The increasingly repressive government of Russian Prime Minister (and former President) Vladimir Putin has now gone so far as to ban satirical criticism of his regime on TV broadcasts:
On a talk show last autumn, a prominent political analyst named Mikhail Delyagin offered some tart words about Vladimir Putin. When the program was televised, Delyagin was not.
His remarks were cut and he was digitally erased from the show, like a disgraced comrade airbrushed from an old Soviet photo. (The technicians may have worked a bit hastily; they left his disembodied legs in one shot.)
Delyagin, it turned out, has for some time resided on the so-called stop list, a roster of political opponents and other critics of the government who have been barred from television news and political talk shows by the Kremlin.
The stop list is, as Delyagin put it, "an excellent way to stifle dissent."
It is also a striking indication of how Putin has relied on the Kremlin-controlled television networks to consolidate power, especially in recent elections.
Opponents who were on television a year or two ago all but vanished during the campaigns, as Putin won a parliamentary landslide for his party and then installed his protégé, Dmitri Medvedev, as his successor. Putin is now prime minister but is still widely considered Russia's leader.
As the International Herald Tribune article linked above points out, virtually of Putin's prominent political opponents are banned from making statements on TV by the "stop list" - including former prime minister Mikhail Kasyanov, Vladimir Ryzhkov, and former world chess champion Garry Kasparov, leader of the main liberal democratic opposition party. Since he became President in 2000, Putin's regime has taken control of every major TV station in Russia, all of which are now either owned by the government or have been forcibly transferred to private owners who are Putin allies. So the regime can impose its "stop list" across the board. The entire situation is an abject lesson in the dangers of government control of broadcast media.
Ironically, the leaders of the Communist Party are among those complaining that they have been prevented from appearing on TV by the stop list. Putin himself, of course, was a longtime Communist Party comrade and KGB colonel in the days of the old Soviet Union. Another ironic victim of Putin's media policies quoted in the article is political talk show host Vladimir Pozner, who claims that the government forced him to stop interviewing opposition leaders on his show. I remember Pozner well from his days as a prominent official apologist for the Communist government back in the 1980s, at which time he defended the regime's imprisonment of dissidents such as Andrei Sakharov. Pozner was often deployed by the Soviets as a spokesman on US TV because he speaks English with no accent. In fairness, he has since apologized for some of what he did in those days, though the timing of his mea culpas leaves some room for doubt about their sincerity.
It's difficult to feel sorry for the likes of Pozner and the Communists. Opposition speech was repressed far more thoroughly when they were in power than it is under Putin today. If Pozner had dared to put dissidents on his show back in the 1980s (at least before 1988 or so), he would likely have suffered a much worse fate than merely being censored.
That said, even totalitarians and hypocrites deserve to have their freedom of speech protected. Whatever we may think of Pozner, official censorship is not the right remedy for his misdeeds. And Putin's "stop list" has of course affected many who are far more worthy of our sympathy.
People keep telling me that the United States is a horrible, repressive country that's well on the way to totalitarianism.
But for the life of me, I can't remember anything like this happening. Could someone refresh my memory? If the US is so bad, it should be going on on a daily basis...
Sounds quite czarist, doesn'tt?
The czarist regime committed many wrongs. But they didn't kill innocent people by the millions. And, of relevance to this post, they allowed a lot more in the way of free speech than the communists did. For example, the czar permitted many opposition parties to operate openly.
As for killing Germans, the czarist army did fairly well agains them in the Seven Years War.
Arguments from "it could be worse" are a great way to pave the road to hell--or Serfdom.
Arguments from "it could be worse" are a form of red herrings, they deviate from the subject entirely in order to defend something that might or might not be slightly better. If I broke one of my legs and someone else broke both, that does not detract from the fact that I broke my leg. And if I got a D on a paper, it would be ridiculous to tell me "well at least you didn't fail".
Cirby's point isn't completely off the mark, however, and it is good to note that the US isn't close to the totalitarian hell that some other places experience. But we shouldn't take what we've got just because someone else has it worse
I was in Hawaii in 1972 when one of the first conservative talk stations KTRG was forced off the air by a Fairness Doctrine challenge to its license.
The Supremes may well reverse Red Lion (depending on how Justice Clinton votes) but that result is not assured.
Luckily netcasting and podcasting can be substituted but the reach is ot yet the same.
As for the oppression of the Bush regime, I have noticed zero censorship. There was much more during WWII.
Note the Bridgette Bardot has just been fined by the French government for insulting Muslims.
It Would be Funny if it Were Allowed to Be
Fixed that for you. The Fairness Doctrine never stopped the Big Three (NBC, ABC, CBS) from pushing their liberal agenda.
Medvedev killed it.
I'm pretty sure it's the same law, since your article is June 2, and the cancellation happened on June 3.
This means one thing: that Medvedev is slightly independent, and slightly less authoritarian than Putin. It also means he feels legitimate as a leader, since he's not as scared of media criticism.
.
To be completely accurate and forestall complaints from our friends elsewhere in the Anglosphere, Vladimir Pozner speaks English with a pronounced American accent.
It Would be Funny if it Were Allowed to Be"
In Russia, the jokes make YOU.
Sure they did.
But I don't refer just to satire. It's hard to see any fundamental difference in foreign policy, for example.
The Bolsheviks did impose literacy, but then arrogated to themselves the right to decide what could be read. Same as the czarists, really -- keep the people unread -- just a different tactic.
can you help me out, - I was born and raised in the USSR, and I got the top marks in "The History Of the Communist Party" we studied in college. Yet, I do not remember our Textbook mentioning anything about czarist killing innocent people by millions.
Now, surely, the book that traces its lineage to the most famous "A Short History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union" authored by Stalin can not be suspected in trying to hide those most horrible crimes of the czarist regime.
Can you please help me figure this out? When were those millions killed? Who killed them? And, the most puzzling question of all, - why did Stalin chose not to mention this?
Ah, then it's only a matter of time before Comrade Medvedev "disappears".
-- attributed to Tom Wolfe and/or Jean-Francois Revel... does anyone have an accurate cite?
...but the real problem is that the people who complain about American fascism the most are the ones who seem to be causing it (although they call it Progressivism, or something similar). As long as we ignore them (or fight back), it gets further and further away.
Yes, there are attempts (and successes) at taking our rights, but in many ways (firearms possession is just the most obvious one), we're well ahead of the game when compared to even a few years back - and it's getting easier and easier to counter the not-quite-but-wannabe-fascists.
That's right, blessings of Communism were totally wasted on us troglodite Rooskies. They shoulda been bestowed on more deserving people.
Between 1890-1913, Russia had 12 bad harvests in 23 years, yet kept increasing grain exports.
Given consumption around 1890, what do you suppose the result was?
There were any number of ways the czarists bumped people off -- exiling them to Siberia and having them die of dysentery, starvation and typhus along the way, for example.
I could go on and on.
It added up to plenty of millions in the end.
More generally, although precision is hard to come by, the number of dead in capitalist famines in the 19th c. compares pretty well with the numbers dead in socialist famines in the 20t c.
Many people have a vested interest in inflating one count and belittling the other. I say, count 'em all.
It was the Japanese they had problems with.
You really must provide links, man.
As for deaths on the trek to Siberia, nobody was counting, but estimates are up in the tens of thousands per year over many decades.
And see Mike Davis, "Late Victorian Holocausts." It isn't about Russia but the same factors were working there, too.