Here is a little wakeup call for all the political know-nothings in the
Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, an outspoken critic of President Vladimir Putin, was shot dead on Saturday at her apartment block in central
Chilling...to say the least.
"The first thing that comes to mind is that Anna was killed for her professional activities. We don't see any other motive for this terrible crime," said Vitaly Yaroshevsky, a deputy editor of the newspaper where Politkovskaya worked.
I could be mistaken, but I’m not aware of any journalist being killed for opposing President Bush’s policies.
Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, a shareholder in Politkovskaya's newspaper Novaya Gazeta, called the killing a "savage crime."
"It is a blow to the entire democratic, independent press," Gorbachev told Interfax news agency. "It is a grave crime against the country, against all of us."
This is kind of odd. If you read my post two weeks ago, you know that Gorby is talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Politkovskya is quoted in the article regarding her views on President Putin: "I dislike him for ... his cynicism, for his racism, for his lies ... for the massacre of the innocents…"
This sounds like the Daily Kos talking about President Bush.
…she wrote in her book "Putin's
Russia" which was published overseas but not in . Russia
This doesn’t sound familiar. Has Bush banned any books recently?
Her death came on the day Putin turned 54.
I am not aware of any anti-Bush reporters being killed for his birthday…
Bottom-line: Before you infer that Bush is a Nazi, look at history (or present) and put your ideas in some sort of context. Anyone can say anything about the President of the
Remember what drives the media in today’s world: money. Some (a.k.a. idiots/Democrats) say this is bad and proves that we should have a state run news media. We always hear them bitch and moan about PBS and NPR losing funding. (I feel like quoting JT, but I won’t.) I guess their basic idea is that if the government funds the news, it will ensure that there is no conflict of interest with advertisers and will help avoid the dumbing down of programming (again, I am just guessing because this makes no sense to me).
The problem with this childish idealism is that it neglects one important fact: everyone has something that motivates them. Every reporter, producer, and script writer has an agenda in every newsroom. If you understand this, then you will understand that money may be the lesser of many evils.
In a situation where you have state run media, one party could (theoretically) control the slant of the news. This is very bad and should be avoided at all costs.
This is almost what exists in
I don’t care what anyone else says, I believe the American media is still the best in the world. Even if it wasn’t, a lot of us can still get foreign news fairly easily (BBC, Al-Jazeera, etc.).
The only way to ensure a truly independent media is to allow anyone to report on whatever they want, whenever they want. If certain people can make money off of it, let them do it. It's not a big deal. The fact is that if you want to know information, you can learn it. You may want to avoid CNN or Fox News when it's time to find out good info, but there are many good sources at our disposal. Forget government regulations, it will only lead to more government control, which will lead to more dead reporters.Stumble It!