[asdflkj]

In Russia journalists get killed time to time (mostly by overzealous provincial lords); in the USA they never say anything worth killing for to begin with. They wouldn't get killed, but they would get sued and/or marginalized, and that's enough to keep them in line. Is it really freedom if everyone's too afraid to exercise it?

Remember that guy on TV who got fired for suggesting that 9/11 highjackers were in fact not cowardly? Russian media, bad as they have it, would laugh at this sort of culture.

P.S.: I speak Russian and get to see some of that Russian media in action, unlike most of you who only hear rumors about it from your ideology syndicate of choice. There are probably other Russian-speakers here who know more about it than I do. I'd like to hear what they have to say.

[noahr]

If you think journalists in the U.S. never write anything worth killing for then you're reading the wrong sources. You're also confusing commentary and journalism -- opinion is not the same as uncovering the truth in situations where people are trying to hide it from the public. What's more, you blame "provincial lords" for the killings, but the police and government there are not doing anything to stop them either.

[asdflkj]

I'm not gonna write any more about Russia, because it's probably impossible for someone in a society based on large, reliable (if not always good) institutions to understand a society based on a much larger number of smaller, less stable, and less well-integrated institutions, like Russia. On top of that, Russia's smartest and most ambitious people don't have the option of going into some technical field or academia, because that just doesn't provide a comfortable life. So they aim for power, and as a result the game of power is much more complicated than e.g. in America. For anyone interested in Russia, I suggest looking at more basic things, like what life is like for the average Russian. Actually it's probably a good idea for approaching any society--to try to understand culture first, and politics last.

I want to ask, though--what are the right sources?

[vetinari]

That's because in this part of world, the "provincial lords" are the police and local government.

[dimitar]

In America you have Watergate, Iran-Contra, The Lewinski scandal, etc. and the culture and institutions that limit the power of the executive branch to crush the sources of information. Has anything bad happened to the people who uncovered those scandals? No. Is this something worth reporting? Yes.

In Russia when you have something like this you get poisoned by polonium. And I don't think "provincial lords" have polonium handy all the time. Also, governors in Russia are Kremlin-controlled and appointed. In fact - they are the ones that insure great results for the sitting president (Putin once got over 100% in one of the autonomous republics), an unfortunate tradition started by Yelcin. Russian federalism doesn't exist, it was killed in its infancy in the early 90s and crushed

P.S. I also speak Russian (not native, thought) and I'm an official Russian-media geek, as is everyone in my family. This doesn't help my arguments, but you wanted Russian-speakers so here I am.

[asdflkj]

Something like what? Litvinenko was as absolute nobody, without access to any privileged information, and without any original ideas. He is only famous for dying in a bizare way. Putin clearly didn't do it. He may be ruthless, or even a psychopath, but he's not stupid. He gained nothing from that incident, and his enemies gained a lot. Now, who likely did it--people who gained from it, and could only stand to gain from it, or people who lost from it, and could only stand to lose from it?