentagon hired the Rendon Group to target and possibly punish Al Jazeera reporters who did not stay on message.[35] When Al Jazeera went on to do reporting featuring very graphic footage from inside Iraq, US officials decried Al Jazeera as anti-American and as inciting violence.[36] This sentiment was widely echoed throughout the US media and population, and is an example of censorship in the United States.

    On Monday, 24 March 2003, shortly after the start of the Iraq invasion, two Al Jazeera reporters covering the New York Stock Exchange had their credentials revoked. The New York Stock Exchange banned Al Jazeera from its trading floor indefinitely. NYSE spokesman Ray Pellechia claimed “security reasons” and that the exchange had decided to give access only to networks that focus “on responsible business coverage”. He denied the revocation has anything to do with the network’s Iraq war coverage.[37] The move was quickly mirrored by Nasdaq stock market officials.[38]

    • Oh Arthur, please leave off the Slavic agitprop…

      You do remember the racist bile that was being broadcast by Serbian State TV don’t you?

      Incitement to violence against ethnic minorities in the “Greater Serbian homeland” etc.

      The years of incitement to genocide and ethnic cleansing that spewed from this TV station as it spewed from the Soviet and Nazi state media.

      Meanwhile Russia holds dozens of Journalists behind bars (not just 5) and routinely murders those who speak out too much.

      Get a life Nazi boy.

      • [You do remember the racist bile that was being broadcast by Serbian State TV don’t you? Incitement to violence against ethnic minorities in the “Greater Serbian homeland” etc.]

        Please provide reference. And not about “Serb crimes agasint humkanities in general” but specifically about the Serbian State TV “inciting to violence against ethnic minorities”. You won’t find any. All these stories you were told on Georgian TV about Slavs, Abkhazians and Ossetians being “Neanderthal subhumans” – these are nothing more than racist lies. Don’t believe them.

        Re-read the above BBC article: it clearly states, with quotes from CNN, Blair and Clark, that the Serb TV was bombed because “when the RTS pictures of NATO making the first mistakes and hitting civilian areas hit western television screens , they became a real threat to NATO’s ability to sustain the war.”

        • I think the NATO campaign in Serbia was conducted pretty badly. I also feel sorry for the civilian casualties. However, targeting an enemy’s propaganda outlet during war is fair game. Ce’st la guerre. If that television had been anything more than a propaganda outlet, it would have taken a critical stance on Serbian genocidal nationalism and the crimes against the Albanian majority in Kosovo.

          • [However, targeting an enemy’s propaganda outlet during war is fair game. Ce’st la guerre.]

            By “enemy’s propaganda outlets” you mean your opponent’s TV stations? So, if during the Kosovo war, the Serbs bombed, say, the NBC’s Rockefeller’s Center and killed 15 people – that would be perfectly fine? And if during the Iraq wars , the Iraqis bombed, say, the CNN headquarters in Atlanta and killed 15 people – that would be nothing wrong and nobody in USA would complain?

            And if during the Georgian-Russian conflict in 2008, the Russians bombed the main TV center in Tbilisi and killed 15 people there – you or LR would never raise hell?

            Why do I find it hard to beleive?

            Just look at today’s articles: LR called Rusisans “Neanderthals” just for an ice hockey fight started by 2 Canadian goons.

            Moreover, yopu have just blown the cover for the US aggression on Serbia/Montenegro by admitting it was a war. USA still denies this and calls it a “noble operation”, not a war. There was no war, and Serbs were not “enemies”:


            Operation Allied Force
            Operation Noble Anvil

            Operation Allied Force was a NATO contingency response aiming at ensuring full compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1199. Operation Noble Anvil was the American component of this NATO action to promote regional stability, cooperation and security, in support of the international community.

            Collateral Damage Incidents

            NATO has repeatedly denied that it deliberately attacks non-military buildings and insists that all possible precautions are taken to avoid civilian casualties.

            So, let me see: there was no war, and NATO denies ever targeting civilians and “non-military buildings”, and yet the TV station was purposefully and openly targeted… Thus, journalists are part of the military force? And when Politkovskaya was killed by Chechens, to them she was an “enemy combatant” and a fair target? How sick.

            On what day exactly did Serb RTS TV’s and Al Jazeera’s journalists enlist in the military?

        • Now Arthur, they dont have any articles on Georgian TV about “Slavs, Abkhazians and Ossetians being “Neanderthal subhumans””, and Abkhazian is the 2nd official language of Georgia (and was made so during the 1992-1993 war in the province.

          However there are multiple examples of Serbian TV doing this to non Serbs, dehumanising them in extreme rants.

          As for actions against Journalists and censorship in your hero Milosevich’s Slavic paradise of Yugoslavia/Greater Serbia:


  13. And since you love quoting Wikipedia so much…

    Milošević’s control of media in Serbia
    Milošević began his efforts to gain control over the media in 1986-87[2], a process which was complete by summer of 1991. In 1992 Radio Television Belgrade, together with Radio Television Novi Sad (RTNS) and Radio Television Pristina (RTP) became a part of Radio Television of Serbia, centralized and closely governed network aimed to be a loudspeaker for Miloševic and his policy. During the 1990s, Dnevnik (Daily news) was used to glorify “wise politics of Slobodan Milošević” and to attack “servants of Western powers, forces of chaos and despair”, i.e., Serbian opposition.[3]

    JNA soldier reads propaganda of “Pobjeda” on Ustashe hidden behind the walls of Dubrovnik.According to the witness called by the ICTY’s Office of the Prosecutor, Professor Renaud De la Brosse, Senior Lecturer at the University of Reims, Serbian authorities used media as a weapon in their military campaign. “In Serbia specifically, the use of media for nationalist ends and objectives formed part of a well thought through plan – itself part of a strategy of conquest and affirmation of identity.”[4] According to de la Bosse, nationalist ideology defined the Serbs partly according to a historical myth, based on the defeat of Serbia by the Ottoman forces at the battle of Kosovo in 1389 and partly on the genocide suffered by Serbs during the Second World War at the hands of the Independent State of Croatia. Croatian will for independence fed the flames of fear, especially in Serb majority regions of Croatia. According to de la Bosse, the new Serbian identity became one in opposition to the “other” – Croats (collapsed into Ustashe) and Muslims (collapsed into Turks).[4] Even Croatian democracy was dismissed since ‘Hitler came to power in Germany within the framework of a multi-party mechanism but subsequently became a great dictator, aggressor and criminal’[5] [6]

    While Milošević, until the run up to the Kosovo war, allowed independent print media to publish, their distribution was limited. His methods of controlling the media included creating shortages of paper, interfering with or stopping supplies and equipment, confiscating newspapers for being printed without proper licenses, etc.. For publicly owned media, he could dismiss, promote, demote or have journalists publicly condemned. In 1998, he adopted a media law which created a special misdemeanor court to try violations. It had the ability to impose heavy fines and to confiscate property if they were not immediately paid.[4] According to the report by de la Brosse, Milosevic-controlled media reached more than 3.5 million people every day. Given that and the lack of access to alternative news, de la Brosse states that it is surprising how great the resistance to Milosevic’s propaganda was among Serbs – evidenced not only in massive demonstrations in Serbia in 1991 and 1996-97 both of which almost toppled the regime, but also widespread draft resistance and desertion from the military.[4]

    [edit] Serbian war propaganda
    De la Brosse describes how RTS (Radio Television of Serbia) portrayed events in Dubrovnik and Sarajevo: “The images shown of Dubrovnik came with a commentary accusing those from the West who had taken the film of manipulation and of having had a tire burnt in front of their cameras to make it seem that the city was on fire. As for the shells fired at Sarajevo and the damage caused, for several months it was simply as if it had never happened in the eyes of Serbian television viewers because Belgrade television would show pictures of the city taken months and even years beforehand to deny that it had ever occurred.” The Serbian public was fed similar disinformation about Vukovar, according to former Reuters correspondent Daniel Deluce, “Serbian Radio Television created a strange universe in which Sarajevo, the Bosnian capital, had never been besieged and in which the devastated Croatian town of Vukovar had been ‘liberated’.”[4]

    ICTY sentencing judgement for Milan Babić which has been first president of Republic of Serbian Krajina, a self-proclaimed Serbian dominated entity within Croatia will declare:

    “Babic made ethnically based inflammatory speeches during public events and in the media that added to the atmosphere of fear and hatred amongst Serbs living in Croatia and convinced them that they could only be safe in a state of their own. Babic stated that during the events, and in particular at the beginning of his political career, he was strongly influenced and misled by Serbian propaganda, which repeatedly referred to an imminent threat of genocide by the Croatian regime against the Serbs in Croatia, thus creating an atmosphere of hatred and fear of the Croats. Ultimately this kind of propaganda led to the unleashing of violence against the Croat population and other non-Serbs.”[7]

    [edit] Propaganda as part of the indictment against Milošević
    According to the prosecution at the ICTY trial of Milosevic, Serbian television and radio’s repetitive use of pejorative descriptions, such as “Ustashe hordes”, “Vatican fascists”, “Mujahedin fighters”, “fundamentalist warriors of jihad”, and “Albanian terrorists”, became part of common usage. Unverified stories, presented as fact, were turned into common knowledge, for example, that Bosniaks were feeding Serb children to animals in the Sarajevo zoo. According to de la Brosse, the easier it was to fear other ethnic groups, the easier to justify their expulsion or killing.[4]

    Two members of the Federal Security Service (KOG) testified for the Prosecution in Milosevic’s trial about their involvement in Milosevic’s propaganda campaign. Slobodan Lazarevic revealed alleged KOG clandestine activities designed to undermine the peace process, including mining a soccer field, a water tower and the reopened railway between Zagreb and Belgrade. These actions were blamed on Croats. Mustafa Candic, one of four assistant chiefs of KOG, described the use of technology to fabricate conversations, making it sound as if Croat authorities were telling Croats in Serbia to leave for an ethnically pure Croatia. The conversation was broadcast following a Serb attack on Croatians living in Serbia, forcing them to flee. He testified that the propaganda war was code named “Operation Opera, see Opera orientalis which included bombing of a Jewish cemetery and the Jewish Community Center in Zagreb,Croatia.” He also testified to another instance of disinformation involving a television broadcast of corpses, described as Serb civilians killed by Croats. Candic testified that he believed they were in fact the bodies of Croats killed by Serbs, though this statement has not been verified.[4][8]

    [edit] Propaganda as a war crime in the Šešelj’s case
    Propaganda as a war crime (incitement to genocide) is the subject in the recent indictment of Vojislav Šešelj, head of the Serbian Radical Party and an active player throughout the wars in the former Yugoslavia. According to the indictment, Seselj bears individual criminal responsibility for instigating crimes, including murder, torture and forcible expulsion on ethnic grounds. It reads, “By using the word ‘instigated’, the Prosecution charges that the accused Vojislav Seselj’s speeches, communications, acts and/or omissions contributed to the perpetrators’ decision to commit the crimes alleged.” [9][10]

    [edit] Recent situation

    Building of RTS damaged in NATO strike 1999.During the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, building of Radio Television of Serbia in Belgrade was targeted.[11][12]

    When Milošević’s regime was finally overthrown in October 2000, RTS was a primary target of demonstrators. After attacking the Parliament, the demonstrators headed for the RTS building.[4]

    In Serbia, journalists are still being threatened and some were even killed. Mostly investigative journalists are targeted.[13]

    There was much threats to journalists but there hasn’t been a kill of juournalist since 2002.


  14. Former Yugoslavia

    Media in the former Yugoslavia, particularly in Serbia, but also in Croatia, bear a heavy responsibility for the deterioration of the situation in 1990-1991 which eventually led to the bloodiest conflict in Europe since the Second World War.

    Serb TV started with a steady flow of negative comments on other republics, with frequent interviews of Serb nationalists, before moving on to a more robust campaign aimed at raising fears of Croatia by showing footage of the Jasenovac concentration camp run by Croat Nazi sympathisers during World War II. This was aimed at gathering support for the Serb cause during the Serb rebellion in Krajina, a region which at the time had become part of the newly independent Croatia.

    In 1990 Serb TV led a campaign against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo accusing them of “poisoning wells and slitting the throats of children”. In view of this experience, and of the resolve to deprive the Belgrade regime of a potent propaganda tool, broadcast installations became prime targets in NATO’s air campaign against Yugoslavia between March and June 1999 when NATO fired more than 1,000 missiles at media facilities, including Serbian Radio and TV (RTS) Belgrade building, destroying 17 out of 19 RTS transmitters, killing 16 people and causing material damage in excess of 1bn dollars in the process, according to the Serbian Information Minister, Aleksandar Vucic.

    Once the war was over, RTS, still under tight control from the Milosevic regime, continued its virulent campaign. In particular it sought to undermine the work of the UN Mission in Kosovo, accusing its head, Bernard Kouchner, of being “a proven Serbophobe… famous for his hatred of Serbs,” and of using “Nazi-like policies… to rid the province [Kosovo] of Serbs and Montenegrins,” with the intention of “bringing to a conclusion the ethnic cleansing that has been carried out in the southern Serbian province by the terrorist-separatist UCK [Kosovo Liberation Army] under the wing of Kfor [Kosovo Force] and the UN civilian mission, by putting the Serbs and Montenegrins in some sort of a reserve, a ghetto, or an enclave, the term they prefer to use.”


  15. [According to the prosecution at the ICTY trial of Milosevic, Serbian television and radio’s repetitive use of pejorative descriptions, such as “Mujahedin fighters”, “fundamentalist warriors of jihad”, and “Albanian terrorists”]

    So, calling KLA “Albanian terrorists” is a “crime against humanity”? Then the US Government is gulty of such “crime against humanity”?


    The Kosovo Liberation Army or KLA (Albanian: Ushtria Çlirimtare e Kosovës or UÇK) was a Kosovar Albanian terrorist group which sought the separation of Kosovo from Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. The KLA was regarded by the US as a terrorist group until 1998 .


    Afghanistan Mujahedin Freedom Fighters Front (Persian: جبهه مبارزين مجاهد افغانستان) was a united front of four Afghan politico-military factions, together with Islamists, in 1978.[1] The Front fought against Soviet forces in the country.

    [According to the prosecution at the ICTY trial of Milosevic, Serbian television and radio’s repetitive use of pejorative descriptions, such as “Mujahedin fighters”, “fundamentalist warriors of jihad”, and “Albanian terrorists”]

    So, calling KLA “Albanian terrorists” is a “crime against humanity”? Then the US Government is guilty:


    The Kosovo Liberation Army or KLA (Albanian: Ushtria Çlirimtare e Kosovës or UÇK) was a Kosovar Albanian terrorist group which sought the separation of Kosovo from Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. The KLA was regarded by the US as a terrorist group until 1998.


    Afghanistan Mujahedin Freedom Fighters Front (Persian: جبهه مبارزين مجاهد افغانستان) was a united front of four Afghan politico-military factions, together with Islamists, in 1978.[1] The Front fought against Soviet forces in the country.


    Calling the Vatican “fascist” is a crime? Here in USA, the conservatives like Fox News even call Obama “a Nazi” and portray him with Hitler’s mustache. Is that also a crime against humanity?

    “At the G-20 economic summit, Obama told a story about an unnamed foreign leader who privately says, ‘We don’t understand it. You’re trying to make sure everybody has health care and they’re putting a Hitler mustache on you. That doesn’t make sense to me”

    And Serbs are persecuted for the “crime” of calling terrorists “terrorists” and mujahetdin – “mujahetdin”? What a bizarre world.

  16. Andrew confided:
    [The Kosovo conflict proved lethal for five journalists. Three Chinese journalists were killed when NATO bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade on May 8.

    Shao Yunhuan, Xinhua News Agency KILLED
    Xu Xinghu, The Guangming Daily KILLED
    Zhu Ying, The Guangming Daily KILLED

    Yunhuan, 48, a reporter with the official Xinhua News Agency, and newlyweds Xinghu, 29, and Ying, 27, who both worked for The Guangming Daily, died when NATO warplanes bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. NATO spokesmen said the embassy bombing was an “accident”. (LOL)

    The journalists were on assignment in Belgrade covering the conflict between NATO and the government of Slobodan Milosevic. After cremation, their ashes were returned to Beijing on May 12.]

    Thank you, Andrew, for reminding us. I almost forgot about NATO’s murder of these 3 Chinese journalists. I guess, they were also “enemy combatants’…

    Keep up the good work, genius!


    Nato bombed Chinese deliberately

    Sunday October 17, 1999
    The Observer

    Nato deliberately bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during the war in Kosovo after discovering it was being used to transmit Yugoslav army communications. According to senior military and intelligence sources in Europe and the US the Chinese embassy was removed from a prohibited targets list after Nato electronic intelligence (Elint)detected it sending army signals to Milosevic’s forces.

    The story is confirmed in detail by three other Nato officers. They all confirm that they knew in April that the Chinese embassy was acting as a [rebroadcast] station for the Yugoslav army (VJ) after alliance jets had successfully silenced Milosevic’s own transmitters.

    Defence Secretary William Cohen said: ‘One of our planes attacked the wrong target because the bombing instructions were based on an outdated map.’ Later, a source in the US National Imagery and Mapping Agency said that the ‘wrong map’ story was ‘a damned lie’.

    Nato’s apology was predicated on the excuse that the three missiles which landed in one corner of the embassy block were meant to be targeted at the Yugoslav Federal Directorate for Supply and Procurement, the FDSP. But inquiries have revealed there never was a VJ directorate of supply and procurement at the site named by Tenet. The VJ office for supplies – which Tenet calls FDSP – is some 500 metres down the street from the address he gave. It was bombed later.

    Moreover the CIA and other Nato intelligence agencies, such as Britain’s MI6 and the code-breakers at GCHQ, would have listened in to communication traffic from the Chinese embassy as a matter of course since it moved to the site in 1996.

    A Nato flight control officer in Naples also confirmed to us that a map of ‘non-targets’: churches, hospitals and embassies, including the Chinese, did exist. On this ‘don’t hit’ map, the Chinese embassy was correctly located at its current site, and not where it had been until 1996 – as claimed by the US and NATO. .

    A spokesman for the Chinese embassy in London said yesterday: ‘We do not believe that the embassy was bombed because of a mistake with an out-of-date map.’


    The three victims, Shao Yunhuan, Xu Xinghu and Zhu Ying, were journalists of Xinhua News Agency and Guangming Daily stationed in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

    Journalists from Beijing highly praised the contributions by the three journalists in exposing the crimes of the US-led NATO in Yugoslavia, expressing their deep sorrow for the three martyrs and condemning NATO.

    • Arthur confided ” According to senior military and intelligence sources in Europe and the US the Chinese embassy was removed from a prohibited targets list after Nato electronic intelligence (Elint)detected it sending army signals to Milosevic’s forces.”

      Well done retard, yes, according to the rules of war, by aiding the Serbian military the Chinese embassy had made itself a party to the conflict, and therefore suffered the consequences of aiding and abetting a genocidal regime (Serbia)

      • The Burden of proof about the Serbian regime being genocidal lies with you. Knock yourself out.

        • Well, the civilised world (Russia does not count) all certainly think so.

          Then there are the mass graves of non serbs massacred by Serbian forces in Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo.

          Serbia’s genocidal intentions and actions are well documented slavdimwit.

          • It’s funny that you mention the “Civilized World”, considering that 2 investigative reports carried out by the civilized world at Racak, on by finns and one by the EU, for example, found gunpowder residue on the hands of the so called victims and found a complete absence of blood around the victims, sugessting that dear mr. Clinton had prevaricated a mendacious falsehood when he said that those poor innocent
            Albanians were “sprayed with bullets” The evidence seems to suggest that the bodies dragged and planted at the sight by the KLA were the bodies of their fellow terrorist cut-throats who had been killed while trying to attack serbs in their own land.

            In October 2008, Helena Ranta, the Finnish pathologist who had conducted the forensic examination on the Račak casualties, stated that she had been pressured to modify the contents of her report, both by the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and by William Walker, the head of the OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission, in order to make it seem as if Serb troops were complicit in the incident. She refused to do so.

            Then there are the mass graves of Serbs massacred by Albanian Muslim Terrorists from the KLA in Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo

            As for their intentions and actions being documented, you don’t for a moment think that I’m going to take the word of the Hague War Crimes tribunal for truth. The institution has no judicial legitimacy and was simply a pathetic attempt by Western agressors to legitimize their dismantlement of Yugoslavia. Thus, they can hardly be taken seriously.

  17. Arthur, it’s funny how you were very selective in picking parts from Andrew’s post on Serbian propaganda. If you had read the entire thing, there was plenty of information about how the Serbian propaganda apparatus contributed to a climate of fear, hatred, racism, Islamophobia and denial of crimes against humanity committed by Serbs. The Serbian “journalists” were morally complicit in the Serbian government’s genocidal efforts. In this context, I repeat, the TV station was a legitimate military target. You incite violence and genocide and you end up smoked? Oh well, how ironic. Cry me a river.

    • A, I understand your point of view:

      USA and any other country can violate international law by attacking any other country it wishes, without the UN approval, simply by raising various lying pretexts like “genocide”, “weapons of mass destruction” and “drug dealing”, or simply by claiming that this invasion is a Crusade aimed at “liberating” these people from their rulers and at bringing them “prosperity, Christian values, order, democracy and peace”.

      USA and any other country can can also exterminate any journalists who publicise inconvenient information, simply by accusing their station of expressing reprehensible views.

      Fine. Let this be the new international law, giving all countries the right to execute inconvenient journalists and invade and occupy other countries.

      I guarantee you that these new international principles will backfire as spectacularly as the US recognition of KLA and Kosovo, which allowed Abkhazia and S. Ossetia to gain independence forever.

      You reap what you sow. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

  18. The Serb leadership knew quite well that their propaganda organ would be targeted :
    Tatjana Lenard, editor for international politics at the RTS told Imre Bíró in Budapest to tell his wife to stay away from the Television building in Belgrade.
    Dragana Kuzmanović, the Secretary General of the JUL political party, who also worked as a journalist for RTS told Radio Free Europe that the Television’s management had received a written warning that it would be targeted and had held a meeting to discuss that.

    Open communications

    US Secretary of Defence William Cohen told the Senate in July 1999 that the “Army of Yugoslavia” knew when and where targets would be hit, as the communication systems used during the operation were not protected.
    In his memoirs about the wars “Pravila ćutanja” (“Terms of silence”) former Montenegrine President Momir Bulatović even says that officers laughed whe he asked them if they could listen to transmissions. He even says that they reacted as if he had asked them if they could walk.

    Where and when

    Not only was RTS General Director Dragoljub Milanović aware that the building at Aberdare street would be targeted on the night of April 23, 1999, but 4 other RTS executives –Milanović’s deputy Jovan Ristić, Director of “information” programs Milorad Komrakov, his vice-director Dušan Vojvodić and RTS Secretary General Dušan Jakovljević– knew that as well.

    Minister’s outrage

    Then-Information Minister with the Serbian government Aleksandar Vučić said so much to Rade Radovanović, a reporter for Radio Free Europe in Belgrade, after the bombing. Vučić was “beside himself” as his mother Angelina Vučić, a RTS journalist, was in the building when it was damaged.

    Sudden appearances

    And after that, in spite of the fact they lived in different parts of the city, sometimes quite far away from the building, such high RTS officials simultaneously appeared at the building only a few minutes after it was hit, a fact which was never properly investigated by the relevant judicial authorities.

    “I am going now, you know what it means, you are not children”

    High Defence official –who later became an Army general– Dušan Vojvodić went to retrieve his own daughter Natalija Sinanović who was working there immediately before it was hit. According to engineers Jakonjić and Lekić, Natalija told them straight as she was leaving:
    “I am going now, you know what it means, you are not children”.

    A survivor’s testimony

    Here is another testimony by Danica Kostić, a worker with RTS:

    We didn’t have anything to do, many of us were playing cards, with their computers; we chatted, drank coffee.
    We simply didn’t know why so many of us were staying there.
    On the other hand, some of us were partly reassured by the fact that we had a colleague with us whose father was Number three at Television. Our chief at that time, distrustful of the current management, often put her on night shifts in order to find out, in the case the Television building was bombed, someone, probably her father, would come and take her with him.
    And that night at five to two that is exactly what happened; that is, her father came, went out to the deputy chief editor, and, as he left his office, came to our room with that colleague of ours to assure us that the Television would not be targeted, that
    fire vehicles had gathered around
    because the town hall was to be targeted and that we should stay in our positions in full freedom and peace.
    Yet, whe had had a private agreement with his daughter that she would give us a sign if something was happening, if something was amiss. That codeword was “we’re going for grissini”. And while he was telling us that we wouldn’t be bombed, Natalija did say:
    “kids, we’re going for grissini”.

    Private research

    The families of the deceased played a major role in discovering the responsibilities of Serbian officials in the killing. As a matter of fact, all the evidence used by the tribunal was gathered by those, and not by any government official, including Instruction Nr. 37, on the basis of which RTS Director General Milanović was eventually convicted.
    Zanka Stojanović, the mother of victim Nebojša Stojanović, discovered that “Yugoslav” military intelligence in Podgorica had deciphered the message from the Aviano NATO air base ordering the bombing of the building and passed the information on to the Belgrade Operations Center.

    Killed for their propaganda value

    And that is precisely why Milanović ordered relatively innocent technicians –not his journalist accomplices– to stay in the building the night it was bombed and got 16 killed.
    Milošević then got some propaganda advantage from alleged “journalists” being “murdered”.

    The Army responsible

    The families looking for evidence quickly followed the tracks to colonel Petar Pajčin, in charge of Serbian Television at the Ministry of Defence.
    According to a Federal government decree from July 1st, 1994, which declared it “a large technical system of interest to the Defence of the country” in wartime conditions, the Serbian Television was under direct supervision from the Ministry of Defence which was responsible for its evacuation. As an individual, Milanović could prevent that evacuation, but the Ministry had an obligation to react.
    The responsibility of the army was never investigated either, in spite of the evidence gathered by Zoran Janić in his award-winning book “Tišina u Aberdarevoj” (“Silence on Aberdare street”, Dan Graf, 2005) which was added to he evidence at the Milanović trial

    RTS Director sentenced to 10 years for the crime

    After Milošević was overthrown on October 5, 2000, RTS Director General Milanović was sentenced to a 10-year prison sentence by the Belgrade District court for the murder in June 2002 –the official reason being that he had not implemented a so-called “Instruction Nr. 37” of April 2, 1999 from the Federal government, which ordered the evacuation of people and equipment to the Košutnjak park in times of war

    “in spite of the fact that he was conscious of the possible grave consequences of that failure, including the death of employees”

    in the words of Judge Radmila Dragičević-Dičić .

    Attempts to escape

    Yet, Judge Dičić then used her discretionary powers as President of the Court to have the convict released while his appeal was being examined by the Supreme court.
    When the latter confirmed the sentence on November 27, 2002, he was to present himself on January 20, 2003 at the Zabel Prison, where a cell awaited him.
    Yet ten days before that date, through a declaration by his attorney Branimir Gugl published in “Nacional” Milanović let it be known that he contemplated “illegal remedies” to a “politically motivated” sentence.

    Zemun Mafia

    He absconded and, while preparing the murder of Serbian Prime Minister Đinđić the Zemun mafia, at whose headquarters in Schiller street mafioso Saša Pejaković had often seen Milanović, helped him hide in Montenegro, but he was arrested there after the Đinđić murder.

    A legitimate target

    Few organizations were more deserving of being targeted as the Serbian electronic media, as their Milošević-led propaganda had played a crucial role in helping overthrow his “friend of 30 years” Ivan Stambolić and then destroy Yugoslavia, murdering tens of thousands in the process.
    Before being itself a subject of such propaganda, RTS was then trying to make the most of the war destruction that could be presented as “criminal” for propaganda purposes.

    • [The Serb leadership knew quite well that their propaganda organ would be targeted]

      So what? Politkovskaya also knew that she would be assassinated. Doe sit give Kadyrov the right to kill her?

      Just because a journalist or his bosses know that you plan to murder him, that doesn’t excuse your murder.

      Murder of journalists is murder of journalists.

      USA is currently at war with Al Qaeda and with Taliban in Afghanistan. Symmetrically, Al Qaeda and Taliban are at war with USA.

      Are you now telling Taliban and Bin Laden that if they warn USA in advance that they will bomb the Rockefeller Center in New York, where NBC is located – then they have a perfect legal right to do so?

      How about journalist Andrei Babitsky, who fought for several months in a Chechen unit against the Federal government. Should he have been executed like the Serb and the Omani journalists?

      Arguing with you guys is as useless as it was arguing with Sovoks in the early 1980s. They too were grossly misinformed and always found justifications for the USSR breaking international laws.

      And that’s what scares me the most: in terms of international relations, US and UK consumers are as brainwashed as were the average Soviets under Brezhnev.

      • Ah Arthur, who “executed” the Serb journalists?

        Executed tends to mean kneeling on the ground and being shot in the head at point blank range when applied to journalists.

        Like Putins goon did to Politkovskaya and a whole host of other journalists.

        A good example of the difference between the US and Russia is the shoe throwing incident re Bush.

        If you threw shoes at Putin you would be dead.

  19. I’m sorry, but you’re wrong.

  20. Main problem thus far: where is there censorship: Russia or the West?

    Simple answer: count the dead journalists.

    More complex answer: if the situation is just fine in Russia now, why did Putin have to take control of all TV stations (remember the NTV story?)? What were they doing before that was oh so terrible that it had to stop?

    Andrew and Arthur, you keep throwing stuff at each other about Yugoslavia. Obviously, Arthur is not reading Andrew’s posts, or only reading the little bits that he can counter. What impression do you think this creates?

    Oh well. The anger, the anger. Hey guys, Putin is no angel, we know that, so let’s drop the pretense, shall we?

    • I raised the question three or four times. They said U.S. media is censored, and I asked for proof. Their proof is now that bombing Serbia or arresting somebody in Iraq is censorship, or that the United States is a terrorist state, or that the government prohibits Russian ads in U.S. airports, and so on ad nauseum. This is truly laughable, and Arthur is an American (or so he says) and should know better

  21. “Putin’s Russia has floated its currency and liberalised its current and capital accounts, completing the troika required for full integration into international capital markets. In 2000, Russia’s economy was ranked 22nd in the world – now it is seventh. ”

    The same language is used in a study carried out by Goldman Sachs.

  22. Ross Cameron, thank god that there’s still people like you in the Western political establishment. Keep thinking outside the box. We sorely need you. There all too many ignorant, bigoted Russia bashers out there.

  23. I don’t think he’s fool. He’s probably held by the bold by the Russian SVR, as is Italy’s premier. They are both womanizers and backdoor dealers, which makes them the easiest catch for Russia’s KGB.

  24. Russia has “state owned” TV, just like most other countries in the world do (including Gordon Brown’s Britain, with it’s British Broadcasting Corporation, or BBC).

    Of course “state owned” media in Russia doesn’t (necessarily) imply that the president or premier are personally responsible for editorial decisions.

    I happened to catch the main Russian state channel’s (ORT – Channel 1) broadcast of the New Year festivities in Moscow. The broadcast, one of the most watched in Russia every year, featured a parody (or perhaps ‘lampooning’ might be a better word) of the Medvedev-Putin ruling tandem. But of course it was all in good fun, and why shouldn’t it be?

    Here is a link to the ORT (Russian Channel 1) cartoon broadcast of Putin and Medvedev on New Year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlW-8fJwOmU

    It always struck me as funny that the biggest complainers about how “undemocratic” Russia allegedly “has become” are the same people who demonstrate a remarkable mental block when it comes to grasping public opinion polls in Russia, which show that Putin continues to be one of the most popular–indeed the most popular–public figures in Russia.

    In Russia New Year is far and away the main holiday, and all the “beautiful people” were assembled as the live audience for the showing of ORT’s New Year Special (sort of the Russian equivalent of the Hollywood elite, if you will).

    In Russia X-mas is the weak sister-holiday to the New Year celebration, and in any case X-mas occurs a week after the New Year in Russia, on Jan7, instead of a week before, on Dec 25.

    In Russia New Year is far and away the main holiday, and X-mas (on Jan 7 according to the calendar of the Orthodox Church) marks the inevitable end of the New Year festivities, and the return to work.

    • We’ve been through this a number of times. The BBC is owned by the British government only for the purposes of financing and does not censor or interfere in editorial decisions nor approves or disapproves the content.

      There are no, and have never been, any government owned TV stations (or radio stations, newspapers or magazines) in the United States, with the exception of the Voice of America service (which does not broadcast in the United States)

  25. Asephe, I think you are a sane man. What do you think?

  26. Anna Politkovskaya was telling the truth against its own terrorist and murderous rulers;
    RTS journalists were telling lies on orders from their genocidal mafioso government.

    But those liars didn’t die in the RTS building: they were given advance notice and stayed away from it; the victims were innocent technical employees.
    NATO didn’t want them dead. The Serbian leadership did; and whoever repeats their propaganda on this is an accomplice to that murder.

    Each and every government ownership, regulation and subsidization of the media is censorship.
    If not on behalf of governments, on behalf of feudal lobbies who think nothing of stealing other people’s money and means of communication: i. e., socialist scoundels.

    • So, the Voice of Ameria, Radio Liberty/Free Europe, BBC, PBS, NPR etc – they are all “censorship on behalf of feudal lobbies”?

      Do you want them to be bombed?

  27. Yes, they are, to an extent. Their funding ought to be private.
    And no, because they are not liars on behalf of mass murderers.
    Like you are, as it seems.

  28. Hello, can you help me

  29. Hypocrisy Sucks!

    Hypocrites and paid neo-con/CIA pawns all of you are with the intention to divide Russia into easily controlled fragments in America’s quest to control everybody and crush all opposition! You don’t give two shits about Russia and its people, and only want to promote American foreign policy objectives and imperialism! Admit it guys cuz that’s the only thing that I am reading in between the lines with this fucking stupid website so there’s no use in deluding yourselves with “high moral values” crap, and all that!

  30. Hi there, this weekend is nice in support of me, because this occasion i am
    reading this impressive informative article here at my house.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s