Scott Anderson is a pretty accomplished journalist and author. You can read some of his stuff here and here, and read a profile here. So why, after he spent months researching and writing an article on Russia entitled “Vladimir Putin’s Dark Rise to Power,” would the magazine that commissioned the piece work so hard to bury it and prevent its distribution to Russia and the internet? That’s exactly what has happened with GQ, as observers speculate that Anderson’s questioning of the official story on the 1999 apartment bombings in Moscow has caused the corporate brass to go running toward self-censorship to avoid risking their publishing business in a major market.
In our opinion, this kind of conduct by a media outlet poses just as much of a threat to the freedom of the press and freedom of speech as do death threats, government interference, or even shootings. We’ve seen self-censorship in action in Guatemala, in Central Asia, and various African countries, where a newspaper simply can’t afford to publish certain information as it would result in a total advertising boycott, endless regulatory inspections, or crippling frivolous lawsuits. The fact that GQ has buried this article is a testament to how much control the Kremlin wields over the civil bureaucracy (such as taxes, fire safety, etc.) to use these offices as blunt weapons.
We’re grateful to reader A.M. for bringing this NPR article about GQ’s Russia experience to our attention. Please, please, please, can someone dig up the text of Anderson’s article and get it on the internet? If not, you will have to wait until next week for me to do it when I get home. Excerpts from NPR after the cut.
The idea that information canbe sequestered at a time when people can communicate instantly acrossoceans and continents may seem quaint. But in this instance, Conde Nastsought, against technology, logic and the thrust of its own article, toshow deference in the presence of power.
Lawyers, executives and editors at Conde Nast and GQdid not respond to repeated requests for comment this week, and aspokesman ultimately declined on their behalf. But NPR has spoken toseveral people knowledgeable about the handling of Anderson’s piece. Noissues have been raised to date about the article’s accuracy.
Subscribe by Email
11 Comments
As it turns out, Russia is in more turmoil than one would predict, and I have to say I wasn’t even interested before i read your post today. This here is an example that I found, say, enlightening: http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/showlink.aspx?bookmarkid=NFBHNRDEU8E7&preview=article&linkid=cc5fdebf-693c-472f-a23e-f2766bb639ff&pdaffid=ZVFwBG5jk4Kvl9OaBJc5%2bg%3d%3dSincerely,MediaMentions
Whoever posts the article exposes themselves to legal problems related to copyright laws. So instead of posting the article itself, I suggest posting a detailed synopsis and inviting others to do the same. Out of such a collection of synopses, I’m sure one could glean an accurate version of the information.
Hello,You have published my photograph without my permission, of journalist Scott Anderson. The image and story was lifted from the NPR website.Please remove my photo immediately. If you wish to use the photo, please send me your billing address so I may send you an invoice.Timothy Fadek
Timothy, the photo has been removed.Thanks,James
James, please stay on this story and if Gawker publishes a translation of the missing GQ article please link it.The story has the all too familiar theme of western corporate media elites valuing profits over free speech principles. Google has been assisting the Chinese in filtering the internet. And, let’s never forget the smarmy grovelling of NBC in covering the Olympics in China. Or, CNN’s admission that they did a deal with Saddam to keep a presence there.http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=36&aid=30323Conde Nast will shrug this off which is why the internet counts more than ever. I suggest anyone that cares about free speech and is disgusted by those that protect thugs for profit take a good look at Conde Naste’s products and boycott them.
I first looked into the Ryazan Incident and the other 1999 Russian apartment bombings about a year ago. It doesn’t take much research to realize that the FSB perpetrated the bombings because their official explanation for the Ryazan Incident is so implausible, as Anderson outlines in this piece.Psychologically it’s quite interesting how readily Americans are to believe that a Russian warlord like Putin would murder a few hundred of his own citizens in their beds to gain huge amounts of power. But suggest that our own government did a similar thing for the same reasons on 9/11/01, and a different part of the brain kicks in. Immediately the statements become emotional and ad hominem.But this is the way the world has worked for a long time, so-called “leaders” false-flagging their own people to create what Carl Schmitt called the “external enemy” against whom the people will rally around their leader. I suspect the world is changing due to the internet, though, since so many more people are learning every day how and why their political, military and financial leaders perpetrate these attacks.
The article is up – as pictures – including a tentative Russian translation here: http://is.gd/2ULIG/Camilla Hagelund
It’s interesting to note that the usual Russian government apologists aren’t here making comments about this story — not even to say ‘it’s bad, but that’s how it works’ or some other excuse like that. What a pity. Their opinions would indeed be interesting.
Here’s the article:http://gawker.com/5352827/
Well, I guess even the “usual Russian gov. apologists” would not stoop so low as to comment on such a trash article. The last name “Trepashkin” (translates “a small time bullshitter”) should be a sufficient clue to the “outraged” hypocrites. Get a clue (and a life) people.
Here’s the article:http://kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2009/09/06/10979.shtml