I stumbled across Shaun Walker’s “No Laughing Matter: Cartoons and the Kremlin” while perusing Kompromat.ru. I only realized after a few minutes that the article was originally published in the Independent and translated for InoPressa.ru (interestingly without the above caricature).
No laughing matter indeed. As noted Russian cartoonist Mikhail Zlatkovsky tells Walker, what was once permitted under Gorbachev and Yeltsin is taboo under Putin. Zlatkovsky’s satires of the vozhd’ abruptly came to an end after Putin’s inauguration in May 2000. It was then that his editor at Literaturnaya gazeta informed him, “Misha, we’re not going to draw Putin any more. The young lad is very sensitive.” Zlatkovsky’s drawings of Putin haven’t appeared in the press since. And soon after that neither did his and many other cartoonists’ satires of ministers, Kremlin aids, Chechnya, and military brass. Even a drawing of Patriarch Alexy II “prompted a phone call from the patriarchate and a strong request never to draw him again.”
Zlatkovsky tells Walker that while there is no official censorship, there is “the censorship of the fire safety inspectorate; or the censorship of the tax police.” Bureaucratic revenge may be softer, but it is just as effective, if not more so, than good old fashion repression. The result, according to Walker is that “Many cartoonists have given up, finding other work, and newspaper editors prefer to err on the side of caution and not publish cartoons at all.” I would guess that this is exactly what those in power hoped.
Therefore it is no surprise that yet again Freedom House has labeled Russia’s press “not free.” There does, however, seem to be a twinkle of light in the darkness. According to Izvestiia, young Robert Shlegel got a finger waging by senior United Russia officials for introducing the media law amendment. One of United Russia’s four factions, 4 November, released a statement saying, “Oversight and law enforcement organs already have sufficient opportunities to put an end to the activities of unscrupulous journalists without jeopardizing the freedom of the mass media.” (Yes, there are four official factions in United Russia. They officially constituted themselves at their party congress two weeks ago. Who knew?) Basically, 4 November thinks that the amendment is redundant. Whether their opposition and Shlegel’s shaming will have any impact on the voting of future readings is uncertain and probably unlikely. Given how widely the amendment hit the international press, I’m sure this is all posturing. After all, the law’s first reading passed unanimously minus one. Boris Reznik of United Russia cast the lone dissenting vote. Um, 4 November members, where were you?
{ 300 comments }
← Previous Comments
The involved academics don’t give him the time of day.
In which case, how are they involved?
Like I said:
Yes, repeat ad nauseum. We know.
“Chrisius Maximus on May 14, 2008 1:13 am Mike, your entire life is a fiction. You are a fictitious pundit, with fictitious friends, fictitious academics, fictitious time in Russia, fictitious respect from your fictitious peers, and fictitious beach dates.”
***
To stop to your very low level again so that you can better understand:
In yo wet panty dreams b****!
What I’ve said on the matter you dicuss is a matter of record.
Your little nothing self hasn’t come close to substantively matching it.
Trolling at blogs is your gig.
In other words you don’t know a heck lot about the subject matter Hoare comments on.
No, there are no other words. I meant what I said: your first link showed only a book title and nothing else, and the second link did not mention Hoare at all…yet you complained that I did not recognise either source as debunking Hoare.
If you want to prove that Hoare is unworthy of the respect deserving of an academic, you’re going to have to come up with some better links than those.
“Tim Newman on May 14, 2008 1:16 am The involved academics don’t give him the time of day.
In which case, how are they involved?
Like I said:
Yes, repeat ad nauseum. We know.”
****
The involved academics relate to those not giving him the time of day for what many would understandably consider to be unacademic manner on his part.
This is perhaps one reason why you like him.
You show yourself unable to defend his faulty commentary.
“In yo wet panty dreams b****!”
I don’t know what is funnier — the idea that this statement was made by a white, balding middle-aged lunatic, or that it is the white, balding middle-aged lunatic’s idea of what an academic would say.
“The involved academics relate to those not giving him the time of day for what many would understandably consider to be unacademic manner on his part.”
This is the coolest sentence of all time!
“Tim Newman on May 14, 2008 1:20 am In other words you don’t know a heck lot about the subject matter Hoare comments on.
No, there are no other words. I meant what I said: your first link showed only a book title and nothing else, and the second link did not mention Hoare at all…yet you complained that I did not recognise either source as debunking Hoare.
If you want to prove that Hoare is unworthy of the respect deserving of an academic, you’re going to have to come up with some better links than those.”
****
You’re in no legitimate position to make that assertion, given your extreme ignorance of the subject matter he comments on.
If you knew the subject matter, you wouldn’t have given the answer you did. You were earlier presented with a well founded critique of some of his commentary.
“Chrisius Maximus on May 14, 2008 1:21 am “In yo wet panty dreams b****!”
I don’t know what is funnier — the idea that this statement was made by a white, balding middle-aged lunatic, or that it is the white, balding middle-aged lunatic’s idea of what an academic would say.
Chrisius Maximus on May 14, 2008 1:22 am ‘The involved academics relate to those not giving him the time of day for what many would understandably consider to be unacademic manner on his part.’
This is the coolest sentence of all time!”
****
The troll strikes again.
“Balding”. How many others out there fit thatr description?
I bet this balding middle aged lunatic (as he puts it) can kick his ass with no problem.
I just stooped down again to his very low level so that he can better understand me.
His grammar Nazi advocacy is absurd given his own weaknesses. This is the same “editor” who repeatedly insisted that “there’re” isn’t valid English language shorthand for “there are.”
You’re in no legitimate position to make that assertion, given your extreme ignorance of the subject matter he comments on.
No, I’m in a very good position to make the assertion that your links to evidence of Hoare’s debunking went nowhere, by the simple virtue that I followed them.
If you knew the subject matter, you wouldn’t have given the answer you did.
Oh, I would. No matter what I knew or didn’t know, the links would still have lead nowhere. Now, if you knew the subject matter, you wouldn’t be leading me on wild goose chases around the internet, would you?
You were earlier presented with a well founded critique of some of his commentary.
No, that was an article written by none other than yourself, which was shite.
Pardon a snafu (thatr)in the prior post.
Among others, Chris Doss has had his share.
The involved academics relate to those not giving him the time of day for what many would understandably consider to be unacademic manner on his part.
In the absence of you specifying who these academics are, this statement carries no authority whatsoever.
This is perhaps one reason why you like him.
No, I like him because his work is sound and well presented.
You show yourself unable to defend his faulty commentary.
I have no need to, for you have failed to show that it is faulty.
“Tim Newman on May 14, 2008 1:33 am You’re in no legitimate position to make that assertion, given your extreme ignorance of the subject matter he comments on.
No, I’m in a very good position to make the assertion that your links to evidence of Hoare’s debunking went nowhere, by the simple virtue that I followed them.
If you knew the subject matter, you wouldn’t have given the answer you did.
Oh, I would. No matter what I knew or didn’t know, the links would still have lead nowhere. Now, if you knew the subject matter, you wouldn’t be leading me on wild goose chases around the internet, would you?
You were earlier presented with a well founded critique of some of his commentary.
No, that was an article written by none other than yourself, which was shite.”
****
What you confirm is that you aren’t so bright. Intelligent indivduals don’t so willingly support those whose views are faulty.
That article is far more academic than some of what Hoare has written.
Much of what you say is “shite” related to your “shite” intellect.
Mike, there is no valid or invalid shorthand for anything. This is part of the concept of shorthand.
However, I would point out that shorthand is generally supposed to be, well, short. Here is your “shorthand” wondersentence:
‘The involved academics relate to those not giving him the time of day for what many would understandably consider to be unacademic manner on his part.’
Now, here is the same sentence as written by somebody who knows how to write:
‘These academics are involved with people who will not give him the time of day due to their justified belief that he behaves unacademically.’
The sentence still sucks, but it’s a 1000% improvement. In took the “for what many” bit out, since it is just additional layering of verbiage that adds no content.
“Tim Newman on May 14, 2008 1:37 am The involved academics relate to those not giving him the time of day for what many would understandably consider to be unacademic manner on his part.
In the absence of you specifying who these academics are, this statement carries no authority whatsoever.
This is perhaps one reason why you like him.
No, I like him because his work is sound and well presented.
You show yourself unable to defend his faulty commentary.
I have no need to, for you have failed to show that it is faulty.”
****
“Well presented” with faulty (put mildly) commentary.
Yes, I did show it to be faulty.
The linked Martin book and other source material do likewise with some of his comments about Mihailovich.
“Yes, I did show it to be faulty.”
No you didn’t. You just linked to some books, which I actually doubt you have read.
Chris:
I don’t give a flying **** about your explaining away how you repeatedly insisted that “there’re” isn’t valid English language shorthand for “there are.”
Try writing some formally wriiten commentary that gets a significant following abroad.
I post here on the fly (hockey terminology). I see the snafus others make (including yourself) and how you’re silent about it.
What you confirm is that you aren’t so bright.
And your linking to dead-ends confirms what, exactly?
Intelligent indivduals don’t so willingly support those whose views are faulty.
Which is why generally I don’t support any views you hold.
That article is far more academic than some of what Hoare has written.
I doubt it. Were that true, you would be recognised by academics as an academic writer, as Hoare is.
Much of what you say is “shite” related to your “shite” intellect.
Oh, you’ve learned a new adjective, bringing your total to, what? Ten?
“Chrisius Maximus on May 14, 2008 1:46 am ‘Yes, I did show it to be faulty.’
No you didn’t. You just linked to some books, which I actually doubt you have read.”
****
I most certainly did read that and other books on the subject. A topic you obviously dion’t know much about.
In addition, I wrote a well founded critique of his commentary that was academically more mature than some of the pieces he has written at his blog.
Calling someone a “genocide denier” for questioning the claim of 7000-8000 Muslim males summarily executed at Srebrenica isn’t scholarly. Having a Cambridge degree doesn’t cahnge that.
That’s: change
This idiot Newman doesn’t give up.
Pathetic.
The linked Martin book and other source material do likewise with some of his comments about Mihailovich.
Judging by your past performances of presenting falsehoods, I am not prepared to believe you when you say that the book achieves this. In fact, now you have endorsed it I am relatively certain that it does not.
And the second link you sent me to doesn’t mention Mihailovich either. Perhaps you meant Benjamin Franklin?
Newman:
I’m not alone in my observation of Hoare’s not so great commentary.
This includes people more well known than myself.
If you knew the subject matter, you’d be fully aware of who doesn’t buy into his faulty commentary.
Using your “logic” your knowledge and “intellect” is “shite” compared to mine.
In short, you’re wrong on this and a number of other issues.
“Tim Newman on May 14, 2008 1:54 am The linked Martin book and other source material do likewise with some of his comments about Mihailovich.
Judging by your past performances of presenting falsehoods, I am not prepared to believe you when you say that the book achieves this. In fact, now you have endorsed it I am relatively certain that it does not.
And the second link you sent me to doesn’t mention Mihailovich either. Perhaps you meant Benjamin Franklin?’
***
Unlike yourself, I don’t present falsehoods.
You again exhibit a lack of knowledge and intellect.
If you knew the history, you’d recognize the reference to Mihailovich in that link:
http://antiwar.com/malic/?articleid=12804
“I post here on the fly (hockey terminology). I see the snafus others make (including yourself) and how you’re silent about it.”
What you do are not snafus, or typos; they are bad writing. You do not know how words connect to other words, or ideas to other ideas.
For instance, here is a shit sentence:
“Your exhibited lack of intelligence is shown by how you uncritically laud Hoare without being able to suppport [sic] his faulty claims of Mihailovich”
Here is another version of the same sentence, as written by a normal person:
“Your uncritical praise of Hoare and simultaneous inability to back up his flawed claims show you to be unintelligent.”
COMPARE LENGTH!!!
Calling someone a “genocide denier” for questioning the claim of 7000-8000 Muslim males summarily executed at Srebrenica isn’t scholarly.
Calling somebody a genocide denier for questioning the claim that a minimum of 4,000 Muslims were murdered by the Serbs at Srebrenica isn’t either, but it is an apt description.
This idiot Newman doesn’t give up.
No, he doesn’t. And for every comment of yours I reply to, your credibility sinks ever lower – albeit probably higher amongst the cranks, loons, genocide deniers, and Irving wannabes into whose company you have fallen with seeming delight. Consider it a public service.
Unlike yourself, I don’t present falsehoods.
Oh, you do. Although mostly they are outright lies.
You again exhibit a lack of knowledge and intellect.
Well, it’s hardly my fault that displaying of either is unnecessary in my thrashing of you on this site.
If you knew the history, you’d recognize the reference to Mihailovich in that link:
Yes, just like I’d recognise a reference to Czechoslovakia in a passage which doesn’t mention Czechoslovakia once.
Once again, let us compare and contrast.
Averko text (note that I am addressing only writing, not content):
‘I’m not alone in my observation of Hoare’s not so great commentary.
This includes people more well known than myself.
If you knew the subject matter, you’d be fully aware of who doesn’t buy into his faulty commentary.
Using your “logic” your knowledge and “intellect” is “shite” compared to mine.
In short, you’re wrong on this and a number of other issues.’
Now, here is a normal-person version of the same text:
‘I’m not alone in my assessment that Hoare’s commentary is flawed. People better-known than I agree. If you knew the subject matter, you would be fully aware of the identities of those who do not accept his commentary as accurate. According to your “logic,” your knowledge and “intellect” are “shite” compared to mine. In short, you are wrong on this and a number of other issues.’
Your errors are especially BAD WRITING for an “editor.”
Meantime; in writing, where has your great insight been recognized in erms of an article receiving a realtively high profile viewing?
Trolling at blogs is your limit.
***
Bodies of clearly identified Muslims clearly showing that they were clearly executed in a firing squad like manner.
He doesn’t get it. Instead, carrying on like he’s doing some great deed, which he isn’t.
How much lower can it get by thinking that MAH is usch a grt go to source without even being aware of his faulty (put mildly) commentary?
I’m sure as “shite” not going to sink with him.
I’m not alone in my observation of Hoare’s not so great commentary.
I am sure you are not, given the company you seem to keep. All this proves is that there is more than one genocide denier and crank out there.
This includes people more well known than myself.
Would David Irving be one of them?
If you knew the subject matter, you’d be fully aware of who doesn’t buy into his faulty commentary.
If you knew the subject matter, you’d have been aware that Hoare does not need propping in academic circles.
Using your “logic” your knowledge and “intellect” is “shite” compared to mine.
And you can run faster than my batting average. Yeah, we know.
In short, you’re wrong on this and a number of other issues.
If true, you’re having awful trouble demonstrating it on here.
Chris still seems flustered by the point made about how posting comments at blogs on the fly isn’t the same as writing formal commentary.
With many examples to show, his grammar points are selectively applied for troll like purposes.
David Irving isn’t one of them fool.
If anyone here is carrying on like Irving, it’s you by ignoring fact based realities.
Along with some others, I got the Bosnian Civil War death tally right. On the other hand, it wouldn’t surprise me that you accepted the LIES of 200,000 or more killed during that war and rapes in the tens of thousands.
Mike language:
“With many examples to show, his grammar points are selectively applied for troll like purposes.”
Normal-person language:
“Despite there being many examples to draw from across the board, his grammatical points are selectively applied for purposes of trolling.”
HOWEVER, the sentence’s meaning is unclear. It could also mean:
“There are many examples to show how he selectively applies his grammatical points for purposes of trolling.”
PS. my point is not about grammar, it is about knowing how to write.
If Newman is sincere, he’d look into the views differing from Hoare’s and directly reply to them.
Idiotlogues are known for blindly cheering someone or some movement without criticism.
How can a reality be fact-based?
Too bad Chris can’t get a job teaching grammar to people who he trolls against.
They’d have to pay the students a good chunk of change for that.
I could follow someone elses’s route (initials IS) which proceeded to ignore Chris after he lodged a rather childish barb at him.
He does it again. Off topic trolling.
Fact based opinions and raw facts to be precise.
Matter that I deal with over sensationalistic claims that aren’t so fact based.
BTW, grammar pertains to writing as well.
Chris
You aren’t normal, which makes your “normal language comment” to not be so pertinent.
Children are known for getting off topic when the discussion is on matter they know little about.
Well see Mike. your nonshorthand stuff reads exactly like your shorthand stuff.
For instance, here is a paragraph in Mike language:
“The G word (genocide) continues to be used against the Serbs. Compiled research data indicates that within the year to year and a half of Kosovo fighting before the NATO bombing, there were about 2,000 fatalities out of the province’s 2 million population. About 500 of the 2,000 casualties were Serbs, who at the time were said to make up 10% of the population. Per capita wise, Serbs suffered considerably more. A good number of the Albanian casualties included those who showed a willingness to work within the existing government framework. I was forwarded statistical data confirming that Washington DC has had greater annual murder rates than what has been referenced to Kosovo. Regarding the stated pre-NATO bombing Kosovo conflict death toll, feel free to forward any well established documentation to the contrary.”
Here it is in Normal Person. I have included editorial comments:
“The accusation of ‘genocide’ ["G word" serves no purpose] continues to be used against the Serbs. Data indicate [subject-word agreement -- "data" is plural!]that within the year to year-and-a-half of fighting in Kosovo ["Kosovo fighting"? Kosovo is a noun, not an adjective] before the NATO bombing, there were about 2,000 fatalities out of the province’s population of 2 million. About 500 of these [casualties and fatalities are different things -- word "casualty" replaced. Also, the 2000 figure has already been given] were Serbs, who at the time made up 10% of the population [why "said to make up"? According to whom?]. Serbs suffered considerably more per capita ["per capita wise"???]. A good number of the Albanian casualties [AGAIN -- casualties or fatalities?] included people who had shown a willingness to work within the existing government framework. I was forwarded statistical data [what data? from whom? we need a source] confirming that Washington DC has had greater annual murder rates than what was recorded in Kosovo. Feel free to forward any reliable documentation [what is "well-established documentation"? It has a good pedigree?] that contradicts what I have stated about the stated [stated by whom? by you? I can't change this until I know the source] pre-NATO bombing Kosovo conflict death toll.”
The last sentence should really be placed in parentheses or in a footnote, as it does not follow from the flow of the paragraph.
Mike language:
“Matter that I deal with over sensationalistic claims that aren’t so fact based.”
Normal-person language:
“I deal with issues like these, not poorly backed sensationalist claims.”
If he wanted to, he can do that to countless others. Note the obsessive/compulsive effort on his part.
In any event, why believe him when he admitted to lying about a translation? A lie that I didn’t buy into.
Moreover, try dealing with the content of what’s said.
BTW Chris, an Ivy League English professor said that you’re off the wall.
Why doesn’t RTTV hire you for their web editing? There’re frequent snafus there.
Normal people don’t typically carry on at length with people who carry on like yourself.
I’ve a charitable side to me.
Chris Doss: Failed Editor and Troll.
“BTW Chris, an Ivy League English professor said that you’re off the wall.”
The Pope told me that you’re a kleptomaniac.
His idea of a great comeback.
“Chris Doss: Failed Editor and Troll.”
Mike, I have a job. As an editor. As a matter of fact, I’m editing “Forming a Priori Neutron Spectra of Nuclear Facilities Using Maxwellian Spectra” right now. Thus, I cannot logically be a failed editor, now can I?
Prove it! (Dossesque reply, with my not really caring to know)
You’re a clear failure in other ways Chris.
It shows by how you’ve carried on here.
Chris:
I appeared on an hour long panel with Khrushcheva, Zagorsky and Bukovsky and was paid an hourly fee that you no doubt haven’t come close to earning.
On a prime time NY talk radio show, I held my own with a leading Muslim cleric and the editor of the largest Albanian language newspaper in the US.
I got high marks at those gigs, to go along with some of my written material getting picked up at big time venues.
One upsmanship lacks an appeal to many.
I could easily ignore you and probably should.
On the other hand, why let troll like behavior affect my appearing or not appearing here?
Clearly its time to close this thread down. What am I going to do with you jerk offs?
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.