Originally posted by zin23
I think what he means by 'Western Media' is well known media outlets owned by the big companies ..i.e CNN, FOX, BBC. They are all biased - (in fact any media outlet is biased to one degree or another). This is basic communication theory in media . I, for example, can be biased in some fashion and may slant a news story in a certain direction (If I have the pow Watching CNN every day and believing every thing you hear is a total cop out on freedom.

The American (and to a lesser degree, British) media have been conditioned by decades of reporting on the USSR. Lingering prejudices manifest themselves in a situation where the President of Russia was once head of the Federal Security Service and a career KGB man before that. It is easy to fall back into old habits.

Beyond this -- far broader than coverage of Putin's Russia -- I have noticed a strong tendency of the American media to carry negative stories about leaders in opposition to American policies, and neutral or even positive stories about those cooperative with such policies -- even when the behavior of the subjects is roughly the same with regard to human rights, etc., in their own countries.

I think this is partly because the American mass media is not primarily engaged in "investigative reporting" so much as reactive reporting. By this I mean that issues it regards as important (especially in international matters) are usually issues regarded as important by the American political leadership and by "think-tanks" generally aligned with one of the two parties. Fairness in reporting is regarded by the professional media as fulfilled whenever the leadership of both parties is consulted in assembling the story. The range of political opinions represented by the leadership of the two American parties is generally small by European standards. And this method of reporting the news is much less expensive than research-intensive, time and labor consuming investigative reporting.

So, the American press characteristically takes its cues from the political leadership, and from think-tanks which circulate (amongst editors) opinions, study summaries, and talking points. You will notice, if you watch the evening news broadcasts by the big television networks, that the selection of stories covered overlaps to a remarkable degree. This is reflected in turn by newspaper coverage, especially in national newspapers like USA Today and in the newspapers of record of most large cities (the New York Times being more of an exception).

How can all of these media outlets manage to broadcast the same stories (or nearly so) each night? It isn't necessary to theorize collusion, or that they are being given orders by the government. It is simply the case that the top-tier media outlets get most of their stories from the same sources, and that the lesser outlets in turn take their cues from the biggest outlets. Also, media ownership in America is incestuous: there is a great deal of cross-ownership between outlets and between different forms of media.

It's very difficult to be a good investigative reporter and avoid becoming persona non grata. If you are constantly offending your interview subjects (national leaders) with difficult questions, and by writing stories that show them to be ignorant and/or dishonest in their statements, and as a consequence your access to interviews is reduced or eliminated, and complaints reach your editor, his reaction is not generally going to be "Good job". It is generally "What are you doing wrong?"

Reporters, like any other employees, quickly learn (by observation and by water-cooler rumor and chit-chat) what their employer's expectations are. If they see that those who make too many waves, and of the wrong kind, are generally passed over when plum assignments, promotions, and raises are being handed out, they have two choices: either continue to demonstrate uncompromising integrity, in which case they will generally languish at the bottom of the ranks and never be heard of by most of the American public; or else go along. Though there are exceptions, for the most part only the ones who cooperate sufficiently will ever work their way up through the ranks to positions which permit them to influence significant portions of the public on important issues. That is why the same establishment mentality permeates American news.

There are three kinds of persons who go along: those who do so because they already agree with the attitudes of their employers; those who disagree but who are willing to dissemble to further their careers; and those who initially disagree but manage to convince themselves that they agree. It is much easier to continue doing something if you can convince yourself that what you are doing is right. And this is not too difficult since their professional environment is somewhat insulated and encourages conformity.

Finally, the matter of media ownership must be considered when evaluating the idea of freedom of the press. The latter refers only to freedom from state interference in the content of the reporting (certain notable exceptions being obscenity, etc.). But not everyone has the money to own a major newspaper, television station, or radio station, much less a chain of newspapers, television or radio stations or networks.

True, many people in America can post their opinions on the Internet. It certainly has democratic possibilities. Unfortunately, they remain just that in most cases, because their opinions are lost like needles in a haystack. Turn on the television or radio and your selections are limited. In many large American cities there is only one newspaper of record. But on the Internet, try searching for a general subject and you may get thousands of hits. Nobody has time to sort through them all. Most of them are not particularly well-informed anyway. And many news readers want some sort of imprimatur: even if they do not have a newsman's understanding of "editorial standards" they recognize that some news outlets are "reputable" (i.e., they are big enough to have a reputation!) and others are miserably obscure. It is not surprising that many turn to well-known sources for their news. And even when they find dissenting views, on the Internet and elsewhere, they hear them far less often and with less authority than they hear establishment views. If you read something on the Internet once or twice, but constantly read editorials in newspapers, and hear talking heads on television discussion programs, and hear soundbites from politicians, saying something different, which one of these sources of information tends to make more of an impression? The one made by an obscure author which you hear only once? Or the one said by all the big, famous and important people which you hear over and over again?

Well, if you are an owner of major news media (I mean a major shareholder, director of the company, etc.) you generally have in common with other media owners a socioeconomic background. In America especially, you are wealthy and, as you get older, you tend to become more politically conservative. What kind of managers do you hire? You hire managers who think like you to a reasonable extent. They have come through the system and proven themselves capable of compromising with it. Who do they hire in turn? They want stability and respectability and a political viewpoint that does not stray too far from the mainstream, because this is what *defines* respectability in the profession and in the national discourse.

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
The definition you provided for "Western media" demonstrates that you know exactly what I meant by the term.

Freedom of the press is a completely different issue. A media which is free from state control may nevertheless be quite biased, when cultural, political, or nationalistic issues are involved. If you wish to tell me that you are familiar wi common sense". Fine, old chap. I'm sure that line goes down very well at the club.

I have never pretended to any particular familiarity with the American media's coverage of Russian affairs in general and the Litvinenko case in particular, so why are you misrepresenting what I've said? I do claim some familiarity with the British media (by which I mean the 'serious' press and the broadcast media), and have made my points clear (I hope) in previous posts. My strong impression is that the British media is more pluralistic than the US media, but I would be open to discussion on the matter.

You say you are "not familiar with the extent of manipulation in the recent Russian legislative elections". Maybe that's because you yourself are too prejudiced against the "Western media" and biassed in favour of Putin. I can't believe that you're too lazy to look for the evidence or even read what I (and others) have written in previous posts. (Or maybe you think that 99% of Chechens really did vote for Putin's party?) Do you honestly think that such cautious and sober organisations as the Council of Europe and the OSCE (Russia is a member of both) would have condemned the elections with the speed and in the manner they did, if there weren't compelling evidence of widespread and systematic electoral fraud and malpractice? And maybe French and international human rights organisations were being self-serving when they roundly condemned Sarkozy's nauseatingly effusive congratulations to Putin on his "electoral success"? ("Russia is not a democratic country" was the succinct German reaction.)

I must say you are brilliant (almost to the point of self-parody) in accusing me of your own tendencies! You accuse me of constantly employing "straw-man arguments" and then go straight on to do precisely that yourself! Nowhere have I denied that Putin is a popular leader in Russia. He clearly is. (He has an iron grip on the media, and the Russians obviously like a strong and capable leader, particularly one who isn't an alcoholic and can find his own way to the toilet!) I've already said in a number of posts that Putin would have won the election comfortably enough without all the electoral skullduggery that took place.

PS I'm not sure what club you're referring to. You seem to have a strange idea of life here in the UK.

Originally posted by Northern Lad
Nowhere have I denied that Putin is a popular leader in Russia. He clearly is. . . . I've already said in a number of posts that Putin would have won the election comfortably enough without all the electoral skullduggery that took place.

PS I'm not sure what club you're referring to. You seem to have a strange idea of life here in the UK.

Duly noted, old bean. Now go polish your spats. There's a good chap.

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
Duly noted, old bean. Now go polish your spats. There's a good chap.

By this you seem to be making fun of Northern Lad for being a posh Brit. If so then this prejudice is no better than any other prejudice or stereotyping and you're damaging the credibility of the insightful comments you have made. You were engaged in a serious argument and when the person you were arguing with has something good to say then you do this. Why?

Originally posted by Mahout
By this you seem to be making fun of Northern Lad for being a posh Brit. If so then this prejudice is no better than any other prejudice or stereotyping and you're damaging the credibility of the insightful comments you have made. You were engaged in a serious argument and when the person you were arguing with has something good to say then you do this. Why?

I'm not making fun of him for being a posh Brit. For all I know he lives in a council house and re-uses his tea bags.

He said I was out of touch with life in the UK so I made a deliberately anachronistic reference, that's all.

For all I know he lives in a council house and re-uses his tea bags.

For all I know he lives in a council house and re-uses his tea bags.

ROFL - Can't accuse you of not understanding our way of life now.

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
Duly noted, old bean. Now go polish your spats. There's a good chap.

You are just showing to everyone the level you wish to conduct the argument on when you can't reply factually to serious points made.

Originally posted by Mahout
By this you seem to be making fun of Northern Lad for being a posh Brit. If so then this prejudice is no better than any other prejudice or stereotyping and you're damaging the credibility of the insightful comments you have made. You were engaged in a serious argument and when the person you were arguing with has something good to say then you do this. Why?

If you look back to some of the earlier posts, you'll see his preference for cheap, and rather childish, personal abuse. And he seems to think all Brits are posh gits drinking G+T in some upper class club. (I actually prefer real ale but will drink G+T if forced! LOL)

Originally posted by Northern Lad
If you look back to some of the earlier posts, you'll see his preference for cheap, and rather childish, personal abuse. And he seems to think all Brits are posh gits drinking G+T in some upper class club. (I actually prefer real ale but will drink G+T if forced! LOL)

As usual, you completely misunderstand me. Firstly, I am actually an anglophile. Secondly, I doubt if you have any appreciation of either the drinking habits or the social clubs of the individuals whom you denigrate as "posh gits" (rather declasse in our choice of idiom, aren't we?). I do, however, share your admiration of "real ale" if by this you mean the cask-conditioned variety served at a genuine pub, where the only background noise is the conversation of the patrons and (in season) the crackling of a large fire. Rather difficult to find these days.

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
As usual, you completely misunderstand me. Firstly, I am actually an anglophile. Secondly, I doubt if you have an appreciation of either the drinking habits or the social clubs of the individuals whom you denigrate as "posh gits" (rather declasse in our choice of idiom, aren't we?). I do, however, share your admiration of "real ale" if by this you mea ...[text shortened]... atrons and (in season) the crackling of a large fire. Rather difficult to find these days.

Fortunately cask-conditioned draught ale (usually drawn by handpump) is a lot easier to find this side of the pond thanks to the campaigning activities of organisations like CAMRA and the determination of a lot of drinkers to reject the mostly mediocre beers the multinational mega-breweries wish to foist on us. Having said that, trying to play chess after an overindulgence in real ale has cost me dear in the past on this site!

PS I'm anything but wealthy, but I don't reuse my teabags (and don't live in a council house either).

Originally posted by Northern Lad
If you look back to some of the earlier posts, you'll see his preference for cheap, and rather childish, personal abuse.

Really, Lewis, you are most exasperating. Someone actually takes the time and effort to pay tribute to you and all you can do is bleat like some poor, lost sheep looking for its mother.

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
Really, Lewis, you are most exasperating. Someone actually takes the time and effort to pay tribute to you and all you can do is bleat like some poor, lost sheep looking for its mother.

I don't understand this post, and I doubt if anyone else does, either. To be honest I've had enough of your supercilious tone. Combined with obvious ignorance it's not very appealing. If you're an Anglophile, I'll try to make sure and give Anglophobes a wide berth. Over and out.