Washington Post not unbiased either -- Hungary media law

Remove all ads!

Baronius,
one would presume that in a former Warsaw Pack country memories of widespread, politically-motivated press censorship is relatively fresh. Alas, lost on you it seems.

In your last couple of posts you're putting the R back into Ridiculous. After having to drop the canard of Hungary's legal system being incomparable and unique (because it isn't) for its sheer implausibility, we agreed on what the law was about - with you foolishly insisting that the law is, while harsh, wise and just and wouldn't be abused by dear leader Orbán.

Now you're coming around discovering that I do not know what I am talking about because I do not speak Hungarian and thus cannot have read the bill because it is only available in Hungarian?

You do spot the problem? It lies in you first accepting the terms of the discussion (what the law is about) to then ignore that, claiming I am wrong because I can't have read the law. Considering that I from the start held a view of the law that was factual enough to not be challenged by you, me never having read the original text is utterly irrelevant, since we had already agreed on the facts of the law.

I have my assessment of provisions in the law from the OSCE human rights councillor and others. So more, beyond suggesting I am wrong or biased, and even more hilarious, you are in essence suggesting that everyone outside Hungary who is critical of that law is so, not because they understand the law and the implications of its implementation, but because they are either conspiring against Orbán-Hungary - or that they are benevolent but have been misled by treacherous, liberal leftist subversives who spread lies about the law and dear leader Orbán. Now that is truly stretching plausibility.

Preposterous is too mild a word for such nuttiness. Get some fresh air.

 

Okay. I have to say something here.

Sorry to put you on the spot Baronius, but what is the deal with your neurotic need to argue with the world until you are blue in the face? Your website goes down, and you come here and stir up two of the most pointless, long-winded threads around. You express opinions but have nearly no ability to accept alternate viewpoints (at least based on what I've seen here). In this thread, as well as the IA thread, no one sees it the way you do, so things get really silly, really fast as you continue to dogmatically share your viewpoints. It seems to me that you have a severe inferiority complex, and just want to fight to be acknowledged and accepted. Accept yourself, and don't worry about what others think – that is my heartfelt suggestion to you.

And for the other Sorcerer's Place members who continue the dialogue with Baronius, why are you taking his bait and engaging in this pointless exercise? We clearly have some intelligent, educated minds dialoging here, but there is little display of wisdom to the fact that this thread has accomplished next to nothing. And the longer it rolls on, the less value it has.

I think we all get it. Baronius supports the law. Ragusa does not. The two of you are NEVER going to reach an understanding. So what do the continued walls of text and veiled insults prove…? See below for the answer:

Spoiler

This space has been intentionally left blank.

 

Marceror,
don't ruin my scratchpost.

 

My apologies. We wouldn't want that to happen....

Is this like a scratchpost used by a cat? Because that's what I'm picturing, and it's strangely appropriate.

 

You mean like this?

​

Yes, I figure it's appropriate as well.

 

Yes! Appropriate both for the sharpening of the debatorial claws, as well as for the cat fight that that is, to some extent, happening in this thread.

Debatorial? Did I just create a new word?

 

No, not for cat fight that that is, to some extent, happening in this thread, more for the fight that is in this cat - after all a scratchpost is an inanimate object.

 

True, but your opponent in this thread is not.

 

Good to see you in the Alleys, Mar. Welcome. And fasten your seatbelt; the ride here is not for the faint of heart.

Obviously, you are new. First, it is not "neurotic" to argue until one is "blue in the face" here, but perfectly acceptable and normal in the Alleys. Second, unless Baronius has been arguing with himself on this thread, it seems he is not alone in how vigorously this thread has been "argued." Third, never assign motive for debating a point. It is considred poor form. We value spirited debate in the Alley -- or so we like to claim.

Personally, I would like to think that I have been just as much a troulbe-maker in stirring up "pointless, long-winded debates," as the next member in the Alley. We pride ourselves on such dubious accomplishments.

Ah, I see you have some raw talent for this type of debate. Always assume that your opponent, and his particualr point of view (but which you disagree) is "silly" and "dogmatic." Hint: you can argue this from either the "right, or the "left."
.

Now, that's the spirit. But expect that your creditials as a "psycho-analyst" will be challenged.

One of two things here:

1. My wife put you up to saying that, or
2. You REALLY are new here.

Nonsense, as a proud American I am taking back my country, "one post at a time" on SP.

So you are saying there is no chance, ever, that Ragusa will move to Hungary to become of a member of the Orban Party? Darn. And he was so close to being "turned." And I thought that was Ragusa's new bathroom remodel.

Well, that's the Alley for ya.

 

Okay, thanks for tour, and the lesson in appropriate Alley etiquette. Instead of coming back with play by play response, which wouldn’t exactly be on topic (especially following an admin reminder of that topic), I will simply share that I found your response to be most enjoyable and LOL worthy. And, as a fellow American, I will encourage you in your quest reclaim our great nation through your posting here. I’m not sure it will help, but I guess it can’t hurt… and we can use every edge we can get right about now (no matter how dull that blade might appear).

Oh, and should my credentials as a psycho-analyst come into question, I'm ready for that. I've caught a couple of episodes of Doctor Phil, and paid attention for at least a couple minutes of each. I figure, that makes me as qualified as anyone to determine why somebody chooses to say what they say, right.

Okay, excuse me while I put the scratchboard back in its place. Okay… that should do it. Right then. Let me back off a bit…. Good. Claws back out gentlemen.

 

That is sort of my point. I bet 1936 Germany, many people would have been saying a remarkably similar thing. I'm not saying he'll end up like that, but such a quote that I copied across before can definitely be frightening - especially if a large proportion of the population believe it.

Not exactly true. A Prime Minister can possess more or less power than a president - it all depends on how the system is set up. Compare the Westminister Prime Minister (not UK's current government, as they do not have a majority) who has strong control over his party. They are able to pass what ever laws they choose; especially as parties tend to vote as a block, unlike in the United States where individuals can (and do) cross the floor. If a British PM wanted to change the health care law, all they would have to do is convince their Cabinet - sure, then it goes through select committees and all that stuff, but so long as the PM has a good grasp on his party there should be no problems. Compare that to how much trouble Obama had with his law.

Another great (probably better) example is South Africa, where the Prime Minister is both head of state and head of government - fulling an even greater role than what the US president does (from my understanding) as they have more direct control over their party.

 

Thanks, Mar! I have to give part of the credit to Captain Morgan -- it is New Years. [And I was going to blame him if you were offended in any way]

 

I knew you would say that. No matter how frightening the quote is, I can assure you Hungary will not become a Pol Pot or Hitler dictature or anything similar. As I said, it has too many reasons against that.

Actually, you're right, it depends on the system, but in most cases, I think the PM has less power in person. Nonetheless, I merely pointed out that just by hearing "a strong control is also needed" you should not start to panic and shake from dictature. Democracies, republics, etc. also need strong control over certain things. "Strong control" in itself is insufficient to imply (or accuse) someone is supporting a dictature.


Finally, two points about the views of poor Ragusa (who, after becoming discredited which he tries to disguise, started to talk off-topic in a chit-chat way until an administrator reminded him about the actual topic ).

First of all, I did not agree with Ragusa in anything. In the beginning of discussion, when he jumped here, I dared to assume that a lawyer at least knows the text of the law he criticizes. I assumed it, and I was wrong, as we know now. But even if I accepted the terms, it would still not change on the fact (which was newly discovered -- this happens in legal procedures and trials too) that the "lawyer" called Ragusa DOES NOT EVEN KNOW THE TEXT OF THE LAW HE CRITICIZES

Second and last point: even if it looks like minority, I'm still NOT the only one who has no major problems with the media law. I linked to an interview with a German publisher, Jan Mainka . Ragusa keeps staying silent about this. Yeah, Mainka is neither gypsy-hater, nor nazi or antisemitist... and still, his words prove that even the international viewpoint on the law is not totally uniform. And he is a publisher in Hungary, meaning that he is directly affected by the new law. Ignoring this fact and saying that "Baronius is against the world" alone reflects great self-importance and self-centrism. Because many of you here choose to ignore various facts, making the impression Baronius is alone with his viewpoint that supports the law. No, there are even other sources which are about supporting the law, just the biased media tends to "forget" about them. Just like many of you here seemed to "forget" to mention the Mainka interview when listing the "poor arguments" of Baronius; saying that Baronius' only arguments are that we don't understand his culture or that many of us are misled by the current international hysteria...

 

For second there I thought this was another IA "debate."

 

Baronius,
Mr. Maika, while born in East Germany, now lives in Hungary. His place of birth doesn't give him more credibility than anyone else (same with you for that matter). That he writes in Germany doesn't mean I have to endorse his judgement or his assertions. I read that interview of yours, and another he gave to a German Newspaper. He says he is more concerned about his ad sales (his newspaper will have to operate in Hungary's political environment) than the new media law, adding that he has never read the law, but that he finds the critique hysterical and inadequate. His newspaper has a circulation of 7000 and is mainly read by German businessmen, arguably not the sort of newspaper that the Orbán government wrote their media law about.

The kicker was when he said the media law will not affect him and his newspaper because they are balanced in their presentations anyway. A newspaper that strives to meet everyone's expectations is everyone's 'sister of mercy'. I do not expect a newspaper to balance their reporting, I expect them to report on the events happening in the country, and that is the public service they provide, and sometimes there just is no flip side and balancing view.

The new laws enacted by the Orbán government - the media law, the decree to publish the party manifesto in all public places, the content proposals for theatres, and for instance the sacking law not signed by the president* that would have empowered the prime minister to sack any career public employee at will, without having to disclose his reasons, cumulatively speak a clear language from a legislative intent point of view.

I can read your fervent, rambling defence of all things Orbán all day, but not 'unthink' that.

Spoiler

* Since Hungary is basically using the model of the German constitution, in Hungary political power primarily rests with the prime minister, who controls the executive branch. The president represents the state internationally as head of state and is signing laws into power, acting as a safeguard to the constitution, to prevent the legislative from enacting unconstitutional laws. Arguably that is why he didn't sign that sacking law into power.

PS: To the credit of Mr. Maika, his newspaper ran this editorial today:

I agree with that. What Hungarian democracy under Orbán presents today is a state slipping into dictatorship of the majority.

 

I don't know how true this is, but I thought it was interesting:

Judging from this, it seems the media is somewhat rowdy in Hungary. There is nothing wrong with that, IMO, and in fact I quite approve of a media that is not the lapdogs for one political party or the other like we have here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Orbán

 

Chandos, the media wasn't independent in the previous 8 years in Hungary at all. They just did it very silently and carefully. Just like CNN during the Iraqi War in the USA, the biggest and most watched Hungarian channels were doing what the Socialists expected them to do, mostly. For example, that Heti Hetes never criticized the socialists; even between 1998 and 2002 (Orban's first government), they criticized Orban, and also AFTER it (when Orban lost the elections) between 2002 and 2010, they kept criticizing Orban's side instead of making fun of the government. (Yes, they're biased against Orban. Everyone in Hungary knows this.) Proof? OK, show me ONE episode of Heti Hetes where they criticized the socialists to such an extent as they did with Orban. Show me even ONE!

It's a shame anyone would agree with this, and it's a shame anyone who considers himself/herself democratic dares to write this down. So the EU must "care" of the Hungarian people? This is especially offending and condescending, implying that the Hungarian people are stupid and would need an external force to "care" for them. THIS IS A DISGUISED wording of external dictature, very accurately. Because the HUNGARIAN PEOPLE decided about their own government and country, and implying that instead someone should have "cared" for them (= told them who to choose to serve the international interests) is the most disgusting and cheap thing to do.

Enforcing the will of the majority is a basic concept of democracy. That is why polls and elections have such rules: 50%+1, 2/3, etc.
To simplify it, the same LAW applies to EVERYONE, even to the minority, BUT the decisions are made by those who are authorized by the majority.

This term, "dictatorship of the majority", reveals much about how certain international forces are irritated by the fact that Hungarians finally took control of their own country. From the international forces who dictated what to do and considered Hungary as a country to bring their "junk" (yes, both physically and symbolically, many evidence proves this). It has ended now. How low, "dictatorship of majority" is used instead of "democracy" when the context "needs" it. Ridiculous.

To all those who don't know Hungary from close too much (e.g. Chandos), I can happily tell that Hungary will always welcome you (regardless your nationality/nation, regardless whether you're jew or gypsy etc.), just come and you will see that this international hysteria and lies (+ the theoretical speculations of this discredited lawyer, Ragusa) are all just serving interests of certain groups (either intentionally or unintentionally -- Ragusa seems to be the latter). Hungary is democratic, you can feel it on your own skin if you want to try it. Or everyone can just choose to be clever to tell Hungary what to do, while sitting in safe distance from Hungary. You can tell, but it won't influence anything: because finally the nation has awaken, and started taking real steps.

 

Some light reading. Democracy, more often than not, are not there to enforce the will of the majority. In fact, you will find that many democracies have checks against such an event. That is one of the key reasons for things like a Federal system (like Germany, and therefore from what Ragusa says, I assume Hungary has), or even constitutional rights (eg. US Bill of Rights, or a bit closer to home for you, the rights granted in Germany's Basic Law).

[Edited]
Wikipedia provides a good summary of what a Tyranny (Dictatorship) of the Majority is

 

I was talking practically. That is what matters, the practice. Not various definitions. The laws are mostly accepted as 50%+1 or 2/3 majority, right? People authorize a group of people to lead their country, and vote about laws in the Parliament. Then the law is executed by the government, basically. (I don't mention the third branch of power here, because I try to be very concise.) The above is a very simplified vague summary, but that's the basis of it all: we choose a certain group who we believe to be able to lead the country; we authorize them. Then yes, it must be ensured that the will of the majority does not harm the rights of the minority (this is why I wrote that the law applies to EVERYONE, protects everyone and gives obligations to everyone). Yeah, the power of the majority must be limited and well-defined, indeed. But the basic principle of all is what I detailed before: a group of authorized people to make decisions, and of course, several structures are set up to support and verify the whole process.

Yes, and this is what does not and will not happen in Hungary. If you think the opposite, then we will just agree to disagree.

Of course, I don't mind if post-communist principles and approaches are indeed "oppressed" more than how it was during socialistic governments. "Omg!", some readers might shout now! ...and then start accusing me of oppressing the rights of individuals who follow post-communist principles. I tell you something: are the neo-nazis "oppressed" (forbidden, removed etc.), e.g. in Germany? Yes, they are. As they should be. There should be no difference with communists.

Many of you Western Europeans do not know that the sins and damage done by communist systems is not smaller than what Nazis did.

Hungarians do not need more communists. Unlike in Western democracies, here in Hungary the socialist party (MSZP) has certain close ties to the communists and members of the dictature that lasted until '89.

P.S.: Hungary does not have a federal system, Rotku.

Are you assuming things about *Hungary* from the words of *Ragusa*? He hardly understands and knows Hungary, apart from his desire to tell what should be best to my country. That guy even doesn't know the basic principles of research, which is a big shame for a lawyer (he is criticizing a law which text he does not even know -- I am still shocked by this fact, yes!)

P.S.2:
Regarding the earlier question about how to treat the Gypsy problem in the EU, here is some (slightly old) info where the Hungarian-American investor Soros György (Forbes #35) offered support for the gypsy integration.