Russia's Permanent Turn Away From Freedom - The Atlantic | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Media

Russia's Permanent Turn Away From Freedom – The Atlantic

Published

2 years ago

 on


While I was researching Russian investigative journalism a little over a decade ago, several of the people I interviewed used variations of the same metaphor to explain why Vladimir Putin had not stamped out the country’s independent media: They said that critical outlets—and they specifically referred to Russia’s most well-known investigative publication, Novaya Gazeta—were like credentials for Putin, allowing Russia to masquerade as a democracy. “Someone might be imprisoned in Russia for their articles, but Novaya Gazeta will continue to exist and showcase to the outside world that we do have freedom of speech in Russia,” a senior Russian journalist told me.

Until very recently, that characterization still rang true. Although Russia tends to be grouped with China in discussions of threatening authoritarian trends, the two countries have had very different media environments. In contrast to China, where social media is tightly controlled and all news outlets are owned by the party-state (though the stake of the ownership can vary), in Russia, social media remains less censored, and the state tolerated privately owned media, such as Novaya Gazeta.

These outlets produced courageous investigations, and were more explicitly critical of the authorities than their counterparts in China. Novaya Gazeta, for instance, investigated Putin’s amassing of personal wealth, war crimes in Chechnya, and the state’s coercive behavior against migrants as part of anti-terrorism operations, among other sensitive topics. This reporting garnered international attention, and last year, the newspaper’s editor in chief, Dmitry Muratov, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the space for investigative and critical journalism in traditional media has largely vanished. The regime has either banned or driven out all major critical outlets. On March 1, the websites of Russia’s only independent television channel, TV Rain (Dozhd), and the renowned liberal radio broadcaster, Ekho Moskvy, were blocked by the country’s telecommunications watchdog. On March 4, Meduza, a popular Latvia-based online outlet focused on Russia, announced that it had been blocked on the Russian web. On March 28, in response to warnings from authorities, Novaya Gazeta officially ceased its operations. On April 9, two more independent online outlets, Diskurs and Kholod, were banned as well. On April 15, a number of prominent journalists were marked as “foreign agents.” New legislation passed on March 4 by the Russian Parliament that punishes the spread of “fake” news about the military (and that has since been amended to include any state body) with a 15-year jail sentence is meant to foster widespread self-censorship.

This media crackdown is significant not only because of its practical implications—most Russians cannot now access independent news and analysis of a war being waged in their name—but for a deeper reason. It symbolizes Russia’s further estrangement from the West on a more subtle, ideological level: Putin’s regime has now dropped even the appearance of democracy and, by extension, its treatment of the West as a marker of political legitimacy.

This shift is not an isolated wartime measure, but appears to be part of a long-running systematic policy. It builds on a decade of mounting pressure on more independent media and extends to other actors that represent or collaborate with the West, including civil-society and research organizations. That means it is unlikely to be rolled back when the war in Ukraine finally ends.

The coexistence of critical news outlets and Putin’s regime was always riddled with frictions. Described by some Russia scholars as “islands of press freedom,” more critical media were initially tolerated so long as their readership remained relatively small and niche, unable to mount a serious threat to Putin’s rule. Since the large-scale protests in 2011 and 2012 against official corruption and electoral fraud, which were widely covered and, in part, mobilized by critical journalists, the regime has intensified its control over more independent outlets. Some, such as Kommersant and its sister publication Kommersant Vlast, as well as RBC Media Group—all owned by Russian oligarchs aligned with the Kremlin—underwent editorial changes over the past decade; leading editors quit or were fired, and many journalists left in solidarity.

Since 2012, the Russian Parliament has also passed a number of vaguely formulated punitive laws that, taken in sum, have helped muzzle journalists. The authorities implemented anti-extremism legislation and, more recently, rules that designate certain outlets, online publications, and even particular individuals as “foreign agents,” allowing officials to intimidate or shut down media organizations for allegedly inciting societal instability or for apparently compromising national-security interests. In 2014, for instance, Lenta.ru, Russia’s leading independent news site at the time, received an “extremism” warning for publishing an interview with a Ukrainian nationalist leader. The outlet’s editor in chief was fired, and the majority of its journalists  resigned in protest. Meduza, an outlet that grew out of Lenta.ru, was labeled a “foreign agent” in 2021, and had its financial operations restricted, prior to being banned entirely in March 2022. In the latest wave of coercion, the authorities also resorted to familiar legal tools. Ekho Moskvy and TV Rain were declared foreign agents, and Novaya Gazeta’s halting of operations was preceded by regulators issuing a formal warning because it hadn’t labeled a particular NGO a foreign agent in an article.

Whereas in the past, recognition by the West could have served as a shield for some Russian media outlets, in recent years, and especially since the invasion, alleged associations with the West are now an excuse to dole out punishment. This deliberate detachment from the West is also notable in other sectors: In recent weeks, the Russian government has moved to close the offices of international organizations such as Human Rights Watch, which had operated in the country for 30 years, and the Carnegie Moscow Center, which houses many talented researchers and, since 1994, has produced in-depth analysis on Russian politics and society. (My own research on the Russian media was, in part, carried out while I was a fellow at the Carnegie Moscow Center.) A number of Western media outlets have also been driven out of Russia, ceasing operations as a safety precaution.

While the banning of Russian independent media underscores one shift, in which Moscow no longer seeks approval from the West, the closure of these Western organizations points to another, in which any remaining connective tissue between Russia and the West that had facilitated Moscow’s engagement in the international community is torn apart.

In reflecting on the Putin regime’s crackdown, many observers have invoked the Iron Curtain, arguing that Putin has taken Russia back to the Soviet era. The regime’s deposition of the West as an aspiration is comprehensive and likely long-term, but we should nevertheless be wary of Soviet analogies.

For one thing, Putin’s efforts still face resistance from independent news outlets that have adapted to the new environment by deploying digital tools and using transnational platforms to continue to challenge official narratives about the war and, more broadly, Russia’s break with the West.

Some outlets, such as Meduza, publish extensive analysis and reporting about the war on Telegram—a popular social-media platform that, so far, remains accessible in Russia. According to Alexey Kovalev, an investigative journalist and an editor at Meduza who was forced to flee Russia for Latvia, Telegram has been instrumental in maintaining and even expanding their readership. The number of subscribers to the outlet’s Telegram channel has more than doubled since the start of the war. Meduza and smaller media outlets such as Kholod have also published detailed instructions to help readers keep up with their content, including following the outlets on social media and installing a VPN to avoid government censorship. In contrast to the Soviet era, the expansion of the internet in contemporary Russia makes the complete isolation and expulsion of critical, pro-Western views impossible.

While some independent Russian outlets have targeted Russian audiences from exile, others have taken on more global missions. Novaya Gazeta, for instance, has launched a European edition, Novaya Gazeta Europe. According to its editor in chief, Kirill Martynov, the new publication will be independent from the original Russia-based news outlet, but it will still focus on covering Russia for domestic and international audiences. Since its launch, the outlet has published a rare interview in English with the mother of a Russian sailor who survived the sinking of the Moskva warship.

Ironically, then, Putin’s strategy to turn Russia away from the West has forced his critics into greater integration with the West, partly as a survival mechanism. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Putin’s regime has discarded the notion of showcasing “credentials” for the West by tolerating critical voices, but its effort to vanquish Russian journalists’ motivation to hold Putin and his system accountable has failed. If anything, it has likely made their motivation stronger.

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Media

Trump could cash out his DJT stock within weeks. Here’s what happens if he sells

Published

3 weeks ago

 on

August 23, 2024

By

Former President Donald Trump is on the brink of a significant financial decision that could have far-reaching implications for both his personal wealth and the future of his fledgling social media company, Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG). As the lockup period on his shares in TMTG, which owns Truth Social, nears its end, Trump could soon be free to sell his substantial stake in the company. However, the potential payday, which makes up a large portion of his net worth, comes with considerable risks for Trump and his supporters.

Trump’s stake in TMTG comprises nearly 59% of the company, amounting to 114,750,000 shares. As of now, this holding is valued at approximately $2.6 billion. These shares are currently under a lockup agreement, a common feature of initial public offerings (IPOs), designed to prevent company insiders from immediately selling their shares and potentially destabilizing the stock. The lockup, which began after TMTG’s merger with a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), is set to expire on September 25, though it could end earlier if certain conditions are met.

Should Trump decide to sell his shares after the lockup expires, the market could respond in unpredictable ways. The sale of a substantial number of shares by a major stakeholder like Trump could flood the market, potentially driving down the stock price. Daniel Bradley, a finance professor at the University of South Florida, suggests that the market might react negatively to such a large sale, particularly if there aren’t enough buyers to absorb the supply. This could lead to a sharp decline in the stock’s value, impacting both Trump’s personal wealth and the company’s market standing.

Moreover, Trump’s involvement in Truth Social has been a key driver of investor interest. The platform, marketed as a free speech alternative to mainstream social media, has attracted a loyal user base largely due to Trump’s presence. If Trump were to sell his stake, it might signal a lack of confidence in the company, potentially shaking investor confidence and further depressing the stock price.

Trump’s decision is also influenced by his ongoing legal battles, which have already cost him over $100 million in legal fees. Selling his shares could provide a significant financial boost, helping him cover these mounting expenses. However, this move could also have political ramifications, especially as he continues his bid for the Republican nomination in the 2024 presidential race.

Trump Media’s success is closely tied to Trump’s political fortunes. The company’s stock has shown volatility in response to developments in the presidential race, with Trump’s chances of winning having a direct impact on the stock’s value. If Trump sells his stake, it could be interpreted as a lack of confidence in his own political future, potentially undermining both his campaign and the company’s prospects.

Truth Social, the flagship product of TMTG, has faced challenges in generating traffic and advertising revenue, especially compared to established social media giants like X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook. Despite this, the company’s valuation has remained high, fueled by investor speculation on Trump’s political future. If Trump remains in the race and manages to secure the presidency, the value of his shares could increase. Conversely, any missteps on the campaign trail could have the opposite effect, further destabilizing the stock.

As the lockup period comes to an end, Trump faces a critical decision that could shape the future of both his personal finances and Truth Social. Whether he chooses to hold onto his shares or cash out, the outcome will likely have significant consequences for the company, its investors, and Trump’s political aspirations.

Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Arizona man accused of social media threats to Trump is arrested

Published

3 weeks ago

 on

August 23, 2024

By

Cochise County, AZ — Law enforcement officials in Arizona have apprehended Ronald Lee Syvrud, a 66-year-old resident of Cochise County, after a manhunt was launched following alleged death threats he made against former President Donald Trump. The threats reportedly surfaced in social media posts over the past two weeks, as Trump visited the US-Mexico border in Cochise County on Thursday.

Syvrud, who hails from Benson, Arizona, located about 50 miles southeast of Tucson, was captured by the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office on Thursday afternoon. The Sheriff’s Office confirmed his arrest, stating, “This subject has been taken into custody without incident.”

In addition to the alleged threats against Trump, Syvrud is wanted for multiple offences, including failure to register as a sex offender. He also faces several warrants in both Wisconsin and Arizona, including charges for driving under the influence and a felony hit-and-run.

The timing of the arrest coincided with Trump’s visit to Cochise County, where he toured the US-Mexico border. During his visit, Trump addressed the ongoing border issues and criticized his political rival, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, for what he described as lax immigration policies. When asked by reporters about the ongoing manhunt for Syvrud, Trump responded, “No, I have not heard that, but I am not that surprised and the reason is because I want to do things that are very bad for the bad guys.”

This incident marks the latest in a series of threats against political figures during the current election cycle. Just earlier this month, a 66-year-old Virginia man was arrested on suspicion of making death threats against Vice President Kamala Harris and other public officials.

Continue Reading

Media

Trump Media & Technology Group Faces Declining Stock Amid Financial Struggles and Increased Competition

Published

3 weeks ago

 on

August 20, 2024

By

Trump Media & Technology Group’s stock has taken a significant hit, dropping more than 11% this week following a disappointing earnings report and the return of former U.S. President Donald Trump to the rival social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. This decline is part of a broader downward trend for the parent company of Truth Social, with the stock plummeting nearly 43% since mid-July. Despite the sharp decline, some investors remain unfazed, expressing continued optimism for the company’s financial future or standing by their investment as a show of political support for Trump.

One such investor, Todd Schlanger, an interior designer from West Palm Beach, explained his commitment to the stock, stating, “I’m a Republican, so I supported him. When I found out about the stock, I got involved because I support the company and believe in free speech.” Schlanger, who owns around 1,000 shares, is a regular user of Truth Social and is excited about the company’s future, particularly its plans to expand its streaming services. He believes Truth Social has the potential to be as strong as Facebook or X, despite the stock’s recent struggles.

However, Truth Social’s stock performance is deeply tied to Trump’s political influence and the company’s ability to generate sustainable revenue, which has proven challenging. An earnings report released last Friday showed the company lost over $16 million in the three-month period ending in June. Revenue dropped by 30%, down to approximately $836,000 compared to $1.2 million during the same period last year.

In response to the earnings report, Truth Social CEO Devin Nunes emphasized the company’s strong cash position, highlighting $344 million in cash reserves and no debt. He also reiterated the company’s commitment to free speech, stating, “From the beginning, it was our intention to make Truth Social an impenetrable beachhead of free speech, and by taking extraordinary steps to minimize our reliance on Big Tech, that is exactly what we are doing.”

Despite these assurances, investors reacted negatively to the quarterly report, leading to a steep drop in stock price. The situation was further complicated by Trump’s return to X, where he posted for the first time in a year. Trump’s exclusivity agreement with Trump Media & Technology Group mandates that he posts personal content first on Truth Social. However, he is allowed to make politically related posts on other social media platforms, which he did earlier this week, potentially drawing users away from Truth Social.

For investors like Teri Lynn Roberson, who purchased shares near the company’s peak after it went public in March, the decline in stock value has been disheartening. However, Roberson remains unbothered by the poor performance, saying her investment was more about supporting Trump than making money. “I’m way at a loss, but I am OK with that. I am just watching it for fun,” Roberson said, adding that she sees Trump’s return to X as a positive move that could expand his reach beyond Truth Social’s “echo chamber.”

The stock’s performance holds significant financial implications for Trump himself, as he owns a 65% stake in Trump Media & Technology Group. According to Fortune, this stake represents a substantial portion of his net worth, which could be vulnerable if the company continues to struggle financially.

Analysts have described Truth Social as a “meme stock,” similar to companies like GameStop and AMC that saw their stock prices driven by ideological investments rather than business fundamentals. Tyler Richey, an analyst at Sevens Report Research, noted that the stock has ebbed and flowed based on sentiment toward Trump. He pointed out that the recent decline coincided with the rise of U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential nominee, which may have dampened perceptions of Trump’s 2024 election prospects.

Jay Ritter, a finance professor at the University of Florida, offered a grim long-term outlook for Truth Social, suggesting that the stock would likely remain volatile, but with an overall downward trend. “What’s lacking for the true believer in the company story is, ‘OK, where is the business strategy that will be generating revenue?'” Ritter said, highlighting the company’s struggle to produce a sustainable business model.

Still, for some investors, like Michael Rogers, a masonry company owner in North Carolina, their support for Trump Media & Technology Group is unwavering. Rogers, who owns over 10,000 shares, said he invested in the company both as a show of support for Trump and because of his belief in the company’s financial future. Despite concerns about the company’s revenue challenges, Rogers expressed confidence in the business, stating, “I’m in it for the long haul.”

Not all investors are as confident. Mitchell Standley, who made a significant return on his investment earlier this year by capitalizing on the hype surrounding Trump Media’s planned merger with Digital World Acquisition Corporation, has since moved on. “It was basically just a pump and dump,” Standley told ABC News. “I knew that once they merged, all of his supporters were going to dump a bunch of money into it and buy it up.” Now, Standley is staying away from the company, citing the lack of business fundamentals as the reason for his exit.

Truth Social’s future remains uncertain as it continues to struggle with financial losses and faces stiff competition from established social media platforms. While its user base and investor sentiment are bolstered by Trump’s political following, the company’s long-term viability will depend on its ability to create a sustainable revenue stream and maintain relevance in a crowded digital landscape.

As the company seeks to stabilize, the question remains whether its appeal to Trump’s supporters can translate into financial success or whether it will remain a volatile stock driven more by ideology than business fundamentals.

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version