Washington Post not unbiased either -- Hungary media law

Remove all ads!

Awesome point. Kudos, Sir.

 

Again the same scenario: Ragusa performs some apparently "witty" analysis about Hungary, and others jump to it celebrating how great points he makes about Hungarians. I can't be bothered anymore to react to any of his points, because those who have understood my previous posts already know why Ragusa's points are flawed. Those who don't understand it can PM me if they wish, but first they are advised to read my previous posts again.

Tal: do not take out my words from context please. Disgustingly insolent was when a double standard was applied in the most hipocritic way. On a side note, it was addressed to a much wider group than just those who apply the double standard here: it was addressed even to those Western (or actually, any, e.g. Central European) citizens too who apply totally double standards. It is indeed disgusting and insolent. Some things cannot be told more nicely.

About style or else, those who publish dirty talk about a nation or country without even understanding the fundamental contexts do not deserve any tact in the reactions that reject their lies.

 

Prediction: You won't get any PM. And nobody in his right mind will want to read your pompous blovitations again after having to go through them once.

Maybe you could help them by telling me how I am wrong and only seemingly witty, preferably (and for a change) in a concise manner. Can you do that in two lines? That could set the record straight right away (if you think there is a need for righting).

 

Ragusa, a great one for you. Available in German language too.

 

Transparency

You cannot have democracy, which you say you are in favor of, without open debate and the scrutiny that accompanies it. If you don't have reasoned debate, disclosure and at least some degree of transparency in the process, it is a sham democracy and not the real thing. Democracy is more than just voting, but a process.

 

Even in countries that everyone agrees are highly democratic (USA, Canada, England, etc) opaque crap happens from time to time. Doesn't mean the country as a whole is undemocratic, but that there has been a lapse. YOu could cite examples from the US, I'm sure, I can do the same for Canada, and I'll bet Barmy or Silvery could do the same for England.

BTW, I know that most people don't use opaque the way I just did, but if Shakespeare can use words in new and exciting ways, so can I. So anyone who criticizes my new kenning is gonna get slapped upside the head with a large mackerel. Or possibly an halibut. ('alibut)

 

I knew it would end like this. My points are often misrepresented by speech such as "you are not fond of open debate". I have no problem with open debate.

But open debate does not mean people can write whatever lies or analysis based on half-information they want. They can, yes, but I can also reject it, which happened. And open debate does not mean I welcome people attacking my country with huge arrogance in things they do not even know. Yes, they are free to do it: and I'm free to tell what I think about them.

I'm really fond of the new media law, especially seeing e.g. what happens now in USA (I just read that FCC must pay big money to ABC because showing naked women during the day belongs to the "freedom of speech" or something like that. Correct me if I'm informed incorrectly.)

 

LKD:

No, you misunderstand. I was speaking generally, and perhaps the process used in your new media law. Not at you, or your PoV in particular.

Btw, I don't agree that the USA is "highly" democratic any longer. Those days are gone.

 

That's a harsh criticism, Chandos, yet given your academic background and extensive knowledge of American history, it's one that I have to take seriously. But I will point out some things:

1: You have more direct election options that anyone else in the world, I would hazard.

2: While there are those who have certainly futzed with it, your Constitution safeguards democracy better than anywhere else in the world of which I am aware.

3: People are still flocking to the USA in droves -- that's certainly an argument that people think things will be better there than in their homelands.

 

LKD - Thank you. You make me humble.

The problem is that all kinds of special interests have cornered the government. It's not just large corporations, but all kinds of special interests. The entire spectrum of voters, from the most conservative tea partier, to the most liberal member of MoveOn, feel frustrated by this problem. Conservatives, liberals, moderates, all feel it is no longer their government. When most everyone is pissed off like that, something must be wrong.

A lot of these people come here for a while, get fed up and go back home again. If I was a young, single man again, I would be gone from this rat's nest so fast, the door wouldn't have time to hit me in the butt.

 

The media law and related stuff is pretty transparent. Just the international hysteria (that seems to catch Ragusa as well) misrepresented it. For example, some of the points that were misrepresented or used in manipulative misleading contexts:

(1) "There are so huge fines that the Media Council can use them to make media and press organizations go bankrupt" -- not true; it is defined in the law too that there is a continuity; e.g. the maximum fine can only be given in cases where the law was broken more times earlier and court ordered the payment of fines. The above quoted statement is like saying: "ah, there are prison for life punishments in Hungary, how terrible country it is!". Yet, people are not in terror in the streets in Hungary. Because you need to get there somehow, to get a prison for life sentence.

(2) "The first victim of the law is Ice-T song", as Ragusa also blindly believed this. The procedure because of Ice-T (which was later dropped, after further investigation) was started PER THE OLD VERSION OF THE LAW. Moreover, many parts that they attack in the new law were present in the old version too.

(3) "All members in the Media Council are from the government party Fidesz...". The Parliament votes about the members. Currently, there is a democratic 2/3 of Fidesz. In the future, if/when there won't be, the Parliament can obviously vote non-Fidesz members too. Always the Parliament decides. Yeah, the international media companies, multionational companies, banks etc. hate the fact Hungary has a strong 2/3-supported right-centre conservative government that dared to introduce taxes and media regulation on their cash cows (TV channels, banks, hypermarkets etc.). While taxes are impressive to simple citizens, "press freedom" is a topic which can influence the emotions of people (unlike taxes, which are appealing to people, "ah, now big companies also need to pay as we do!"), so they did their best to increase the international hysteria (which is already greatly being fed by left provocators). 2/3 is democratic, and DOES AUTHORIZE Fidesz in the Parliament to do whatever a 2/3 authorizes a party to do, and misrepresenting it as "dictature" or as "hey, your voters didn't want THIS" by those who dislike the situation is just a cheap attempt.

(4) The terms which are said to be "not defined" well enough (sometimes referred to as "rubber" terms), i.e. which make the law "too broad", were ACTUALLY PRESENT IN THE OLD VERSION OF THE LAW TOO, yet noone criticized them. E.g. one of the criticized ones, "human dignity", was present in the old version of the law too, and yes it's broad, but there is well-established law application practice in Hungary about it, in court. So these "rubber" terms aren't new at all, and there is a well-established practice of their application in Hungarian jurisdiction.

(5) The decisions of the Media Council can be attacked in court. This makes the various crazy accusations (political "censorship", "ruining with huge fines" etc.) laughable.

The above points e.g. disprove many of the amateur accusations of Ragusa in the initial posts of this thread about the media law.

 

Re (3) You forgot to mention that the head of the council was appointed for 9 years, which is an unusually long term, ensuring that a party loyalist will remain at the helm of the council even after the next election (and during the next election campaign). How fortuitous.

 

9 years as a time is a known practice in Hungary (e.g. public prosecutor). Moreover, it depends how it's approached: this is exactly what provides the indepedence of the council from the current-politics (similarly to 5 years long appointments). I admit it sounds a bit long (even if it's known practice), but since the Parliament (which does not need to include 2/3 Fidesz in the future) chooses the members and not the Prime Minister or government people, it is fine. 9 years is long power, but at least long power of those chosen by the Parliament, so it can be approached as a positive thing (that a newly elected Parliament cannot immediately get rid of the council appointed by the previous Parliament). There are similar cases with the National Bank, public prosecutor etc., it's known practice in Hungary.

 

Oh I totally agree, independence of the council from the current-politics is the very point. And, the loyalists Fidecz appointed will leave their partisan baggage at the front door.

Imagine, what if, heaven forbid, the will of the people in four years kicks Orbán out of office again? What would that do to the media council! No, it has to stand over petty day to day politics! The homogenic staffing is only to ensure it will be efficient and smooth in its day to day operations. Effectiveness and efficiency dictate that there must be no dissent in its ranks.

In sharp contrast, the last council that Orbán had abolished had bipartisan representation, and greatly suffered from such dissent. It also lacked the clear course the newly appointed head will reliably and steadfastly steer.

 

Still called Fidesz

 

Splendid argument. Leaves me speechless.

 

I already corrected you four times. It's not a big deal, yet it's accuracy and not negligible.

If I told CDQ instead of CDU about your party, I would welcome corrections, simply because the name is CDU. Similarly, the name is Fidesz. Sz as szövetség, meaning 'ally' or 'association'.

 

If that is all. But it isn't. Isn't it?

 

No, this is there too for you.

 

You'll recognise yourself in this one. In a sense you're speaking the same language.

​