Washington Post not unbiased either -- Hungary media law

Remove all ads!

Best way to start the morning off - with a good laugh. It's been a while since something's had me so torn between wanting to laugh and go like this

You'll be pleased to hear that laughter won in the end.

Do you seriously believe what you are saying, when you spend ages ranting about how the sun shines out of your leader's ass, that you can accuse Ragusa of been obsessed?

 

It's not accusing, it's a fact, everyone can see it from the beginning. I do know much more about Orbán's achievements and mistakes than anyone else in the thread, let alone Ragusa. Of course, everyone is free to disagree me, but if it's done in a conceited way from a high horse (as if you KNEW Hungary better than me), it will just make the poster look really really uneducated. But enough of this talk, Taluntain wrote that personal stuff should be avoided, I told the point anyway.

I think Ragusa started it, with this tactless and personal talk:

He says I delude myself (that's pretty personal...), I said he is obsessed. But I told all about the fond delusion anyway, so noone needs to worry that thread gets too much non-factual (and thus will be closed or whatever).

A last -- and really benevolent -- request. Rotku, please kindly be more tactful (a request from me) and avoid the use of structures such as "sun shines out of your leader's ass", regardless how much you feel to defend the Ragusa. There may be other readers as well who are sensitive to such tactless, rude speech. Thank you very much in advance.

Now, back on topic, some interesting text (source):

At least ten other member states, yeah. And funny that -- according to certain users -- I was the one "ranting" in the Double Standard thread too... no comment.

Nonetheless, the practice seems to prove me, in everything. (This will probably convince those readers too who were initially hesitating whether Ragusa's or my points made more sense.) The law didn't end up in European Court at all, in fact its main points were not touched at all. And now the obvious fact that Hungary's media law is not alone with its (by-the-way mostly good) regulations, indeed other countries have had similar approaches, just there was noone to start a loud hysteria about them, etc. etc. etc.

 

Get over yourself, Baronius. I have no "fear" of posting rational responses to your uncritically regurgitated pro-Orban rhetoric to overcome, so you can rest assured that my courage or its lack had nothing to do with my decision not to post. I stayed out of the thread because I lacked the inclination to repeatedly bang my head against a brick wall. If you actually start hearing and responding to other posters' actual arguments instead of attacking them for their grammar, spelling, or a purported anti-Orban bias, I may elect to get involved in the thread. Or not. I have 2 conditions that must be met in order to involve myself in a thread nowadays. First of all, I need to have something to say to an audience will read my post critically and respond in kind. Second, the thread has to be interesting. No offense, but this one fails on both counts.

 

You know, the most funny is that you (especially as an American) have no way to have any clue about Orbán and the actual situation and mentality in Hungary, yet you feel the courage to write such things:

It's not about "responding others arguments". They can have arguments, but they should be humble with them (UNLESS they're Hungarian or if they're not, then they know the situation VERY WELL). By "humble", I mean that they should also ASK questions when they criticize/comment my posts, and they should be more careful and think twice before calling my Hungary-related text as "rant" or incorrect.

Some forum posters who think they can have "valuable" arguments in every topic indeed seem to possess eternal wisdom, as the mentioned Philosophy Professor said.

Some people think that their arguments make sense just because they use some sort of logic, common sense, political and legal knowledge etc. Nope, nope. This is an advice to everyone (and Tal can't object to that, because it's not personal to any concrete person -- it's an advice to everyone, and may help the fruitful discussion between some people and myself in this thread), an advice to everyone: if you're not familiar with a topic in details, don't advertise that you're uneducated: instead, be more humble than those who know the topic better than yourself.

This is a conservative approach, and in educated (e.g. academic) circles, it works well everywhere in the world.

For example, I saw very few questions directed at me at the beginning of the thread, and I saw very many self-confident statements even from those who are totally new to the topic and to the Hungarian culture. Most forum posters think that their posts are equal in credibility and validity, and that they master every topic they post in. No, no. So those who want themselves to be taken seriously not just by their local forum "friends" but also by a wider and more intelligent audience, I suggest that they give up their self-centric view ("...read my post critically and respond in kind"), forget that their posts are valuable and precious ab ovo, and start building friendship with the concept of "humble approach" in topics which they aren't familiar with (e.g. they have little experience/expertise).

A similar point: noone attacked people here because of their spelling or grammar; I corrected them objectively without any attack. Among my friends and people I know, people are actually grateful when they're are corrected, because it's constructive. If someone considers a correction an attack or insult, it usually shows that the person is hiding something more serious (e.g. he feels his point was not fully defendable, and he tries to disguise this by his refusing reaction to the correction).

 

Baronius, neither recognizing what the law said nor what the law would enable the chief executive to do required an extensive understanding of Hungarian culture. You have continually proffered the argument that there was no power grab and that Orban would never abuse the additional powers granted him under the law. That there was a power grab is inarguable since Orban would be able to do more things post-enactment than he could before. Whether it would be abused by Orban is arguable -- but hardly material to whether or not this was bad law. Let's say for the sake of argument that, unlike nearly every other politician on the face of the planet, Orban will not in any way abuse the mandate granted him by this law. He won't be your chief executive forever -- the gaping hole for abuse present in the legislation that Orban somehow miraculously never abuses would remain after he left office as well. There is no guarantee that the next guy will share Orban's purported restraint.

Understanding your culture, particularly your political culture (they are not the same thing), is a key to understanding why the Hungarian people favor a stronger and more authoritarian government. This understanding, however, will not change the meaning or potential applications of the new law -- it merely illuminates the reasons for its existence. Understanding the reason for a law does not in and of itself justify it.

 

[A few paragraphs that should have been sent via PM removed. -Tal]
[OK, no problem. -Baronius]

Good idea about the blog, it didn't occur me, thx!


Drew:

Two problems with your point:
1. The "gaping hole for abuse" is not stronger or weaker than in most of the other countries in the EU. (It was only mispresented in the hysteria that influenced many people. What do you think why the EU finished the informal negotiations with Hungary with agreeing to such minor amendments, and not addressing the major points of those who criticized the law?) About the "holes for abuse": if something is not strict enough or is overregulated, then it may open more backdoors. The majority of the Hungarian society does not want more backdoors, there were already too many cheats and media abuses (often harmful to children) lately.
2. The biggest criticism about the potential abuse possibilities in the law is about the content of the Media Council (that it consists only of party members of Orbán). That if/when Orbán and his party loses power in the future, some others might abuse the Media Council etc. This is not true, as the Parliament votes the members here. If it won't have a 2/3 majority of Orbán's party, then the Council can have different members. Totally democratic.

This may be a definition issue. I thought that "power grab" implies an illegitim or immoral way of taking the power. E.g. in www.freedictionary.com, it says this:

From www.dictionary.net:

Other sources say similar.

Orbán and his party was elected democratically, and even the opposition didn't question the results of the election. Is this a power grab?

We have a word in Hungarian, though. It's "hatalomátvétel", meaning that when a party wins the elections and forms a government, it (legally) takes the power. Is this what the expression "power grab" most commonly means in English? If yes, then it was a definition problem from my side -- my mistake. In this case, could you direct me to a relevant definition? The ones I found above, as you can see, all use the illegal/illegitim interpretation.

 

Whatever, Baronius. I don't waste time with the intentionally obtuse. Enjoy your last word.

 

I'm not a native English speaker, and at the end of my post I was asking you whether I know the most common definition of "power grab" correctly, or not.

This "I don't waste my time" thing sounds like a retreat to me. You said that you may elect not to get involved in the thread, yet -- eventually -- you did with a relatively long post. And now that I'm asking you which is the most common definition of "power grab" (or the one you've been using regarding Orbán), you're avoiding the answer to a totally benevolent question? I don't get it.

 

The term "power grab" certainly has negative connotations associated with it. While it doesn't necessarily mean illegal, it certainly implies a level of nefariousness. When used in politics, it's usually seen as using the law to further your own ends - kind of like in a "lawful evil" kind of way. So while I wouldn't go so far as to call it illegal, a power grab is at the least considered unethical.

 

A funny thing just struck me. Baronius started this thread to "clear some misconceptions" about Hungary so people would not get a negative impression. If it wasn't for this thread I maybe would have skimmed some article about this media law but wouldn't pay it much heed and I am a person who more interested in stuff like that than the average. Now after following this thread I have gotten a quite negative impression of Orban and the current situation in Hungary all thanks to Baronius!

 

Yes, and it is very much the same with me as with Joa.

I pretty much didn't care about Hungary until I stumbled over Baronius rambling defence of all things Orbàn, prompting me to think that what I got to read could not possibly be true, and indeed, it wasn't. The research Baronius triggered resulted in me getting quite a negative impression of Orban and the current situation in Hungary.

The day Baronius was suspended I stopped reading about Hungary, gladly haven't read about Orbán since and might have just forgotten about it ... along comes Baronius: Having outwaited his suspension with itching fingertips, he continues his impassioned defence of all things Orbán with undiminished fervour right where he had to stop, and calls me obsessed.

Doubly ironic.

 

I concur. Like every other country, Hungary has some unique facets. However, the people there are human beings, two arms, two legs, red blood . . . you get the idea.

In terms of the media law being discussed, I say what I have said before: if the vast majority Hungarian people are happy with the law, then most foreigners could give two <snips> about it. There will be those in the international community who will criticize the law and see that it could be used for more than it is supposedly intended, and such criticism is normal and par for the course -- Hungary is not so strikingly unique as to be above criticism.

Some of us don't take criticism well, though, especially if we feel that our country is being painted as something that it really isn't. To use an example from my own beloved country, we had a leader named Jean Chretien (anyone other than Splunge and Disiple heard of this guy? thought not!) and I hated this guy. With a passion. My version of heaven involves many people standing in line to get to old Jean, tied to a flagpole, and everyone gets a chance to kick him in the junk. That said, when people in the media used terms like "dictator", "despot", "tyrant" it kind of pissed me off -- Canada is far from perfect, but we are a democracy and not an insignificant one. Chretien was a duly elected Prime Minister, and when the time came power was transferred to a new leader peacefully and smoothly. So I understand people getting their backs up when they feel their country is being slandered.

But realistically speaking, there's ways to express one's frustration effectively. I think I need say no more.

 

I edited my last post.

 

Some people here write that they didn't care about Hungary until they read this thread, and now they have a negative opinion. In my eyes, it summarizes very well what I implied earlier too: if you haven't cared, it means you have no way to possess the expertise and implicit knowledge that is required for unbiased judgement. So in my eyes, that means that your negative image is the result of some sudden "wisdom" about a topic you even don't know. To sum up, since you didn't care, you can't have enough knowledge about the Hungarian country & culture to judge the "situation" and the way people approach Orbán's policies.

Aldeth: thanks a lot for the clarification. In this case, it is strange that Drew used "power grab" regarding Orbán, self-confidently, as if it was a fact about Orbán. While the reality is exactly the opposite: Orbán won totally legitimately (regardless what people think about his current actions), and even the opposition didn't question it. Yeah, it's obvious that the biggest reason of his great victory (and the huge defeat of the socialists) is that the socialists ruined the country in the past 8 years. But that is also how democracy works! You do a bad job, you lose, and your opponent wins. Now in the light of Aldeth's explanation about the meaning of "power grab", why was it a power grab again in 2010?

Again the practice proves my words (just like in case of the Media Law -- it didn't end up in court, it got just very minor amendments), because Drew is the living example for a person who talked self-confidently about a matter he didn't know. Then when he realized he was wrong, he just retreated, but instead of saying "you're right, I was totally misinformed that Orbán had a power grab", he wrote that he wouldn't like to waste his time on the thread. I know that being wrong is a natural human thing and it happens with all of us everywhere, but what I object is when someone disagrees me arrogantly & self-confidently, and when he realizes he was wrong, he just steps out of the topic with some pretext ("I don't want to waste time"). In my culture, this makes you much more discredited than any amount of "rant" that defends a politician/person. I don't intend to blow a debate with this paragraph, I merely pointed out that the practise proves me again -- Drew jumped into the topic, he wasn't well-informed, made a self-confident statement (or more), then realized he was wrong. Maybe the case is similar for those who just suddenly got a "negative image about the situation in Hungary"* after reading this thread? Maybe they aren't well-informed enough? It's just funny for me, really.

* The negative images may have emotional aspects as well, actually. I'm not a native English speaker, and my Hungarian character (stereotype) and behavioral patterns greatly influence my writing (whether I want it or not). So some things that I don't mean harsh may look harsh in the eyes of some readers, and vice versa: some things they don't mean so offending are taken very seriously by myself. For example, in my country, cynicism and irony is considered a great offence to a person. As far as I've noticed, however, the direct personal criticism has a similar negative impact in the non-Central European readers here, while in Hungary, personal criticism is often not considered as offending as cynical talk. So actually, I think the negative image some people might have got after reading this thread might also have to do with the STYLE (and not the content) of what I've presented here for them. Nonetheless, I'm relatively satisfied with the results of this thread (I don't want to detail this further, my post is already quite long-winded).

 

You make one big, unsupportable assumption here. That Drew stepped out because he worked out he was wrong.

Such arguments are pretty much the reason why Drew stepped out. It becomes pointless debating when someone jumps to such conclusions and tries to shoot down other arguments on the simple basis that "They're not from here. How can they know?"

I tend to read most threads that pop up around here - even if just for the first post. More often or not I don't know much about the topic on hand. I never get all my information just from reading what people write in threads like this, as people are bias. If a topic interests me, I tend to go out and do a bit of research, look up a few news articles and so forth. And it is from these two sources, that I form my opinion (the information the posters supply, and the information the news sources supply). Never am I going to take one thing for granted.

You say that we are ignorant about Hungry and the honourable thing to do is admit it and tell you that you are right. This would mean taking your word as fact - which is something that I refuse to do with anyone, least of all someone with such clear bias as yourself. Nor is it what Drew has done. He's clearly read through this thread, maybe gone and looked at a few other news sources and decided that Orban has made a grab at power.

Please do take note, what he is meaning is NOT that Orban gained a lot of power in the election. This happens and in no way through Orban's doing. If the Socialist party was as crap as you claim (which I have no reason to doubt that is at least partly true, although I do take it with a grain of salt), then one could have substituted anyone in Orban's place and there would have still been a landslide victory. I'm sure Drew understands this and is not saying that Orban's power grab was through the ballots.

Instead, the power grab has occurred through the legislature. It's been ages since I read up on it at all, and most things have gone from my mind, but acts like requiring the posting of the parties key policy lines, restricting media through a council on which your party makes up the entire rank, and I believe I remember some clashes with the Judicial branch (but my memory is foggy). It is acts like these - designed to (a) reinforce your hold on power; and (b) keep others out of power - that I would imagine Drew was referring to when he said that Orban is making a grab for power.

To repeat some wise words from the other page:

 

Socialists ruined the country, supported and did cheats and abuses (much much more abuse than others e.g. Orbán's party commited ever; and about ruining, Orbán's party did the opposite between 1998-2002: among other things, the state debt actually decreased during that period, and economy became stronger).

Socialists also put their own people to every position (this is what every government tries to do, so it's not that terrible in itself), but silently and in tricky ways. Socialists use much dirtier methods than Orbán: not because I support Orbán, but because their party is the descendant of the communist party that led the Soviet-friendly dictature in Hungary until 1989! The Hungarian Socialist party has people among its members who had HIGH positions until 1989 in the dictature (no kidding). And yes, they use dirty methods professionally. If you're an American reader, you can imagine an analogy to ex-CIA people. They know how to do dirty stuff, don't they?

Imagine you're Orbán, you promised to the people to reorganize the country and take it out from the economic crisis, and you think your plans/promises more-or-less SERIOUSLY.

We all know that laws and governing is one thing, but EXECUTING the new laws and steps is another matter. Without reliable and loyal people, it is just not possible; simply because implementing and executing the changes is not possible -- the people who are expected to assist in it will be loyal to others, other groups, other parties. (Imagine that Taluntain would choose people as moderators here who he doesn't trust, who he doesn't find reliable, who are not loyal to SP. How would SP work in that case?!)

So you're in Orbán's position, and almost every organization and position in the country is filled with Socialists and their friends. What the hell to do?

Yes, this is the case when there is no other choice: put your own people there, and if needed, make slightly centralizing steps (i.e. use your 2/3 to LEGALLY remove whatever obstacles prevents you from applying your changes).

Capische? When something is SO MUCH WRONG AND BAD, you have no other choice than radically changing it. With whatever LEGAL tools you have. You may call it antidemocratic, but Orbán didn't break the law. You can call the changes (e.g. temporary restriction of Constitutional Court) immoral, but they were legal. I said "you", and in this case, I didn't mean it generally: for example, I don't consider these changes immoral at all, because I totally believe that using your 2/3 majority to make changes WHEN THOSE CHANGES ARE NEEDED is totally acceptable and moral.

Sometimes you NEED to use your 2/3 power, or nothing can ever change in a country where all positions are filled with the political descendants of the Soviet-friendly dictatoric regime. Starting to understand why most Hungarians chose a strong leader such as Orbán? Perhaps because THERE IS NO OTHER WAY now to get out of the mess! (And those who were writing in one of the threads before that "this is how Hitler started too", totally have no idea about the situation in Hungary. They can't make a difference between strong democratic leadership and true dictature. They are two very different things. Democracy is not equal to weak governing and liberalism! These readers should go and read LKD's latest post as well.)

It's easy to be clever from foreign countries, easy to call Orbán a dictator, easy to tell me ironically that I'm "afraid of Bolsheviks", but in Hungary, THIS IS THE SITUATION: Socialists took all important positions silently, and they were using much dirtier tools behind the scenes than you could imagine. You can call my view "partisan", but that will just show that you don't know ANYTHING about how the post-communists weren't punished or even removed from power after 1989 (unlike e.g. in Romania where they simply executed Ceausescu!). And if you don't know this topic, then go and read about it, or stop educating Hungarians such as myself that Orbán is a dictator. Because then you don't know who were the true dictators of Hungary.

There are situations when the tools (which work in a country that was governed more-or-less democratically and legitimately by the previous governments -- e.g. many Western countries) are not working! Hungary didn't work democratically AT ALL in the past 8 years!