<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: CIS Most Dangerous for Journalists (If you leave out war zones)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://seansrussiablog.org/2007/07/03/cis-most-dangerous-for-journalists-if-you-leave-out-war-zones/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://seansrussiablog.org/2007/07/03/cis-most-dangerous-for-journalists-if-you-leave-out-war-zones/</link>
	<description>Russia Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:00:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michael Averko</title>
		<link>http://seansrussiablog.org/2007/07/03/cis-most-dangerous-for-journalists-if-you-leave-out-war-zones/comment-page-1/#comment-4774</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Averko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2007 00:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seansrussiablog.org/?p=384#comment-4774</guid>
		<description>&quot;You sound very like Felgenhauer (according to BBC - &#039;military&#039; analizator). I&#039;m sorry but I have no interest to &quot;argue&quot; with him....&quot;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;****&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;He&#039;s one of several who serve as a Russian answer to Cyrill&#039;s statement about America hating American media people.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The Moscow Times tired of Felgenhauer, only to have him replaced with Alexander Golts, who is pretty much the same.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;You sound very like Felgenhauer (according to BBC &#8211; &#8216;military&#8217; analizator). I&#8217;m sorry but I have no interest to &#8220;argue&#8221; with him&#8230;.&#8221;</p>
<p>****</p>
<p>He&#8217;s one of several who serve as a Russian answer to Cyrill&#8217;s statement about America hating American media people.</p>
<p>The Moscow Times tired of Felgenhauer, only to have him replaced with Alexander Golts, who is pretty much the same.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ivanov</title>
		<link>http://seansrussiablog.org/2007/07/03/cis-most-dangerous-for-journalists-if-you-leave-out-war-zones/comment-page-1/#comment-4773</link>
		<dc:creator>ivanov</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2007 23:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seansrussiablog.org/?p=384#comment-4773</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Therefore, it is pretty difficult to tell how much the regulations are used to put some discipline in the airwaves and how much they are used to prevent anti-government radio stations from springing up.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Tim. You mixing two different matters.&lt;br/&gt;Licensing is not aimed at &quot;anti-government&quot; stations. It&#039;s pure technical reasons - to regulate frequency. And not about &quot;clear sound&quot; but avoiding interference between civil, military and other allocated sectors of waves.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Not letting foreign governments OPERATE radio stations - is pure political matter.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;This doesn&#039;t mean that Russia is more democratic. This means that in  Yeltsin era there were far too many   idiots and traitors in Kremlin. &lt;br/&gt;This &quot;two terms president&quot; rule - just stupid copy from US constitution. If you don&#039;r agree that it&#039;s stupid - look at Tony Blair :))</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Therefore, it is pretty difficult to tell how much the regulations are used to put some discipline in the airwaves and how much they are used to prevent anti-government radio stations from springing up.</i></p>
<p>Tim. You mixing two different matters.<br />Licensing is not aimed at &#8220;anti-government&#8221; stations. It&#8217;s pure technical reasons &#8211; to regulate frequency. And not about &#8220;clear sound&#8221; but avoiding interference between civil, military and other allocated sectors of waves.</p>
<p>Not letting foreign governments OPERATE radio stations &#8211; is pure political matter.</p>
<p>This doesn&#8217;t mean that Russia is more democratic. This means that in  Yeltsin era there were far too many   idiots and traitors in Kremlin. <br />This &#8220;two terms president&#8221; rule &#8211; just stupid copy from US constitution. If you don&#8217;r agree that it&#8217;s stupid &#8211; look at Tony Blair <img src='http://seansrussiablog.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> )</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ivanov</title>
		<link>http://seansrussiablog.org/2007/07/03/cis-most-dangerous-for-journalists-if-you-leave-out-war-zones/comment-page-1/#comment-4772</link>
		<dc:creator>ivanov</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2007 23:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seansrussiablog.org/?p=384#comment-4772</guid>
		<description>To Cyrill.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;You sound very like Felgenhauer (according to BBC - &quot;military&quot; analizator). I&#039;m sorry but I have no interest to &quot;argue&quot; with him....&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;As to Reporters Without Brains and Freedom House ratings - who cares? Will it change anything? They are free to play their games :))&lt;br/&gt;Fortunatelly, Internet and My Brains are out of their control.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;As to radio stations - my point was simple. US law doesn&#039;t allow foreign governments to run  radio stations overthere. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;As to TV - every person in Russia can watch anything that broadcasted from the skies. And CCN, BBC etc. are included in standard package for cable/digital subscribtion. Simply because satellites are out of US law :)) As well as Internet.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Private radio stations are run by Americans - of Soviet origin but Americans! So this is another story.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;PS. last time Mayak was mentioned by Puting at G8 (if I recall right).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To Cyrill.</p>
<p>You sound very like Felgenhauer (according to BBC &#8211; &#8220;military&#8221; analizator). I&#8217;m sorry but I have no interest to &#8220;argue&#8221; with him&#8230;.</p>
<p>As to Reporters Without Brains and Freedom House ratings &#8211; who cares? Will it change anything? They are free to play their games <img src='http://seansrussiablog.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> )<br />Fortunatelly, Internet and My Brains are out of their control.</p>
<p>As to radio stations &#8211; my point was simple. US law doesn&#8217;t allow foreign governments to run  radio stations overthere. </p>
<p>As to TV &#8211; every person in Russia can watch anything that broadcasted from the skies. And CCN, BBC etc. are included in standard package for cable/digital subscribtion. Simply because satellites are out of US law <img src='http://seansrussiablog.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> ) As well as Internet.</p>
<p>Private radio stations are run by Americans &#8211; of Soviet origin but Americans! So this is another story.</p>
<p>PS. last time Mayak was mentioned by Puting at G8 (if I recall right).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Averko</title>
		<link>http://seansrussiablog.org/2007/07/03/cis-most-dangerous-for-journalists-if-you-leave-out-war-zones/comment-page-1/#comment-4767</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Averko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2007 20:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seansrussiablog.org/?p=384#comment-4767</guid>
		<description>Is Air America still around?  I suspect a comparison of its funding with Ekho Moskvy will show the latter to receive much more in moolah.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is Air America still around?  I suspect a comparison of its funding with Ekho Moskvy will show the latter to receive much more in moolah.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Averko</title>
		<link>http://seansrussiablog.org/2007/07/03/cis-most-dangerous-for-journalists-if-you-leave-out-war-zones/comment-page-1/#comment-4766</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Averko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2007 20:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seansrussiablog.org/?p=384#comment-4766</guid>
		<description>Regarding Cyrill&#039;s point: with the Albats-Latynina lineup in mind, Ekho Moskvy is on par with the Pacifica Foundation.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;My local Pacifica Foundation affiliate does get conservative, neoliberal and neoconservative views on.  Granted, it&#039;s overall slant is in a certain direction.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding Cyrill&#8217;s point: with the Albats-Latynina lineup in mind, Ekho Moskvy is on par with the Pacifica Foundation.</p>
<p>My local Pacifica Foundation affiliate does get conservative, neoliberal and neoconservative views on.  Granted, it&#8217;s overall slant is in a certain direction.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chrisius Maximus</title>
		<link>http://seansrussiablog.org/2007/07/03/cis-most-dangerous-for-journalists-if-you-leave-out-war-zones/comment-page-1/#comment-4763</link>
		<dc:creator>Chrisius Maximus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seansrussiablog.org/?p=384#comment-4763</guid>
		<description>Prokhanov&#039;s antigovernment, although I&#039;m not sure if that was Cyril&#039;s point or not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Prokhanov&#8217;s antigovernment, although I&#8217;m not sure if that was Cyril&#8217;s point or not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cyrill</title>
		<link>http://seansrussiablog.org/2007/07/03/cis-most-dangerous-for-journalists-if-you-leave-out-war-zones/comment-page-1/#comment-4762</link>
		<dc:creator>Cyrill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seansrussiablog.org/?p=384#comment-4762</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;&quot;The station license required under this chapter shall not be granted to or held by any foreign government or the representative thereof.&quot; So the US law forbids at home what it does in other countries. Which of course isn&#039;t surprising.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;I stand corrected on the Mayak issue. If Mayak is indeed state owned and operated. Comparison to RFE/RL is hardly applicable since it is a private non-profit corporation and receives funding like many other non-profit grantees. If RFE/RL is a government operation, then PBS is also a government media outlet.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;i&gt;In the UK, they make sure that radio stations don&#039;t &#039;overlap&#039; one another and you can listen to a single station cleanly and without interference from another.&quot;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;A couple of years ago I spent almost three weeks driving around UK and I was amazed at how little selection was available in the AM band. BBC 1 through 6 I think plus a couple of local BBC affiliates. There was one talk station of note that was mostly sports.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;i&gt;That station is certainly not on the Russian government friendly side.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;I have listened to Ekho Moskvy a lot both in Russia as well as over the Internet. It is not an anti government side. They have an extremely balanced lineup of guests. Hell, Prokhanov is on there at least once a week it seems. It always surprises me how biases in perception skew those perceptions. That Ekho Moskvy does not sing the same tune as ORT or NTV does not mean it is anti-government. It only means ORT and NTV are pro-government. Ekho is nowhere near Air America or Pacifica Radio in the US in terms of being anti anything. Check out vitriol towards either Bush or Clinton from fringes like Randy Rhodes or Michael Savage for comparison. I have never heard anything of the kind from Ekho.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;i&gt;There is censorship of public airwaves in the US, but it is generally limited to vulgar language, etc. Stations self-censor to avoid fines and possible lawsuits, etc.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;This is true. There are only a few guidelines imposed on me when I host my radio show. No profanity, however even that has eroded vs. a decade ago. Carlin&#039;s list of deadly worlds has shrunk. There is absolutely no political censorship, except calls to rebellion, overthrow of government or murder of political figures. However, even these can happen from time to time. Especially with anonymity of callers to talk shows.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>&#8220;The station license required under this chapter shall not be granted to or held by any foreign government or the representative thereof.&#8221; So the US law forbids at home what it does in other countries. Which of course isn&#8217;t surprising.</i></p>
<p>I stand corrected on the Mayak issue. If Mayak is indeed state owned and operated. Comparison to RFE/RL is hardly applicable since it is a private non-profit corporation and receives funding like many other non-profit grantees. If RFE/RL is a government operation, then PBS is also a government media outlet.</p>
<p><i>In the UK, they make sure that radio stations don&#8217;t &#8216;overlap&#8217; one another and you can listen to a single station cleanly and without interference from another.&#8221;</i></p>
<p>A couple of years ago I spent almost three weeks driving around UK and I was amazed at how little selection was available in the AM band. BBC 1 through 6 I think plus a couple of local BBC affiliates. There was one talk station of note that was mostly sports.</p>
<p><i>That station is certainly not on the Russian government friendly side.</i></p>
<p>I have listened to Ekho Moskvy a lot both in Russia as well as over the Internet. It is not an anti government side. They have an extremely balanced lineup of guests. Hell, Prokhanov is on there at least once a week it seems. It always surprises me how biases in perception skew those perceptions. That Ekho Moskvy does not sing the same tune as ORT or NTV does not mean it is anti-government. It only means ORT and NTV are pro-government. Ekho is nowhere near Air America or Pacifica Radio in the US in terms of being anti anything. Check out vitriol towards either Bush or Clinton from fringes like Randy Rhodes or Michael Savage for comparison. I have never heard anything of the kind from Ekho.</p>
<p><i>There is censorship of public airwaves in the US, but it is generally limited to vulgar language, etc. Stations self-censor to avoid fines and possible lawsuits, etc.</i></p>
<p>This is true. There are only a few guidelines imposed on me when I host my radio show. No profanity, however even that has eroded vs. a decade ago. Carlin&#8217;s list of deadly worlds has shrunk. There is absolutely no political censorship, except calls to rebellion, overthrow of government or murder of political figures. However, even these can happen from time to time. Especially with anonymity of callers to talk shows.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: W. Shedd</title>
		<link>http://seansrussiablog.org/2007/07/03/cis-most-dangerous-for-journalists-if-you-leave-out-war-zones/comment-page-1/#comment-4748</link>
		<dc:creator>W. Shedd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2007 14:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seansrussiablog.org/?p=384#comment-4748</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;This is not necessarily for the purposes of censorship though, although I&#039;m quite sure the licensing system can be and is used as such. The main reason for regulating the airwaves, or at least the original reason, was to avoid radio stations competing with each other willy-nilly on the same frequencies, rendering any attempt to listen to a single station impossible.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;I don&#039;t think that I implied that such regulation is censorship.  However, the FCC does have certain requirements for radio station ownership, as indicated by Sean&#039;s quoting of the actual law.  And you certainly can not just build a radio station and begin broadcasting whatever content you wish, for the reasons you indicate.  &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;There is censorship of public airwaves in the US, but it is generally limited to vulgar language, etc.  Stations self-censor to avoid fines and possible lawsuits, etc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i></p>
<p>This is not necessarily for the purposes of censorship though, although I&#8217;m quite sure the licensing system can be and is used as such. The main reason for regulating the airwaves, or at least the original reason, was to avoid radio stations competing with each other willy-nilly on the same frequencies, rendering any attempt to listen to a single station impossible.</i></p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think that I implied that such regulation is censorship.  However, the FCC does have certain requirements for radio station ownership, as indicated by Sean&#8217;s quoting of the actual law.  And you certainly can not just build a radio station and begin broadcasting whatever content you wish, for the reasons you indicate.  </p>
<p>There is censorship of public airwaves in the US, but it is generally limited to vulgar language, etc.  Stations self-censor to avoid fines and possible lawsuits, etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Averko</title>
		<link>http://seansrussiablog.org/2007/07/03/cis-most-dangerous-for-journalists-if-you-leave-out-war-zones/comment-page-1/#comment-4728</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Averko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2007 13:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seansrussiablog.org/?p=384#comment-4728</guid>
		<description>There&#039;re some who say that Gazprom and the Russian government have some different agendas, which are at odds with each other.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;In the US, more government isn&#039;t necessarily always so bad.  For years, the US government affiliated VOA has had the reputation of being more objective than the largely Amercian government funded, but not American government affiliated RFE/RL.  Sergie Roy, among others has noted this.  Mind you, this is the contrasting reputation the two have had over a lenghy period.  Of recent note, RFE/RL has improved.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;re some who say that Gazprom and the Russian government have some different agendas, which are at odds with each other.</p>
<p>In the US, more government isn&#8217;t necessarily always so bad.  For years, the US government affiliated VOA has had the reputation of being more objective than the largely Amercian government funded, but not American government affiliated RFE/RL.  Sergie Roy, among others has noted this.  Mind you, this is the contrasting reputation the two have had over a lenghy period.  Of recent note, RFE/RL has improved.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Irishman</title>
		<link>http://seansrussiablog.org/2007/07/03/cis-most-dangerous-for-journalists-if-you-leave-out-war-zones/comment-page-1/#comment-4710</link>
		<dc:creator>Irishman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2007 07:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seansrussiablog.org/?p=384#comment-4710</guid>
		<description>&#039;&#039;To followup on my previously posted comments, the &quot;state owned giant&quot; Gazprom owns Ekho Moskvy. That station is certainly not on the Russian government friendly side. &#039;&#039;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;It&#039;s quite true, and I&#039;ve often wondered why Gazprom bought it in the first place - it must be literally to make money, come what may. I wonder also if Ekho Moscow is simply a court jester - deliberately bought by the state, but allowed to pump out its anti-government rhetoric anyway, simply as a pretence. Its not half as popular as it once was though and I could be wrong, but it seems to me a lot of ordinary Russians lump it into the liberal crowd, along with Kasyanov, Yavlinsky etc. Which means nobody cares about it, basically.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#039;&#039;One little tidbit - when did the 2nd Chechen war actually end? Did it &quot;officially&quot; or is it just set to a low simmer?&#039;&#039;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;I would say its simmering on a very low gas mark, maybe until the next generation comes along. The Chechens have been beaten before but came back again. I dont actually know though if it was officially called &#039;over&#039;. I imagine Putin didnt make any formal announcement, unlike Bush on the aircraft carrier in 2003 re Iraq. We all know how that didnt end.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8221;To followup on my previously posted comments, the &#8220;state owned giant&#8221; Gazprom owns Ekho Moskvy. That station is certainly not on the Russian government friendly side. &#8221;</p>
<p>It&#8217;s quite true, and I&#8217;ve often wondered why Gazprom bought it in the first place &#8211; it must be literally to make money, come what may. I wonder also if Ekho Moscow is simply a court jester &#8211; deliberately bought by the state, but allowed to pump out its anti-government rhetoric anyway, simply as a pretence. Its not half as popular as it once was though and I could be wrong, but it seems to me a lot of ordinary Russians lump it into the liberal crowd, along with Kasyanov, Yavlinsky etc. Which means nobody cares about it, basically.</p>
<p>&#8221;One little tidbit &#8211; when did the 2nd Chechen war actually end? Did it &#8220;officially&#8221; or is it just set to a low simmer?&#8221;</p>
<p>I would say its simmering on a very low gas mark, maybe until the next generation comes along. The Chechens have been beaten before but came back again. I dont actually know though if it was officially called &#8216;over&#8217;. I imagine Putin didnt make any formal announcement, unlike Bush on the aircraft carrier in 2003 re Iraq. We all know how that didnt end.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
