Military Review

How bad is freedom of speech in Russia?

48
If you believe the rating of "Reporters without Borders", then longing and sadness. Russia took the 148-place in the world ranking for the year 2016. And on this subject, a groan and cry began in many media on our territory, the majority of which we used to call either “yellow” or liberal.


How bad is freedom of speech in Russia?


Some of our pseudo-politicians do not get tired of broadcasting about this.

With them, perhaps, we will begin, and we will finish them. For example, it is ok Sobchak. Let us leave aside what she is carrying on “Rain”, a TV channel that is included in the main television broadcasting network. This is for the audience with very very strong nerves. But the fact that no one there does not infringe and limit.

But when Sobchak begins to sob in his voice about the fact that we do not have freedom of speech at the show at Solovyov, which is on the central TV channel “Russia”, this is overkill. And obviously from Sobchak. Not from the RTR.

All these moans about “free 90's” are understandable. Then you could carry any nonsense. And what you know, and what you just sucked from the finger. Or not from a finger.

Today this is simply impossible, because there is the Internet. Firmly on its feet and sheltered in its open spaces, thousands of large and small media, as well as bloggers. And they are all ready to check-recheck what has been said on the screens, so that later (if anything happens) to arrange what is called boiling and throwing.

Freedom on the screens is more than enough. Who wants to whine - whines. Who wants to broadcast about the imminent end of the world - please. Those who simply want to copy-paste stolen content from the Internet on television, posing as their own thoughts, are not a problem either.

Each channel works for its audience to the best of its abilities and perversity.

And with censorship, we in this regard are very bad. How else to explain polupushnye and immoral shows, in which, by the way, the same Sobchak plows the full program on TNT?

Say, politics? And its enough. And the same things different channels presented in different ways. Here is an example, the first thing that came to mind is Timur and Amur, a goat with a tiger. Someone showed it as a funny case from the life of animals, someone instantly gave it a political background. And someone howled about the violation of the rights of goats in Russia if the tiger would really gobble up the goat. And again he brought the idea that everything in Russia is bad.

In no way do I claim that everything is fine here.

Another question is that events can be interpreted in different ways, but the essence is difficult to change. Not that time. But who says that there is censorship?

Yes, censorship would not interfere precisely in the moments of search. As with the "crucified boy" in the Donbas. But we really are not very censored. Not like in countries with developed democracies. But there and with the freedom of speech, everything is far from the way it is with us.

Of course, if for freedom of speech to take caricatures about terrorist attacks or catastrophes - then yes, such freedom in the same France is a shaft.

But for some reason, silence and grace on the topic of lawlessness on the part of the "refugees". Across Europe.

And here it is worth clearly distinguishing two points: journalism and propaganda (bold).

Any state-owned media, whether it be Europe, the USA, Russia, Ukraine, or China, is primarily a propaganda tool. And the primary task of this tool is to show how good things are with us and how bad things are with them. And that's fine.

Abnormally, again, in the performance of our TV channels, outright foolishness like “The US is a dark empire, everyone in the States wishes the evil of Russia - Russia is the bright side of power, we will win! And now with the help of SMS, we will collect a Russian boy, Igor, for an operation in the USA. ”

But the crap in the performance of TV channels is nothing but a complete lack of control over them.

The Internet. Different sources estimate differently the number of those who prefer it to television. But it is already clear that the Internet is winning more and more viewers / readers every year.

It is understandable: who are not interested in propaganda on a blue screen, he will climb into the network, to his trusted sources. The main thing - there is a choice. For "Military Secrets" is enough, for whom the controversy on the "Military Review" serve.

Kohl talked about "IN". If we talk about censorship and lack of freedom of speech. We can not say that we suffer from this. If we talk about censorship, everything is simple here: “Roskomnadzor” is built solely to the point that we did not tell you one time ten times for an article that ISIL is a banned organization in the Russian Federation. But this does not go under the article "atrocities of censorship", it is just more in the department of foolishness.

Well, the main income from us is fines for using obscene language in the comments of readers. Here, of course, the only question is the effectiveness of moderation and the internal culture of commenting.

To say that we generally suffer from a lack of freedom of speech, the language does not turn.

Criticism? Yes, no question at all. Many individuals and ministries snatched from us. Perhaps only Putin and Lavrov did not touch. But this is not a question of censorship or opinion imposed on us, but the choice of the editorial board. We support the course that the president is trying to implement, with all that follows. Although, if we talk about criticism of Putin, then, I remind you, we did not note a “reversal” in relations with Turkey with shouts of “Hurray!” Rather the opposite.

Who wants to water on the Internet everyone and everything, too, as if not experiencing problems with it. Almost does not test. How many were blocked by the media for one reason or another by Roskomnadzor? Less than porn sites or torrents. Of those who have blocked freedom of expression, I recall only “Grani” and Kasparov. Kasparov, even with a stretch, cannot be called his own, “Edge” ... Well, they crossed the line, like “Censor” with “Correspondent”.

So this is not so much a struggle with freedom of speech, as a struggle with a different system of influence on the audience.

The absence of this very freedom is, in my opinion, the same myth as the interception of the means of communication on the Internet by the special services. That is, perhaps it is, but not for everyone. Let's just say, this in no way affected the immediate environment in terms of geography.

Same thing with the media. If by “freedom of speech” we understand what was in 90, that is, the total spitting and maneuvering of everything that could be reached, then yes, we have no such freedom today.

But it is not there, not because the state is tying hand and foot media. Because the viewer / reader has become smarter. Part at least. Who remained at the level of amoebo-consumer, that is the First Channel above the roof. Or TNT. Each sandpiper - its own swamp. And every toad.

The main problem of the lack of freedom of speech in Russia, perhaps, lies in the fact that those who scream about it most of all want a different word. It is in the spirit of 90's. Sheer humiliation and repentance. Well, and stories about how many who stole.

How many who stole, and they tell us. Unlike "them." They do not steal. They are all decent and correct.

Well, forgive me if we do not justify democratic hopes.

But it is precisely this freedom that we have for more than those who fight for it. We quietly broadcast without any infringements and “Freedom”, and RBC, and CNN. And they began to have problems only when RT began to be oppressed in the stronghold of free-thinking. And here, please, the mirror answer.

As I understand it, the term “freedom of speech” must be interpreted as follows: a word must be free that Russia humiliates with. According to western canons, the free word must be exposed and exposed. Open and flaunt. But - exclusively in relation to Russia.

Democrats prefer to keep their garbage out of the hut not to take it out.

And where, if not in the United States, show Russia exclusively from the side that Mordor and all that? This is where propaganda and censorship go hand in hand.

Yes, a couple of words about censorship personally on my own.

They talk a lot about supposedly total wiretapping of everyone and everything. Well, how in a totalitarian country without it? Moreover, under the regime headed by a former KGB officer.

I, naturally, communicate / talked with representatives of different countries. I had two subscribers from North America. One by one in the USA and Canada, from among our readers. It was difficult to communicate, but possible. Because of the time difference. But do not.

Our communication did not last long. There is no point in talking about prices, weather and lifestyle. I was interested in something completely different. But when at the word "Crimea" or "Donbass" a person makes "terrible" eyes and crumples, ends the conversation ... Freedom and democracy just stinks.

On the other hand, when communicating with representatives of Israel, Belarus and Ukraine, I do not know how many articles they said. And nothing, no one sat down for some reason. Although in Ukraine, if they were listening, they would surely be stunned.

Now about censorship and prohibitions for the media, from the point of view of the reporter.

In the summer, there was some kind of demarche when we left the ARMY-2017 ahead of time and I wrote two very critical articles about the mess that was going on there. I didn’t like this very much at the Ministry of Defense, I had several conversations with various representatives from a lieutenant colonel and above. I remained unconvinced, although the comrade officers tried to smooth it out.

Now, if we really had somehow violated the totalitarian rights of the media, then such performances simply had to follow the punishment in the form of a ban. I admit, I was ready for this.

However, nothing of the kind followed. Nobody demanded to remove articles, no one demanded refutations or something like that. Indeed, in one moment we were incorrectly informed by a person who did not possess information. I wrote about it, apologized, the incident was settled.

And after a while I was still shooting tankers, motorized riflemen, pilots, and rebels.

Yes, the army is more difficult to shoot than anything else. Especially where there are corresponding vultures. But - not impossible.

Of course, all the representatives of the Ministry of Defense want the picture to be like on a “Star”: we will win everybody and all that. This is normal. Only sometimes it does not work.

But some kind of total “take there and not take here”, we have never met yet. There are, of course, nuances, especially in Rabi. But this again is understandable and understandable.

I would like, of course, to shoot more, but here, as king-father from the press service of the Western Military District, I will dispose.

I do not quite understand what other freedom of speech Sobchaks need. Nobody forbids criticizing, exposing, publicizing (Navalny will confirm, if anything), making conclusions and analyzing. Neither Navalny, nor Sobchak, nor Albats ...

So what's missing? Drive? Or, maybe, there is just a shortage of “truths”?

But forgive me, this is already the choice of everyone writing or filming. Except, of course, state channels.
Author:
48 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mar.Tirah
    Mar.Tirah 28 November 2017 06: 49 New
    +9
    A few more years of such "freedom", and the country will drown in bile, and spitting Russophobia, divided into repentant boys, beggars, and thieves. Putin said that we must separate the flies from cutlets, but it seems to our ideologists (. If they are going to save country of course?), yet oh how far to the State Department
    1. long in stock.
      long in stock. 28 November 2017 07: 30 New
      +9
      there is a downside. the more these individuals are cast out the more people try to get to the truth. the law is immutable, any action gives rise to opposition .. the percentage of people who are tired of these spit is growing rapidly.
      1. Grandfather
        Grandfather 28 November 2017 07: 45 New
        16
        How bad is freedom of speech in Russia?
        Yes, everything is fine with freedom of speech, we scratch languages ​​on any topic! and this is surprising, at a time when they were planting "for the bazaar", the country was developing at a tremendous pace, now they were allowed to chat in the factory, but only the "chosen ones" were developing, looking condescendingly from above: chat ... chat ... tongue
        1. long in stock.
          long in stock. 28 November 2017 16: 17 New
          +1
          and so for this they allowed ... so that the hands didn’t get to the point.
        2. DMB_95
          DMB_95 28 November 2017 17: 32 New
          +1
          Quote: Dead Day
          ... yes, everything is fine with freedom of speech, we scratch languages ​​on any topic!

          Yes, everything is bad with freedom of speech. All days in all the media they carry such nonsense, including about the "lack" of freedom of speech. And no one fills these fountains. Poorly .
        3. Primoos
          Primoos 28 November 2017 20: 13 New
          +3
          Quote: Dead Day
          How bad is freedom of speech in Russia?
          Yes, everything is fine with freedom of speech, we scratch languages ​​on any topic! and this is surprising, at a time when they were planting "for the bazaar", the country was developing at a tremendous pace, now they were allowed to chat in the factory, but only the "chosen ones" were developing, looking condescendingly from above: chat ... chat ... tongue

          The people begin to understand the motives of Comrade Stalin and the need for 37-38 years. The country had to be saved from numerous Sloths of Gozmans and other Novodvorsky.
      2. Vasya Vassin
        Vasya Vassin 28 November 2017 08: 51 New
        +4
        I completely agree. But how many nerve cells are lost in the process. After the appearance of this Judas, I could not come to my senses for three days.
    2. solzh
      solzh 28 November 2017 09: 27 New
      +6
      But they have full freedom of speech there. Try to say that you are against sodomism and for normal relations, shut up at least.
    3. siberalt
      siberalt 28 November 2017 10: 34 New
      +3
      Judging by what they banyat at some Russian-language forums, this rating is not far from the truth. winked Enemy NGOs need to be closed, then with "freedom" it will be easier.
      Respect to the author!
      1. jjj
        jjj 28 November 2017 11: 22 New
        +3
        Now the concept of censorship is interpreted somewhat incorrectly. Censorship is when materials are given to the censor for approval before publication. And he removes from them everything that he considers wrong or harmful. The situation is when Roskomnadzor replenishes the budget of the subject of the Federation with fines as censorship
    4. Samaritan
      Samaritan 28 November 2017 18: 18 New
      0
      Quote: Mar. Tira
      A few more years of such "freedom", and the country will drown in bile, and spitting Russophobia, divided into repentant boys, beggars, and thieves. Putin said that we must separate the flies from cutlets, but it seems to our ideologists (. If they are going to save country of course?), yet oh how far to the State Department

      But what Germans think about freedom of speech from the State Department:

  2. aszzz888
    aszzz888 28 November 2017 06: 58 New
    +4
    If you believe the rating of "Reporters Without Borders" -

    ... why believe this sharaga? ... angry we live in ourselves, and see how things really are ...
    1. Chertt
      Chertt 28 November 2017 07: 18 New
      +7
      We are on opposite sides of the barricade. And to listen to the enemy, let alone shout to him, "that he is wrong in his opinion towards us," stupidity or betrayal. The enemy must be brought down
  3. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 28 November 2017 07: 02 New
    +9
    it's overkill
    she carried, as in the training manual. the same thing, not giving Soloviev the opportunity to ask her a question. Soloviev was right that she emptied her intestines and showed her fifth point. !
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather 28 November 2017 07: 34 New
      +8
      Quote: Uncle Lee
      it's overkill
      she carried, as in the training manual. the same thing, not giving Soloviev the opportunity to ask her a question. Soloviev was right that she emptied her intestines and showed her fifth point. !

      both were nauseous, Uncle Lee, to be honest ... Solovyov, hysterical as an institute, the Horse, memorized repeating the training manual ... there was a disgusting sight. no one won. hi
      1. mervino2007
        mervino2007 28 November 2017 07: 47 New
        +4
        It was a meeting of the deaf. The horse "bleated methodically," Soloviev replied a second time.
      2. Uncle lee
        Uncle lee 28 November 2017 07: 47 New
        13
        Quote: Grandfather is caste
        both sick

        Soloviev hysteria, because everything was not going according to his plans ... And they have one stable, but different stalls. hi
        1. long in stock.
          long in stock. 28 November 2017 16: 18 New
          +1
          Was it a battle for oats?
  4. Herculesic
    Herculesic 28 November 2017 07: 13 New
    +4
    Just under the guise of freedom of speech, they promote the desire to fill the country with dirt, to lie and to spit! It has nothing to do with true freedom of speech!
  5. Chertt
    Chertt 28 November 2017 07: 14 New
    +5
    "If you believe the rating of" Reporters Without Borders "- then melancholy and sadness. Russia took 148th place in the world ranking for 2016"
    -And why do we need the opinion of "Reporters without Borders" and any other paid public. They do not hide their Russophobia, they are even proud of it. And we persistently look through these “drawn” ratings and try to prove that this is not true.
    1. d ^ Amir
      d ^ Amir 28 November 2017 09: 48 New
      +1
      Well, it’s not in vain that they are called:
      Reporters Without Borders - CIA Without Borders;
      Doctors without borders - doctors without drugs (the same CIA);
  6. Sergey-svs
    Sergey-svs 28 November 2017 07: 26 New
    +5
    If you believe the rating of "Reporters Without Borders" - then melancholy and sadness. Russia took 148th place in the world ranking for 2016 ...

    Well, Russia is all gone - what to do and how now to live on to the conscientious liberal in this Mordor ?! request Urgently need to release Akhedzhakova and call Kolya from Urengoy! lol In the meantime, we are starting to conscientiously cry and repent, squeezing a slave from us drop by drop and trying to live not according to a lie. crying After all, no one except us is for your and our freedom. In the sky Bonner, in the land of Haikin, in the water The Sixth Fleet! fellow We are all Georgians. yes Only in this way - we will win! laughing laughing laughing
  7. 3x3zsave
    3x3zsave 28 November 2017 07: 27 New
    +4
    Good article.
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather 28 November 2017 07: 37 New
      +6
      Quote: 3x3zsave
      Good article.

      Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Article 104.1. Confiscation of property is a good article ... for the oligarchy.
      1. Dr_engie
        Dr_engie 28 November 2017 08: 38 New
        +2
        Which apparently does not shine for him
      2. Vasya Vassin
        Vasya Vassin 28 November 2017 08: 52 New
        +2
        Yes, this article will be better. But is it used, or is it just hanging in the UK with a dead weight like a rusty sword in a sheath?
      3. Uncle lee
        Uncle lee 28 November 2017 09: 24 New
        +7
        Quote: Grandfather is caste
        for the oligarchy.

        Criminal Code Article 275. High treason - This article is also good!
  8. ibnvladimir
    ibnvladimir 28 November 2017 08: 28 New
    +6
    "I always thought that democracy is the power of the people, but Comrade Roosevelt lucidly explained to me that democracy is the power of the American people."
  9. Seraphimamur
    Seraphimamur 28 November 2017 09: 02 New
    +1
    In the USSR, people wanted freedom of speech, but so much poison got permissiveness and Mr. is pouring from the media, and on taxpayers' money.
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 28 November 2017 09: 09 New
      0
      Quote: Seraphimamur
      so much poison and Mr. pours from the media and on the money of taxpayers.

      So taxpayers themselves voted for such an ideology (party) laughing
  10. Boris55
    Boris55 28 November 2017 09: 05 New
    +1
    Quote: Roman Skomorokhov
    Now about censorship and prohibitions ...

    Having come to power, any party seeks to spread its ideology and prohibit any other that undermines its foundations. It is forbidden not to reporters to print anything, reporters are those who print what is needed. Do we have freedom of speech? No, we do not have freedom of speech, if only because at the state level there is a list of banned literature that from year to year only gets more: http://minjust.ru/ru/extremist-materials
    In this list there are already separate works by both L.N. Tolstoy and A.S. Pushkin ... As they say - dashing trouble began.
  11. prior
    prior 28 November 2017 09: 11 New
    +5
    On central Russian channels, not that freedom of speech,
    and real verbal diarrhea, verbal bacchanalia.
    All sorts of Gozmans, Emanuel, and other "horses" simply defecate verbally.
    Where are you, "savage" Soviet censorship ?!
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 28 November 2017 09: 34 New
      +2
      Quote: prior
      All sorts of Gozmans, Emanuel, and other "horses" simply defecate verbally.

      For that, against their background, Chubais almost looks like an angel laughing That's why they are sitting there ...
  12. Antianglosax
    Antianglosax 28 November 2017 09: 27 New
    +4
    We mainly censor anti-Zionist, anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish materials, and this is unpleasant, because these materials are mostly true. The rest, in the majority, do not care.
    With a friend who has been living in New York for 20 years, I only communicate via Skype. On the phone or by mail, he refuses tightly - he is simply afraid of what he speaks without hesitation.
  13. Sinbad
    Sinbad 28 November 2017 09: 32 New
    +1
    What would be true freedom of speech, all this “liberalism” needs to be torn up languages, otherwise instead of the Word there are only slops!
  14. Engineer engineer
    Engineer engineer 28 November 2017 10: 32 New
    +4
    So what is missing? Drive?

    Of course, I intuitively guess, but ...
    Speak clamp? So you have to CLICK! Do not give "express an opinion"? ECHO - plug, RAIN - dry! And any amunels with sytiny directly from the studio to withdraw!
  15. 1536
    1536 28 November 2017 10: 42 New
    +4
    Freedom of speech is not an opportunity to speak all nonsense about and without reason, but a responsible statement of one’s thoughts in oral or written form, the desire to share with others what worries, what is painful, which people may not understand at the moment or not know ( as part of maintaining state secrets, of course). But what about the calls to "break Russia down the Urals ridge"? And to the calls "to restrain Russia in every way now, since then it will be too late"? And statements about the genetic component of the people ...? Is that freedom of speech? Not!
    Why is the mat in a public place an administrative punishment followed, and for the equivalent nonsense that pours into our ears every day they give grants and assign high ratings? They would try to do it in the USA. There, any act against the state is prosecuted by law, and criticism must be justified and documented.
  16. vladimirvn
    vladimirvn 28 November 2017 11: 00 New
    +2
    With freedom of speech, we are fine. Only our words, an empty phrase for the authorities. The dog barks, the wind wears.
  17. BAI
    BAI 28 November 2017 11: 23 New
    +1
    For that over the hill with the freedom of speech - excellent:
    as the leading German media have unanimously declared, all Russians who allowed themselves to be indignant at the "fiery" speech of Nikolai Desyatnichenko in the Bundestag to justify the "innocently tortured" German corporal in the "so-called Stalingrad Cauldron" are "fascists and shit." That is how we were all called in the materials of the publications Spiegel, Zeit, Franfurter Rundshau.
  18. Pacifist
    Pacifist 28 November 2017 11: 27 New
    +1
    In general, everything is true, no one here for expressing an opinion, if they do not directly contradict the law, does not kill and does not prosecute.
    I don’t really agree, Roman, only with this specific conclusion:
    Abnormally, again, in the performance of our TV channels, outright foolishness like “The US is a dark empire, everyone in the States wishes the evil of Russia - Russia is the bright side of power, we will win! And now with the help of SMS, we will collect a Russian boy, Igor, for an operation in the USA. ”

    There is no contradiction in logic.
    The fact is that these are not entirely related areas, there are a number of operations that are not performed in the West or they are doing very expensively, and people are on the contrary going to us. In this case, if you look from the other side, everything looks exactly the same "Russia is Mordor. But! They go to Russia because there the operation is cheaper / better / is not done anywhere else." politics with medicine is connected of course, but indirectly. It looks, at first glance, of course strange, but it is necessary to separate. Saving someone’s life, albeit in the form of an operation in the country of “partners” does not in any way humiliate our country. We in other applied areas of medicine are no less strong, but in some ways behind. The problem is still the same. Having plundered all over the world, the USA and others like them, had the opportunity to invest in the most expensive areas of applied research in medicine. Hence the problems, a number of operations or treatment programs can be done only abroad. In fact, they do not go to the USA as a country, they go for treatment to the clinic / to the specialist who is most competent in this field and our specialists usually recommend such treatment to them, realizing that they are powerless to help. Yes, I believe that our country should get rid of this dependence. Case for small. Find somewhere a couple of decades of time for research and development of techniques and ~ 500 billion $ of free money to finance work. I have doubts that we have much more important, priority matters for which they are worth spending. Yes, this is also important, but with limited funding, priorities have to be set. Of course, you can argue on this subject for a long time, enough for an article hi , but this, let’s say, is an opinion based on my observations.
    For the rest, I agree, the nagging of liberoids, regarding freedom of speech, looks very much like the paid howl of professionals at a funeral.
  19. Romey
    Romey 28 November 2017 13: 44 New
    +1
    There are no problems with freedom of speech for an individual as such. But there are hearing problems, for those who have words addressed. As for the sphere of public policy, then obviously everything is not going smoothly. Access to the broad media is available only to those political forces that have powerful financial resources (these are either the state budget, or the oligarchs, or foreign benefactors, and this is obviously with the blessing of the authorities). Plus, support for the presidential administration is needed. Example: tens, if not hundreds of millions of rubles are needed to fully finance the presidential campaign. Question: where do they get a priori from an honest and incorruptible candidate, if these advantages in the Russian Federation necessarily imply "poverty" (relative)? Hence the conclusion: the sphere of public policy regarding elections should be financed only and only by the state, on the basis of clearly defined, unambiguous legislation providing equal opportunities for passive suffrage. This is freedom of speech in public politics, and not the current theater of vanity and hypocrisy, called democracy.
  20. Sverdlov
    Sverdlov 28 November 2017 15: 47 New
    0
    I really liked the lady's pose on the headband ... :)
  21. azambuja
    azambuja 28 November 2017 17: 59 New
    0
    I live in Portugal. Here people are very careful in words. When you ask about someone, they smile and don't say anything. Talking about politics is almost never conducted, and if they do, then with caution. About the times of Salazar (the dictator here was like Stalin) - in general, almost in my ear and with an eye out so that no one else would hear. After Russia, it’s somehow strange even. In Russia, everything is wide open and snot open. And here, no ...
  22. Prosha
    Prosha 28 November 2017 18: 46 New
    0
    And I would have “put things in order” for freedom of speech on the place of power structures for a month and on TV and on the network no more, and then I would have released all these Venediktovs in bulk and immediately asked in the square - did I like it? so go and don’t ... Or he scored a special unit and periodically drove a conscience through the ass with a frequency of once every two months, depending on the bleached fabrications.
  23. sergej30003
    sergej30003 28 November 2017 21: 31 New
    0
    "If you believe the rating of" Reporters Without Borders ", then melancholy and sadness. Russia took 148th place in the world ranking for 2016." with freedom from Reporters, the United States, of course, in the forefront, Western partners also distributed the highest pedestal, whoever finances, he dances the girl, pay attention to dummies, only spend time
  24. sgapich
    sgapich 29 November 2017 10: 29 New
    0
    Let us leave aside what it carries on Rain, a television channel that is part of the main broadcasting network.


    Roman, please correct the sentence. "Rain" - NOT included in the main broadcast network. It is not included in the broadcasting network at all. Connection is possible only through a cable operator, and for most operators it comes in a separate package from one channel (for my operator, for example, 240 rubles / month for “Rain” only), either via satellite or via the Internet.
  25. noodles
    noodles 2 December 2017 21: 22 New
    0
    Good article ! The author is trying to understand the very concept of FREEDOM OF SPEECH and what it is with us! I express my personal opinion- In our freedom of speech, they mostly understand ACCOMMODATION — just talk nonsense — criticize problems you don’t understand — and most importantly, mothers — exile above the authorities and the country! Then you have the freedom of speech! But in any state, even shitty, there is a RED FEATURE for which it is simply indecent and illegal to enter! I agree with commentators that some media are already disgusting to read! Well, if everything’s not right for you, but as you don’t say, go to the Square and instead of eggs beat the tongue! And the TV SHOCK-SHOW-well, this is already krants! Tell me the country where a team of Russophobes and outright enemies wandered from channel to channel and FREE WATERING THE STATE AND AUTHORITY BY HELP! I have only one question for those in power, FOR WHAT THEY DO IT, they are small children and do not understand what this will lead to !!!! As for criticism, then Criticizing Suggest-but do not be a bastard wrapped in a foreign bill! In morality, we fell below the plinth — some work, others skillfully use the freedom to bother!
  26. would
    would 2 December 2017 23: 27 New
    0
    Here from the very beginning it is worth determining what is that very “freedom of speech” in the context under discussion? Here Roman gives an example, an example that in VO condemned the current government and did not block anyone. However, it is worth recalling that VO is an independent resource whose audience is much smaller than the main federal channels on which there is an “editorial policy”. That is, an absolutely clear order for certain topics, clear criteria for which topics can be, and even more clear which topics cannot be raised on a separate program or on the TV channel as a whole.

    As a result, we will not see a series of news and a number of individuals on the main channels of the country. For example, Navalny, according to Pozner (from their debate on the Rain), he will not be allowed to invite the channel’s leadership to his program. As for me it is very beneficial to Navalny, but I'm not talking about that.

    So in the whole modern world with the media this is the situation. You will not see disagreeable editions of news in almost any media despite the absence of a direct legislative ban, and you will see only good news and often with a strictly pleasing interpretation. And thus, there is no legal prohibition, but in fact it exists because in all countries a huge number of people use a small group of the most popular media. That is what censorship of the 21st century is. And that is why no matter what country in the world you are in, if you want to know what is happening, you will be forced to look at many different sources and critically compare information.

    But some kind of total “take there and not take here”, we have never met yet. There are, of course, nuances, especially in Rabi. But this again is understandable and understandable.


    And the same Denis Mokrushin aka twower (I think everyone knows who this is and what he is famous for) says the exact opposite, I’ll probably quote

    ... the MO is completely closed to any media writing something other than "life has become easier, life has become more fun," etc.
    Under Serdyukov, there were many problems, but a variety of materials could be read about army life. Now from the media about the realities of the army, one can hardly find out anything. Further it will be even more dreary, because the military is expressly forbidden to report any information about the service. You offer your acquaintances: “Let’s write about the widespread exactions from bonuses, when money is handed over to the bosses, for repairs that have already been completed on paper, for the purchase of furniture that has been purchased and other, and so on.” "No, it’s not necessary that you. They’ll calculate - they will fire you. There is such money involved, there may be problems not only in the service." I’ll make a record about requisitions somehow (excerpts from court sentences), but some living examples would be much more interesting.
    Let CAST write analytical articles. Their glade.