Suchergebnisse

In Dec 1953 after Krushchev criticized the Soviet Press, a campaign was begun in the USSR which showed that the newspapers were generally offering nothing more to the reader than official communiques & were not sources of news. The reasons for this change in attitude toward the press were due, on the one hand, to the fact that the diminishing interest in the press was reducing its effectiveness as a weapon of the Party, & on the other, to the desire that the process of liberalization, thought to be inevitable, should be conducted within the framework of the party & not outside of it. Despite important developments in the way of news, the Party never relinquished control over the press, a fact which became obvious when no mention was made of the happenings in Hungary until long after those events had occurred. 2 obstacles oppose themselves to the development of newsworthy characteristics in the Soviet Press: all news must necessarily contribute to the improvement of the reader; the press was created in connection with admin've agencies, pol'al & union groups, & remains extremely specialized. This specialization led inevitably to uniformity since, outside its own field, the newspapers merely quoted the same articles verbatim. The reform took place while stating that neither the structure nor the objectives of the press needed to be modified. The change dealt mainly with those things which might be considered informative or dangerous. A certain number of problems were dealt with in the area of internat & internal problems & objectivity was increased. Furthermore, writers were no longer content to simply supply eulogies on the activities of their enterprises but engaged in criticisms. Finally, the number of letters from readers increased, & the tone of criticism became more apparent. An effort to improve the presentation of news & to introduce a wider variety of such news has been attempted, but so far is a long way from being greatly effective. Tr by J. A. Broussard from IPSA.

Etter at Tyrkia i 1999 fikk status som sokerland til EU og forhandlinger om medlemskap startet i 2005, har tyrkerne lovet a imotekomme EU-krav om demokratisering av landet og en losning av det 'kurdiske problemei'. En demokratiseringsprosess forutsetter imidlertid kritiske og frie medier. Men bade Tyrkias vestlige allierte og folk flest i landet er bekymret for dagens situasjon, der journalister, forfattere og folkevalgte politikere fengsles for sine ytringer som av myndighetene er oppfattet som formidling av propaganda som kommer den kurdiske frigjoringsbevegelse (PKK) til gode. Basert pa intervjuer med personer med ekspertkunnskap fra Tyrkia og et utvalg av avisartikler og kommentarer fra tyrkiske papiraviser, utforskes det hvordan tyrkiske medier styres i forhold til det kurdiske opproret i Tyrkia, samt hvorvidt det regierende Rettferdighets-og utviklingsparti (AKP) kan bidra til a demokratisere landet. Analysen viser at under Erdogan og hans AKP har medienes handlingsrom med hensyn til kurderkonflikten, og for orvrig ogsa generelt, ikke blitt saerlig bedre enn under hans forgjengere When Turkey was granted candidate status to EU membership in 1999 and negotiations started in 2005, hopes were high that the country would meet EU requirements for democratization and that a solution would be found to the so-called 'Kurdish problem'. However, a democratization process implies a critical and free media. Turkey's citizens and Western allies are now following recent developments with concern. Journalists, writers and elected politicians have been imprisoned for their work, some held on terror-related charges or propaganda and others for allegedly participating in antigovernment plots. With this as a backdrop, to what extent is Erdogan and his ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) democratizing the country? My aim in this article is to answer the question and explore the extent to which media censorship and control is occurring, in particular regarding Kurdish insurgency in Turkey. I make use of primary and secondary data, including interviews with media experts in Turkey and a selection of newspaper articles from six Turkish newspapers. The Turkish government already exercises a tight hand over Turkey's traditional media, yet, as the analysis reveals, under Erdogan the government controls of freedom of expression and press (in particular concerning the Kurdish conflict) are tightening further. Adapted from the source document.

Ten experts representing universities, newspapers and institutions provide their short comments on the Norwegian Parliament's address (2008-2009) regarding current and future foreign policy developments. Some of the given comments are general in nature whereas others target a particular part of the document such as immigration and Nordic co-operation. The general comments describe the address as predictable, status conforming and stable, but criticisms are given for downplaying the importance of the European Union. However, a commentator points out that this document still remains the most important source for understanding Norwegian foreign policy since it explains Norway's security policy, foreign policy goals and role in international organizations. L. Pitkaniemi