Washington Post not unbiased either -- Hungary media law

Remove all ads!

I have a similar impression for quite a while now.

Baronius,
your elaborations on your view about gypsies reminds me of the anti-gay point of view you get to hear from some US evangelicals. The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. If homosexuality was genetically or psychologically predisposed their orientation would be part of God's creation, and thus not damnable. Thus to them homosexuals aren't pre-disposed to be gay, they choose a homosexual lifestyle - i.e. by choice they sin and are thus damnable. Thus, when these evangelicals then call gays perverts who should under biblical law be executed and will burn in hell, they show not hate but brotherly love - an attempt to make them to see the error of their ways and find Jesus before it is too late. After all, if they don't, Jesus has other ways (like eternal hell fire and suffering, or being left behind).

Likewise, you don't condemn gypsies for what they are but for what they do. Since the gypsies choose to be antisocial and criminal i.e. refuse to cooperate in their rehabilitation from their current miserable state, they are damnable. If you call them out as antisocial and criminal you do so not in order to defame them as a group but to make them see the error of their ways. That's a friendly suggestion, after all, if they don't comply, Hungary has other ways.

I did get your argument right? If I did, you aren't a racist but a sophist.

 

Noone is damnable. I presented facts, without deriving how the people involved should be called or categorized. They are not damnable; they should be helped to integrate; to provide them an education and integration model which helps to get rid of the negative features (such as commiting certain crimes) that many of them finds normal.

IMPORTANT POINT: if you (and this applies to everyone) reads my statements about gypsies, I use "most of them", "many of them" and similar attributes mostly. I NEVER SAID that EVERY gypsy -- even from the poor ones -- is like that. But statistics and lots of EVERYDAY evidence proves that many of them follow the same -- and negative -- lifestyle. So yes, THERE ARE POSITIVE EXCEPTIONS.

Ragusa, do you choose to be polite when you give your seat to an old woman in the train/tram? Do you choose to be lawful when you respect the law? Do you choose to be a good example when you show a good example to your children?

Some things are deeply in us; we IMPLICITLY learnt them from the community -- including our parents -- around us since our birth. They are not choices. It is a lifestyle and values that parents and their environment show to children and kids.

Enlightened parents are needed. Those gypsies who identify the negative features of the current lifestyle of most gypsies and teach their children to be different. To study. And not to wait for positive changes while not doing anything for it. E.g. my psychologist relative told that a gypsy woman visited her with a very talented child; the child now visits college, and will have a degree. BECAUSE THE PARENT guided the child like that.

You guys and ladies here all got a basis in your life; a basis what the guidance of your parents (or possibly another influential force) offered you in your life. A child must be guided. A child follows what he/she sees the PARENT does!!! The point is, PARENTS must show a good example to children! And parents cannot do it if they were also shown a negative example when they were children.

 

Just so I better understand you, so I get an empirical impression, can you put the amount of positive exceptions in numbers? Like 15, 10, 5 % are ok? What about the rest? What to do with and/or about them?

And I get you right - you do say that your problem is indeed about what they are and not about what they choose to do?

 

Of course this is true. I freely admit that I've never lived in Hungary, and the only time I get any news at all from Hungary is when something happens there that makes international news, which is rarely. And I certainly don't have any experience dealing with gypsies - about the closest thing we have here in the US would be illegal immigrants, but even that's not a perfect analogy, as most of them are here for the express purpose of getting a job.

No offense is intended, however. Look, unless you want those who are debating you in this thread to move to Hungary for a time before we reply (not very practical) the only means we have of discussing this topic is from the bounded experiences that we have. This limitation should not be considered an impediment to open debate. I think all of us here can agree that you know more about Hungary than the rest of us, for the very reason you state: You have lived there for most or all of your life.

Now that we have that out of the way, is it OK to respond to what we see going on there with our admittedly limited experience of the people and culture of your country? I know the whole "free press" idea is still a relatively novel concept in Hungary, but it appear to be implemented much differently there than most other nations of the world that claim to have a true "free press".

 

Is it intentionally "forgetting" to present one side as strongly as the other - or are people inherently predisposed to see that because they consider one side better?

If you want to impose balance on the media, you better have rock-solid and objective rules to determine if they are actually balanced or not, and by very tight criteria. Because unless you have very clear criteria, you will end up with any one power that happened to have handily won the election forcing the media to broadcast its idea of "fair and balanced". That's always a problem when there is a media watchdog appointed from political parties, especially if the majority party/parties automatically get a majority there. As far as I understand, the leader of the council is appointed by the PM (I suppose they can be removed with parliamentary vote?); they are thus a political appointee. The broader the power of this organ is and the degree of interpretations that it can make, the more possibilities for abuse you get.

Now, I agree with some of the ideas I read - such as a right of reply to an article concerning you. However, others, such as the council deciding on what information is "necessary for society" and must be featured, or enforcing balanced views... Well, that is trickier. You need very good criteria to prevent stooges or asskissers put on the council - and let's be frank, such positions tend to get a few - from using it to make the press go their way.

Yes, perhaps things would be fine. Potential for abuse doesn't automatically mean abuse; good people don't need good laws. However, people are fallible - people in power, even more so. If a law is not at least somewhat protected against the possibility that an ambitious and ruthless governmet would seek to abuse it, then it is not a good law. Would you be so fine with the (ex)-communists, or a party in the pocket of the same corporate lobbies supposedly offended by the law, managing to form the next government, and using all possibilities it gives them to push their agenda?

So yeah, the WPost might have gone overboard. It doesn't mean things are fine, though.

 

Why I said you hadnt read my post was that I more or less conceded and accepted your very negative description of romani, that in my experience what you write seems to coincide quite well with reality. I am deeply saddened by the fact that pretty much all the prejudice against Romani I heard growing up only strengthened with contact and experience. They do not consider themselves part of mainstream society, they have their own society and those not part of it are pretty much just suckers to be taken advantage of. This of course hurts the romani more than anyone else, I don't know what is the hen and what is the egg but they are an insular culture different from their surrounding societies, this leads to them being viewed with suspicion and treated differently which leads to Romani insulating themselves even more and return the suspicion and the circle continues. My point was that there is no point stating how things are but that we should instead try to find the reasons and ways to break this negative spiral. When a minority is suffering more of the responsibility must always fall on the majority simply because they have the power to change things. It is damn hard for an illiterate father of six grown up feeling the scorn of the surrounding world and been taught that all who are not romani are wicked to break such a circle. It must come from us.

The Romani stigma is still live and well, very very few romani become succesful here and by succesful I mean simply finishing school and getting a job and those who do, those who manage to join mainstream society dare not talk about their ethnicity. It is ok to slur Romani, it is ok to call them thieves and those few who have managed to get a decent job are afraid of their co-workers finding out that they are "filthy gypsies".

 

That is the crux, at least I feel, of the thread. The "international news," in this instance, TWP, often presents a one-sided view of an issue that has more than one side to it regarding Hungary and its problems, if I am understanding Baronius correctly. That kind of goes without saying, but we are speaking of the press and how it conducts itself. In this instance, it was merely an editorial, a rant, with no real credit or sources. Personally, as an American reader, I just would have taken it at face value and not much more. I would not have considered myself "well-educated" on the issue just from that rant alone, but if I was interested I certainly would have taken the time to learn more of the nuances of this political issue.

The thing that struck me about the rant, and probably Baronius as well, was some of the terminology, like "Putinsim" unleashed in Hungary. That's a loaded pharse for many hysterical Americans, who probably see this in terms of the dark days of the Cold War, with the subtext of the old US vs Russia rivalry. And maybe Hungary is just becoming another puppet state again. Putin=Hungary. What more do they need to know? This is of course how some of the press operates here, and we can call that the "free press," for as much as it is worth.

Take a look:
http://www.xpatloop.com/news/washington_post_slams_hungarian_media_law_govt

 

I think the main point missed by those who don't live with gypsies and only hear from news about the situation is as follows:

The prejudice and suspicion is NOT because of their special, unique, insular culture. Noone has any problem with their culture, dances, communication, language, religion etc. etc. etc. Really. Saying that we "do not understand the unique Gypsy culture" is a very stupid misrepresentation of why most Central Europeans seem to be very critic with Gypsies. The nonsense continues: since there is "so huge discrimination and thus no chances" for gypsies, they are "forced to commit crimes, steal" etc.
NOONE IS FORCED TO COMMIT CRIMES. There are POOR PEOPLE in Hungary, Romania, Czech Republic, Slovakia and most of them works HARD and does not commit crimes.

Being poor or discriminated is not an excuse for breaking the law. It increases such risks, but it is not a reason. Many poor people who live honestly prove this.

So not their "insular culture" makes them viewed differently. Noone has a problem with their traditions (dances, funerals, religion, language etc.). The problem is that they do not respect the basic laws of living together and SET AN EXAMPLE TO THEIR CHILDREN to do the same.

E.g. immigrants in USA are not forced to give up their culture, language, habits etc., right? But they HAVE TO respect the American laws.

The reasons are double:
(1) As you said (or at least, you said something similar), the majority also has a responsibility here. It needs to find a better way to integrate gypsies and teach them to respect the laws of a society they live in.
(2) The gypsies should also be more open to integration; noone wants to take their CULTURE; but everyone wants them to understand that the same laws apply to them as to every other citizen.

Of course, the whole case should be analyzed in much more detail, finding key points etc. This is the task of integration processes.

It is OK to respond, but Jared, certain people in this thread mentioned hate, Hitler, antisemitism, and other things regarding the content of my posts. This is an overkill. E.g. Ragusa talks about things he simply doesn't know (e.g. that speculation which implies that the governing Hungarian party led by Viktor Orban cooperates with antisemitic forces etc.). The sins of the nazi regime as well as the communist regime is a very sensitive and unique topic in Hungary; but reports that say Hungary is some sort of cradle for antisemitism and means any practical danger to jews are overly exaggerating and often manipulative against Hungary. As everywhere, there is antisemitism here, but laws keep it in bay and under total control. E.g. the Guard referred by Ragusa is not an actual force. It looks frightening, but it is a negligible force who is not able to spread antisemitism seriously. Etc. etc. etc. So as long as I see some respect, the discussion is fine for me. Before someone would twist my words: no, respect doesn't mean agreeing with me. It means that my partners try to talk a bit more humble in things they do not know in details; e.g. not crying the name of Hitler immediately.

I said before that the new media law is not problematic. I should have been more accurate. I would rather say: this is a first version, which may need further changes. But not thrown into garbage as it is. And this is the point where e.g. Ragusa and myself disagree. It may be broad, and may allow abuse for later governments (and for the current one too), but since Hungary needs to be shaked up from zombie state, I think this is not bad as a start; in future, it can be specified further or modified. I trust in the *expertise* of Viktor Orban. I admit it has to do with trust in his person, and not just in his system. This sounds like supporting a kingdom (where if the king dies, his system can fail, his laws can be abused etc.), I know, but after all the post-communist garbage and cheat, I think a strong leader is needed. If he becomes a "dictator" eventually, then he loses my trust. But just because he has the theoretical option to become a dictator, he doesn't lose my trust. Because this time, I allow that Hungary needs a strong "king". Later, when he estabilishes better basics of democracy than we've had since 1989, this leadership role should be more limited. But not now. Hungary needs an efficient government as I said, not just an effective one. And that is not possible without strong hands and circles of authority.

-----------------------

To offer help to them WHILE monitoring the whole process; and to make them understand in the meantime that respecting the laws of society and country are the best way. This is the task of the experts who work with this; the details of integration programs should be elaborated by them.

If you define it like that, yes. But they are what they are NOT BECAUSE they are born like that, obviously. Instead, everything roots in how they grow up their children and in the current status of their culture. Because their lifestyle did not always include stealing, breaking the law regularly, etc. These features got added much later. Their original culture, obviously, has nothing to do with such things. (I'm really not a Gypsy expert, but some historical reasons I heard about: before WW2, gypsies moved from village to village, selling things such as wooden "bathtubes". They could sell 1-2 of such a thing PER VILLAGE, and after that, they moved to the next village etc. All the time moving and moving. After WW2, however, they were forced to get a residency; e.g. people who got vaccinations against diseases were DOCUMENTED; this started a process which resulted in gypsies being forced to live in ONE PLACE; taking their job possibilities, because they couldn't sell what they were able to create. Please do not take the above historical information as precise or accurate; I just heard it and if you're interested, you should do a research about it.)

 

What are you talking about? This is not the first version version of the law. This is the final product. It is the law as enacted in the Hungarian parliament that is so structurally flawed and inviting abuse. And given Mr. Orbán's attitudes it appears that there won't be any changes about it unless majorities change, or, just a thought, Hungary's EU presidency ends and Europe can start twisting his arm on the matter.

So yes, there may be changes in the future, and it may not be abused. Maybe I win in the lottery tomorrow and never need to work again in my life. That would all be nice, but only a fool counts on such wishes or assumptions to become true.

 

Such is the life, Ragusa; some things need evolution in practice, whether you believe it or not. You as a lawyer probably like to see things fixed and clear in the beginning, and you offered arguments to confirm your view, I don't doubt that. But some things just cannot be seen in advance. About saying it's first version, yes it's first MAJOR final version in the way that if it doesn't work well, it can be modified later. As everything. You think it's experimenting, I know, but I think IN THE CURRENT STATE of Hungary, it is better to have broad and very strict law than a very specific and detailed one which may allow (yet-unidentified) backdoors and tricky points.

So, while for an airplane computer system, I would never say it (that's a completely different thing), I say now, yes: we'll see how it works. As you can see, not everyone has problems with it: even a German publisher, Jan Mainka has no big problems with it.

I don't want to repeat myself more: in a democracy that has been stable for a longer time (no, Hungary only looked like a democracy since 1989), your arguments are TOTALLY PERFECT; but the current Hungary needs a special mix of strong leadership and democratic values. Hungary needs to be a democracy, with a strong control, for the time being. (The state always needs a certain level of control; as we know, otherwise it would mean anarchy. The line which tells what is free and what is regulated strictly is not globally defined in the world; and this is where I give my trust to Viktor Orban for the time being.)

 

That's right - Absolutely, damn right. Personal rights and liberties are easy to give away, but very, very, difficult to get back again. I would think carefully about giving them up, Baronius, no matter how "noble" the cause appears on the suface. We saw very much the same thing here in the US after 9/11.

 

Again, good points, Chandos. But I can assure you, Hungarian citizens decided to risk this time. I'll tell why. The life standards of most Hungarian citizens in the past 20 years were much much worse than of the citizens of many other countries in the world; and not because Hungary was in such terrible status after 1989! Hungary used to be No. 1 in development among the post-communist Central European countries, but after 2002, it went really bad, and we became the worst (and also in whole Europe, we were the worst, and still we're among the worst, economy-wise). This is because the socialist government between 2002-2006 and 2006-2010 messed up everything. You don't need to believe it, but most of Hungary believes so. (In 2006, the Prime Minister admitted in a party meeting -- and someone recorded it to tape -- that they have been lying to the public about the status of the economy. Great lies. Not minor lies that may happen in Western countries. There were severe lies. And he admitted it.)

So considering the very bad life standards people have recently had here in Hungary, they do not care about losing these "personal rights" and "liberties". They risk them for a "noble" cause, yes. And the international community can criticize it, but talking about Putinism and similar things are only for creating overly histeric atmosphere. Some international forces and media representatives will not tell what the majority of the Hungarian nation can and cannot decide to do.

 

Some more points:

#1 Fidecz, after winning the election, decreed the party's Manifesto must be mounted in most public buildings, including theaters, museums, and concert halls. This “proclamation” must be appropriately framed, regularly cleaned and be at least 50cm by 70cm in size. It declares that a “revolution in the polling booths” has taken place. Imagine walking into the Public and seeing something like this (inverse is translated from the Hungarian):

It also appears as if the measure is lending itself to mockery:

​

#2 The government has also, probably to counter the horrible corruption of the youth by liberal and left artists and actors, refused to disperse a third of the monies already allocated for independent theaters. Major festivals have been cancelled as promised funds vanish. Independent companies are also getting "content recommendations" asking that art reflect positively on Hungary; high-profile resignations are often attributed to government meddling.

#3 More generally, many prominent cultural figures in Hungary have found themselves on an anonymously published list of Jews in the Hungarian public life. (keywords: zsidók (jews), homoszexuális (homosexuals) and bolsevista ('bolshevists' i.e. lefties)).

Interesting public climate.

 

Ragusa, you are making fun of yourself by these randomly sent "some more points" posts.

You are basically making a propaganda, because you're taking things out of context (and putting them into manipulative context) and include the use of questionable sources. E.g. all sorts of lists are made in the internet, not just in Hungarian but also in German. If I send you a website with neonazi content on the internet, is Angela Merkel to be blamed for that?

Are you a lawyer or a left-liberal political servant hired to throw mud at Hungary?

 

Baronius,
I'm sure you didn't notice, but I am making fun of you, and I am enjoying myself greatly doing so. I am conservative, and as a result I believe in law and constitutional rights - and that is the reason why I view that law, and view the Nationalism and the entire illiberal approach that Orbán's party has chosen, well beyond just Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press, with serious concerns. Alas, partisans apparently are incapable distinguish principles based dissent with their pet ideas from the hackery they engage in. Mirror imaging maybe.

Besides, these point provide necessary context for people who aren't too well informed about Hungary or contemporary Hungarian politics. Without that, they just might end up believing the nonsense you throw at them.

 

Examining a complex problem purely through the glasses of law (which in advance has big differences even between democratic countries) while ignoring the national, cultural, political and economic specifics of the county in question is very narrow-minded. Ragusa has a lawyer diploma (as far as I know), so one could say that it's a bit professional bias that he chose the narrow-minded view. But the fact he feels that he makes fun of someone and even enjoys it greatly questions whether he is suitable to be a lawyer at all. Regardless of the fact it's a personal discussion, a lawyer (just like a policeman) is always expected not to bring shame to his profession. A lawyer has well-established sources and evidence. Ragusa's "evidence" would not be accepted even by a drunk judge. He says that his points offer "context" to those who are not well-informed in the topic. I'm sure that all readers here have the common apparently sense to notice that 99% of Ragusa's sources are biased; he searches for biased, mostly political sources that "prove" his points. I think Ragusa would be a suitable and great lawyer for "show trials" indeed, where the outcome of the trial is decided in advance by political forces.

 

So partisans are incapable of distinguishing principles based dissent with their pet ideas from the mindless hackery they engage in ...

Like that translation. Totally biased.

Tell me, do you have those vivid dreams of biased liberal gypsy Bolsheviks hunting you very often?

 

Not really.

My violin teacher was a Gypsy woman. She was really kind and a good teacher.

The "manifesto" doesn't belong to Fidecz (this is a nonexisting party made up by Ragusa), in fact it even does not belong to Fidesz, the governing party. It was accepted in the Hungarian Parliament. On a side note, Ragusa's quote of the text & translation is flawed; the second English paragraph is not even the translation of its Hungarian counterpart; e.g. notice that "spring" or "2010" cannot even be found in the Hungarian second paragraph quoted by Ragusa; neither with numbers nor with words, in any form (there is absolutely no reference to time/date in that paragraph). This means either Ragusa is manipulating here or his source is flawed.
Both options are terrible: a lawyer using flawed sources, or simply presenting lies in his posts

How can this person examine anything related with Hungary if he cannot even handle and work with source materials?!

Actually, the situation is worse: there is not yet official English translation of the Hungarian media law criticized by Ragusa:
Link1 and Link2. From Link1 (dated 30th December 2010):

Considering Ragusa admittedly doesn't understand much Hungarian, the question arises how Ragusa -- as a lawyer of "constitutional values" -- examined the Hungarian media law? In Hungarian? Or with third-party random translations? Or he forms his lawyer opinion without even checking the TEXT of the law he condemns?

Ragusa wrote about the Hungarian media law:

It seems he prefers smelling to reading legal text when it's about analyzing laws!

 

This paragraph is scary. Let's try changing a few words in and out (bolded words are the substituted ones)...


I don't want to repeat myself more: in a democracy that has been stable for a longer time (no, Cambodia only looked like a democracy since 1959), your arguments are TOTALLY PERFECT; but the current Cambodia needs a special mix of strong leadership and democratic values. Cambodia needs to be a democracy, with a strong control, for the time being. (The state always needs a certain level of control; as we know, otherwise it would mean anarchy. The line which tells what is free and what is regulated strictly is not globally defined in the world; and this is where I give my trust to Pol Pot for the time being.)

Could quite easily see such a thing been argued back forty years ago. Or we could try on a different pair of pants, seventy to eighty years ago:

I don't want to repeat myself more: in a democracy that has been stable for a longer time (no, Germany only looked like a democracy since 1919), your arguments are TOTALLY PERFECT; but the current Germany needs a special mix of strong leadership and democratic values. Germany needs to be a democracy, with a strong control, for the time being. (The state always needs a certain level of control; as we know, otherwise it would mean anarchy. The line which tells what is free and what is regulated strictly is not globally defined in the world; and this is where I give my trust to Chancellor Adolf Hitler for the time being.)

I admit, I do not know the exact wording of the law. Nor do I have a full understanding of your culture, but Baronius, when you say such things it does look scary. Surely you must see how such arguments can be used to bad ends? Doubly so when your only other arguments seem to rest on (A) We don't understand your unique culture/situation/history and don't speak Hungarian ; or (B) saying that sources used are bias/not translated properly, without providing any alternatives. And sorry, The Economist, a questionable source?

On a slight side note, can such laws be challenged through the EU courts (court of Justice, is it?), as a breach of some of the EU treaties?

 

Yes, they can be challenged. We will see what happens. I think there will be no problems and the whole hysteria will slowly fade (poor Ragusa...).

Your word substitutions look "interesting", but in case of Hungary, they are far from reality. Mr. Orban will not become Pol Pot or Hitler. If you had known his past, you would know this, even as a non-Hungarian. Nonetheless, everyone is free to believe in whatever miserable theory he/she wishes; I offer my trust to Orban as long as I see he truly does something for Hungary (something the socialistic governments didn't do; all they did was stealing billions of dollars of money). He will NEVER be like Hitler or Pol Pot; do you want to bet in, say, 10000 EUR?

Moreover, many people seem to be misled (ocassionally brainwashed) by the meaning of "democracy" and similar terms. Every "properly" working democratic country has strong control over certain things. For example, in presidential systems (as opposed to parliamentary ones), the president has much bigger power than the Prime Minister in parliamentary systems. The American President has much bigger PERSONAL POWER than e.g. the Hungarian Prime Minister. Much bigger authority concentrates in the President than e.g. in the hand of the prime minister of a parliamentary country. This doesn't mean the USA is closer to a dictature, does it?

To summarize the above, there is one point Rotku: your approach and subtitutions look "interesting", but they are totally impractical, and make sense only in theory. World can change a lot, everyone knows, but your arguments are not relevant even in the future Hungary for several reasons (I really would end up with a triple Wall of Text if I tried to detail them too).

Yes, the Economist also published articles that were overly hysteric about certain changes in Hungary. As I clarified, it is mostly because Viktor Orban dared to touch international financial and economical forces (big banks, telecom etc.). This is their attack. And many of you guys here, who wrote in this topic, are pretty naive, and basically (even if unintentionally) act as the puppets of those companies and forces. About me offering "alternatives", it is Ragusa who implies various (non-existing) things about Hungary, so HE needs to offer proof for his statements; but his arguments are flawed, so I merely pointed out that:

Ragusa doesn't know much Hungarian, and law's EXACT TEXT is not available in English or any other language. So how can he -- as a lawyer -- criticize a law which text HE DOES NOT EVEN KNOW?!