Thread: RT coverage on gay rights in Russia

Gay rights in Russia: Facts and Myths — RT News

I am actually impressed with RT's coverage of this issue. Considering that it is a state-funded Russian news organization, they actually do a good job of covering the story fairly and accurately. Soviet news agencies were notoriously biased and would have been blasting everyone with lies and propaganda to cover up the reality of the situation, but RT has done a good job of balancing their reporting here.

Certainly RT is more "fair and balanced" than FOX "news" is.

I am not going to say anything more on the topic of pride parades and what not....
However I agree with you on RT. They are going from strength to strength for sure. I am honestly grateful to Russia for providing this excellent channel. It's got great British news anchors and some really cool American characters hosting some of the shows.

Can you believe, the BBC practically IGNORED the NSA revelations, and the GCHQ spying for America story.
And pretty much everything around Snowden. And I can't stomach the beeb's coverage of the conflicts in the Middle East.

RT behaves like any modern state TV channel in my view -- obviously they are not going to go blatantly against a pronounced state decision but they certainly report critically from Russia, including on government affairs, and I'm sure they'd have debate programs where everybody can say what they have to say. I think that took place for the last 5 years of the Soviet Union as well, so I don't know what you are comparing with.

I never really watched Soviet TV in those days, apart from a few limited occasions a. However I watched a fair bit of East German TV. Honestly I can't remember thinking it was propaganda. All it was, was that they essentially choose to see the world through "Red glasses" as we used to say. So if there are two alternative ways of looking at some world event, they picked the one that fitted with their ideological outlook, and they sometimes ignored news that were negative.

Most countries had only state TV back in those days, so everyone was in the same boat. Actually, the USSR, as far as I remember, had more channels than for example Sweden. Not to mention lots of satellite channels! (strange really, did people in the USSR really have satellites, or how did that work..) And most Eastern European programming was not political, just good quality culture, special interest and kids stuff.

But a while ago, I was staying in a hotel and was pretty shocked that there were ADS on RT?! How did that happen? It was almost impossible to watch, there was an ad every 10 minutes or so.
Does Russia have a TV License system to pay for the state channels, or how are they financed?

According to a survey conducted shortly after the gay propaganda law was passed by Levada, 76 percent of Russians support it.

The people have spoken
Russians are not ready to accepts gays to the society

RT behaves like any modern state TV channel in my view -- obviously they are not going to go blatantly against a pronounced state decision but they certainly report critically from Russia, including on government affairs, and I'm sure they'd have debate programs where everybody can say what they have to say. I think that took place for the last 5 years of the Soviet Union as well, so I don't know what you are comparing with.

When I was in the USSR, I worked for State TV (Lenteleradiokomitet) and had friends working at TASS, and I was really not impressed with their objectivity although I could see improvements. When press is censored for so long, objectivity is almost impossible because reporters are afraid to deviate from the party line. They were starting to head in that direction, but there was still a sense that true objectivity was only just beginning to evolve.

RT - in my opinion - is quite objective and that was the point I was trying to make by posting about its coverage on what is probably the most controversial subject I could think of in Russia at the moment. Certainly they made every effort to include the side of the protesters, and they did not cover up the actual violence which has been going on:

Official statistics show that there were 12 homophobic attacks last year, though activists at Moscow’s sociological NGO Sova Center says that these numbers are almost meaningless, as assaults are rarely reported, and almost never recorded as hate crime incidents.

A 23-year old was murdered in Volgograd in May when he came out to a group of drinking partners during a celebration. The group proceeded to stuff beer bottles into the man’s anus, cut off his penis and then smashed his head with a rock.

On Friday, a resident of Voronezh city was sentenced to two months of corrective labor after being convicted of assaulting Pavel Lebedev, a member of a picket against the law banning the promotion of homosexuality. The judge found the young man guilty of kicking Lebedev in the stomach during the January 20 picket.

Gay activists claim there has been a sharp spike in violence against homosexuals in the past few weeks, saying that the new law gives homophobic gangs carte blanche to attack conspicuously-gay individuals, in the name of “upholding the law”. But exact numbers are impossible to collect reliably.

As far as modern state TV goes, I would even go so far as to say it is more balanced than corporate-sponsored journalism - provided it exists in a country where the journalists are not being constantly threatened and intimidated. Once that happens, it loses credibility.

The majority of corporate-sponsored journalism lacks true objectivity these days which is one of the reasons I got out of the field after being a television reporter for more than a decade and working as a journalist for 15 years.

In the United States, there was a massive scandal in the mid 2000's when a pair of reporters at FOX news tried to report the truth about Monsanto and were shut down. The government even passed laws making it perfectly legal for news media to LIE on TV, which was previously not allowed.

Monsanto Forced Fox TV to Censor Coverage of Dangerous Milk Drug | Institute for Responsible Technology |

We also lost our "fairness in broadcasting act" some years previously, which prevented such a limited number of corporations from owning ALL existing media outlets. Currently we have in the US what amounts to a corporate monopoly on national network news.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/pelosi...ness-doctrine/

In my personal experience as a reporter, I myself was censored. One time, I did an expose on a car dealership which was selling car alarms that did not work. I had the guy admitting to it on camera. But that story never saw air because the car company contacted the TV station's general manager and threatened to pull their $100,000 advertising account. The General Manager came down to the newsroom and made an announcement that the story would not run, because he could not afford to lose what was effectively a large portion of our newsroom's operating budget at the time. That was just a local story. At the network level, this happens to a degree that I doubt most Americans even realize. Massive advertisement budgets, billions of dollars, are what run corporate news programs and this is why the corporations are not exposed by the mainstream media.

As much as Americans fear "state controlled TV," they seem largely unaware of how much control corporations exert over newsmedia. The scope and scale of it is immense. Yet many Americans continue to believe that "liberals" control our press, which is really no longer the case.

Corporate-run media also fails to properly investigate stories, since the focus is really on ratings and coverage is more about entertaining people, doing nonstop LIVE coverage even when it isn't necessary, so that reporters do not have the time to properly investigate their stories or follow-up on what they are reporting. Political press conferences turn into a dog-and-pony show where reporters may as well just read the press releases verbatim, since they rarely ask more probing questions.

Deb, I personally think pure live coverage of stories is good, because I want to draw my own conclusions from what I see, be the investigator myself; I would pay a certain amount to one who was the first to direct a camera at some thrilling stuff going on so I could see it, but I would give no dime to one who would decide what's good and what's bad for me.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Deb, I personally think pure live coverage of stories is good, because I want to draw my own conclusions from what I see, be the investigator myself; I would pay a certain amount to one who was the first to direct a camera at some thrilling stuff going on so I could see it, but I would give no dime to one who would decide what's good and what's bad for me.

You can't investigate "what you see" when the FACTS which need to be investigated are not even reported, Eric. Proper investigative journalism still allows you to draw your own conclusions but it EXPLORES the issue and presents all the information so that you can made an informed decision. LIVE for the sake of LIVE is NOTHING but a reporter talking out of his ass.

We had 2 channels in USSR, named First and Second
But is was more than enough: if First broadcast not very interesting stuff at the moment, you could immediately switch to Second (one-touch action!) The worst possible situation that did occur: some interesting was on BOTH channels! And nothing could be done to "replay" missed programme, because most households had only one TV set, and 0 videorecorders.

Also, having 2 programmes, not 102 made it fairly easy to track most wanted programmes. Simply there was detailed list for the next week in local newspapers.

Never heard about receiving TV off satellites until 1990s.

Originally Posted by maxmixiv

We had 2 channels in USSR, named First and Second
But is was more than enough: if First broadcast not very interesting stuff at the moment, you could immediately switch to Second (one-touch action!) The worst possible situation that did occur: some interesting was on BOTH channels! And nothing could be done to "replay" missed programme, because most households had only one TV set, and 0 videorecorders.

Also, having 2 programmes, not 102 made it fairly easy to track most wanted programmes. Simply there was detailed list for the next week in local newspapers.

Never heard about receiving TV off satellites until 1990s.

I remember there being three - but that was already 1991. I'm not sure which number I worked for LOL - it was just Leningrad TV, and later it was changed to Channel 5 I think, if I am remembering correctly.

Originally Posted by Deborski

When I was in the USSR, I worked for State TV (Lenteleradiokomitet)

I think the fact that you were there (as an American, during the Cold War) shows they were more open minded than I thought!
I doubt ANY American TV channel invited people from the USSR to work for them, unless the person was a defector being interviewed. I would imagine this was during glasnost etc, but still!
It's really interesting to hear that you did this! What was your job there? What did people in the USA think about you going there? They must have thought it very radical!

Originally Posted by maxmixiv

We had 2 channels in USSR, named First and Second
But is was more than enough: if First broadcast not very interesting stuff at the moment, you could immediately switch to Second (one-touch action!) The worst possible situation that did occur: some interesting was on BOTH channels! And nothing could be done to "replay" missed programme, because most households had only one TV set, and 0 videorecorders.

Also, having 2 programmes, not 102 made it fairly easy to track most wanted programmes. Simply there was detailed list for the next week in local newspapers.

Never heard about receiving TV off satellites until 1990s.

About the ground TV. Hm, maybe it varied from place to place? It must have been more than two because I distinctly remember thinking 'they have more channels'. I only visited Leningrad and Latvia though. Never went anywhere else in the USSR and it was only in Leningrad that I was able to check the TV channels; it was at a youth hostel

Yeah, it wasn't so bad really with the 2 channels which we had in Sweden. They put A LOT of time into deciding the kind of programming to put on, so quite often there was actually something good on, despite the lack of choice. Since everybody watched the same stuff, you could talk about it. Sometimes it was actually embarrassing if you hadn't seen something that everyone else watched.

Due to the mixed political situation in Sweden at the time, you could have a gruesome rememberence programme about US atrocities in Vietnam on one channel, and "Dallas" or "Miami Vice" on the other. Followed by some super-artsy Eastern European film where the action moved at 1 km/h...and then a cheezy German soap. The home produced stuff was considered a bit provincial.

But they had the objective of educating and informing people. They were really committed to high quality and culture, even if everybody did not agree with their interpretation of what was worthwhile..
Now, it's just "whatever will bring in the most viewers, let's just show it!". Tasteless and not in the best interest of society, in my opinion. The lowest common denominator will rule, and people's worst instincts will guide the programming until its nothing but sex, violence, prejudice and propaganda.

About the satellites: I don't know, but I remember from ca 1985, as a kid, several of the houses on my street installed a satellite dish. They were hoping to get German TV and were angry that all they could get was stuff in Russian. I remember that the channels were called "Gorisont 1, 2" etc and it was definitely Russian-speaking; no subtitles. Remember watching a bit of it at a friends' despite not understanding any of it. The whole reason (rich) people got satellites back then, was that they wanted commercial TV with American/German content, so it was kind of funny in an ironical sense that all they could actually pick up, was Soviet TV. Later it changed, of course, as Scandinavia got its own satellite.

Originally Posted by Deborski

Proper investigative journalism still allows you to draw your own conclusions but it EXPLORES the issue and presents all the information so that you can made an informed decision. LIVE for the sake of LIVE is NOTHING but a reporter talking out of his ass.

What a good quote. I did one term of media studies at university and LOVED the topic but I never pursued it. Such a competitive field... But that was just as TV was changing fast, beyond recognition in my neck of the wood. I was totally blown away by CNN at first, but obviously started to notice that sometimes they were just covering things for the sake of it, and ended up repeating themselves, stating the bleeding obvious or essentially wasting time, just to be able to say the coverage was "live".

Originally Posted by Hanna

I think the fact that you were there (as an American, during the Cold War) shows they were more open minded than I thought!
I doubt ANY American TV channel invited people from the USSR to work for them, unless the person was a defector being interviewed. I would imagine this was during glasnost etc, but still!
It's really interesting to hear that you did this! What was your job there? What did people in the USA think about you going there? They must have thought it very radical!

Well, I've been writing about the whole thing right here at MR, in the blog section LOL

It was a very unusual experience, really one of a kind. I was employed by the Soviet government and I worked in Television there. I was a consultant and I helped develop some programs and advertisements. My primary project was a dating game show called Найди Меня.

When I returned to the US, most people were uninterested in the experience. Others called me a "communist" and some resented me for going there to help "the Russians," insisting I should only help "my own people." I had a letter of recommendation from the President of the Lenteleradiokomitet, who was a personal friend of Yeltsin, but it meant nothing in the US. Less than nothing, really. I ended up having to start my career all over again from scratch, and I worked my way through the ranks of local TV news as a field reporter, covering crime and other beats in the US. I finally left the business when I became too disgusted with the state of newsmedia in America.

For a long time, I stopped even talking about Russia because I got so many negative comments whenever I tried to bring it up. Mostly people laughed at me or called me a communist, although I never was a member of the communist party, nor was I affiliated with any political party in Russia. I lost touch with my friends in Russia. It is a long and complicated story. But a couple years back we all reconnected, thanks to Facebook, and I decided to go back to studying Russian with the hopes of potentially teaching English in Russia one day.

The current propaganda laws there have me concerned, however. I am not gay, but I have many friends who are and I support their rights in the US. I am worried that if I returned to Russia, I would be arrested for simply speaking my mind. I find the ambiguity of the "propaganda" laws very concerning, really. Not that I want to launch into this subject. There is a lot which I love about Russia, but I think since I lived there as long as I did, I also came to hate some things about it, just as there are things I hate about my native country, the US.

I did teach some English classes when I was in the USSR, although it has been so long ago that I need a refresher on how to teach again. I am currently studying for my TEFL cert, just in case.

I consider myself a global citizen, and I am very open minded about all cultures and all people. The only thing I have no tolerance for, really, is hatred, oppression, cruelty, and greed.

Originally Posted by Hanna

What a good quote. I did one term of media studies at university and LOVED the topic. It was just as TV was changing fast, beyond recognition in my neck of the wood. I was totally blown away by CNN but obviously started to notice that sometimes they were just covering things for the sake of it, and ended up repeating themselves, stating the bleeding obvious or essentially wasting time, just to be able to say the coverage was "live".

I can't count the number of times I performed live shots on the eleven o'clock news, standing in front of absolutely NOTHING. A closed building. The location where something had happened hours ago. Just for the sake of having that stupid LIVE graphic plastered on the screen. It was all about ratings, not journalism, ultimately.

Originally Posted by maxmixiv

We had 2 channels in USSR, named First and Second

Now we have 1000 channels but all of them are merely crap.

P.S. You forgot about 5th channel, it was Leningrad TV. By the way, it's the oldest channel in Russia.

Leningrad could have its own channel and it did

http://www.5-tv.ru/about/

Omsk and many other cities could issue their own short programmes too, but had to do it by inserting into Second's frequency (time share)

Originally Posted by Deborski

Well, I've been writing about the whole thing right here at MR, in the blog section LOL

It was a very unusual experience, really one of a kind. I was employed by the Soviet government and I worked in Television there. I was a consultant and I helped develop some programs and advertisements. My primary project was a dating game show called Найди Меня.

When I returned to the US, most people were uninterested in the experience. Others called me a "communist" and some resented me for going there to help "the Russians," insisting I should only help "my own people." I had a letter of recommendation from the President of the Lenteleradiokomitet, who was a personal friend of Yeltsin, but it meant nothing in the US. Less than nothing, really. I ended up having to start my career all over again from scratch, and I worked my way through the ranks of local TV news as a field reporter, covering crime and other beats in the US. I finally left the business when I became too disgusted with the state of newsmedia in America.

For a long time, I stopped even talking about Russia because I got so many negative comments whenever I tried to bring it up. Mostly people laughed at me or called me a communist, although I never was a member of the communist party, nor was I affiliated with any political party in Russia. I lost touch with my friends in Russia. It is a long and complicated story. But a couple years back we all reconnected, thanks to Facebook, and I decided to go back to studying Russian with the hopes of potentially teaching English in Russia one day.

The current propaganda laws there have me concerned, however. I am not gay, but I have many friends who are and I support their rights in the US. I am worried that if I returned to Russia, I would be arrested for simply speaking my mind. I find the ambiguity of the "propaganda" laws very concerning, really. Not that I want to launch into this subject. There is a lot which I love about Russia, but I think since I lived there as long as I did, I also came to hate some things about it, just as there are things I hate about my native country, the US.

I did teach some English classes when I was in the USSR, although it has been so long ago that I need a refresher on how to teach again. I am currently studying for my TEFL cert, just in case.

I consider myself a global citizen, and I am very open minded about all cultures and all people. The only thing I have no tolerance for, really, is hatred, oppression, cruelty, and greed.

Sorry I hadn't read your blog entry I think! Lately I have been a really slippery fish here - not actively studying Russian right now, but I still like this forum so I pop in and comment... But sometimes I make comments too fast without knowing the full details of why people say what they say! Thanks for explaining!

Your story makes perfect sense though. How surprising that Soviet TV wanted a dating show! They must have really wanted to change.
Maybe we should find a clip on Youtube and see if anyone remembers it!
So they really weren't that high brow then... I mean, many of the state tv channels in Europe really looked down on "cheap" entertainment that was just intended to play to people's basic instincts. It was a kind of cultural elitism, really. I would have thought USSR TV was definitely onboard with that kind of outlook.

I guess the reaction of your friends in the USA shows that they were so indoctrinated about "evil Russians" that they couldn't really see beyond that. Sad!!! Particularly since the Russians didn't have that outlook on the USA and probably would have been intrigued in a reversed situation. It's also the general expat experience.... Once you return, people don't really understand how you have changed or what your life was life.

I remember having my fist serious anti-Soviet reaction as a kid when we learnt that USSR media essentially didn't cover Chernobyl initially, even though it was MASSIVE news in the rest of Europe and local people's lives were actually at risk. It really upset me because I was so into environmentalism and I thought the USSR was better than killing a major story just because it was embarrassing. Of course, later it emerged that some horrendous stories had been covered up. But then, nobody knew. Then suddenly, they changed their minds about Chernobyl I think, and invited foreign media -- maybe it ended up being a bit of an eye-opener to the bosses of the TV in the USSR, as they realised their politics had denied people knowledge and proper coverage of such a monumental event.

You forgot about 5th channel

I forgot it because it had not been seen in Omsk until recently.

Dating shows had appeared suddenly.
(Sorry, quality is awful. Show begin at 4:40)

Originally Posted by Deborski

Gay rights in Russia: Facts and Myths — RT News
I am actually impressed with RT's coverage of this issue. Considering that it is a state-funded Russian news organization, they actually do a good job of covering the story fairly and accurately. Soviet news agencies were notoriously biased and would have been blasting everyone with lies and propaganda to cover up the reality of the situation, but RT has done a good job of balancing their reporting here.
Certainly RT is more "fair and balanced" than FOX "news" is.

That was a really good article. But the journalist never really answered the question "But why are homosexuals being punished?". They only said how but not why.
And I totally do agree about Fox news. It's just all about political rants. So is USA Today, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc etc.
But I have a system now. I look for a topic at Reuters. Then I find the same topic at Le Monde, RT, Российская Газета, Pravda, and other sources. And I talk to other people about it like Tosevski. He's always reading stuff in Slovenia. Then I can decide what adds up and what doesn't. But mostly the American media doesn't add up.

Originally Posted by Deborski

When I returned to the US, most people were uninterested in the experience. Others called me a "communist" and some resented me for going there to help "the Russians," insisting I should only help "my own people." I had a letter of recommendation from the President of the Lenteleradiokomitet, who was a personal friend of Yeltsin, but it meant nothing in the US. Less than nothing, really. I ended up having to start my career all over again from scratch, and I worked my way through the ranks of local TV news as a field reporter, covering crime and other beats in the US. I finally left the business when I became too disgusted with the state of newsmedia in America.
For a long time, I stopped even talking about Russia because I got so many negative comments whenever I tried to bring it up. Mostly people laughed at me or called me a communist, although I never was a member of the communist party, nor was I affiliated with any political party in Russia. I lost touch with my friends in Russia. It is a long and complicated story. But a couple years back we all reconnected, thanks to Facebook, and I decided to go back to studying Russian with the hopes of potentially teaching English in Russia one day.

That happens now - and even before the Snowden thing. It happens in real life and online. I was trying to defend a Russian newbie at a "Nonsense" forum last winter. I mean, it's not even a serious forum. But I got verbally slammed for doing it and even got warned that I could get banned. The Russian newbie got banned and I didn't see him violate the TOS ever!
Btw, have you seen all the anti-Russian stuff in the mainstream USA media? I've just been all "Why?". And this journalist in Forbes even suggested that Obama should make serious issues at the Sochi olympics (last 3 paragraphs). Imo, our country needs to stay away from the Olympics if they just want to start drama!
Putin the Predictable: Guest Snowden - Forbes

Well, today is grammar day so I won't be reading much news. But reading the news in Russian - while using the google translator - has helped me to understand how Russian people communicate. There is a huge difference between the way Russians put their thoughts into words and the way we do. But it is getting easier to understand.

@ Maxmixiv: I was looking at pictures of your city, Omsk, yesterday. It looks really cool and it's not that far north of Baikonur. Do you ever watch the Soyuz launches? Just curious. I've been checking out lots of cities all over Russia.

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

Btw, have you seen all the anti-Russian stuff in the mainstream USA media? I've just been all "Why?". And this journalist in Forbes even suggested that Obama should make serious issues at the Sochi olympics (last 3 paragraphs). Imo, our country needs to stay away from the Olympics if they just want to

It's unbelievable how ignorant, arrogant and prejudiced some of the commentators on US TV sometimes are, and particularly when it comes to Russia.

It's THEIR loss, though. Who cares?
If they want to sit on the other side of the Atlantic and hate a country they never visited and don't have the true facts about.... then let them! It's particularly sad though since Russians absolutely seem prepared to give the USA and Americans a chance and some are really positive. Meanwhile Americans with very few exceptions are literally swimming in prejudice.

On the other hand I think in Europe it's really important that people stop having these Hollywood and FOX inspired ideas about Russia.

The whole paranoia about defense against Russia, when Russia couldn't care less about Europe from a military perspective. All the slander about the gas/oil situation, like it was somehow Russia's FAULT that it sits on the gas and needs to ship and sell it to Europe, or that Russia has some evil masterplan to use this to hurt Europe. There is no sign of that, yet it's constantly hinted at anyway.

I hope the Winter Olympics changes things.

The recent drama about gay rights in Russia is a worry though: Fingers crossed there will be no big gay pride manifestation during the Olympics and Russia overreacting. I think it would be much more dignified if Russia responded to a gay manifestation with a shake of the head and just let them do their thing. I think a lot of people just think it looks stupid and tasteless anyway, but it would be tons worse if the demonstrators were dragged off in handcuffs, and JUST the footage to fit with the prejudice.

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

Putin the Predictable: Guest Snowden - Forbes

Isn't that magazine the the mouthpiece of the elites in the USA, essentially? Not popular on this side of the pond at all, but I've come across it.
I mean, what they are writing isn't even objectively true!
And Obama isn't quite aggressive enough in his foreign policy for the journalists at Forbes clearly!

If they want to boycott the Olympic games they'll just look like a kid who has a trauma in the supermarket when he doesn't get the sweets he wants!
Didn't they actually boycott the games in Moscow too? I was too young wouldn't have known. Or did they just say they would..?
What if every country that had a complaint against the USA had boycotted the games there? Hardly anyone apart from the UK and a few arab emirates would have turned up....

Since they can't find anything seriously wrong that Russia does, they are blowing this gay thing out of ALL PROPORTIONS. Don't fall for it, Deborski and others! I mean, anyone who wants to worry about gay rights should start in the US allied Saudi Arabia, just about any gulf state or any country in Africa. All that Russia does is prevents a parade. Meanwhile in the USA plenty of people are prevented from demonstrating about other things.

And in this, I have to say that Sweden is worse than the USA. People are totally up in arms about this. I just can't relate at all, but they had 12 years of pro - gay media while I've been out of the country, so I am out of touch. They now genuinely believe this is super important. Maybe I'm getting old or something, but I honestly think they have lost all sense of proportion. http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/fok...-prideparaden/

Originally Posted by Hanna

Sorry I hadn't read your blog entry I think! Lately I have been a really slippery fish here - not actively studying Russian right now, but I still like this forum so I pop in and comment... But sometimes I make comments too fast without knowing the full details of why people say what they say! Thanks for explaining!

Your story makes perfect sense though. How surprising that Soviet TV wanted a dating show! They must have really wanted to change.
Maybe we should find a clip on Youtube and see if anyone remembers it!
So they really weren't that high brow then... I mean, many of the state tv channels in Europe really looked down on "cheap" entertainment that was just intended to play to people's basic instincts. It was a kind of cultural elitism, really. I would have thought USSR TV was definitely onboard with that kind of outlook.

I guess the reaction of your friends in the USA shows that they were so indoctrinated about "evil Russians" that they couldn't really see beyond that. Sad!!! Particularly since the Russians didn't have that outlook on the USA and probably would have been intrigued in a reversed situation. It's also the general expat experience.... Once you return, people don't really understand how you have changed or what your life was life.

I remember having my fist serious anti-Soviet reaction as a kid when we learnt that USSR media essentially didn't cover Chernobyl initially, even though it was MASSIVE news in the rest of Europe and local people's lives were actually at risk. It really upset me because I was so into environmentalism and I thought the USSR was better than killing a major story just because it was embarrassing. Of course, later it emerged that some horrendous stories had been covered up. But then, nobody knew. Then suddenly, they changed their minds about Chernobyl I think, and invited foreign media -- maybe it ended up being a bit of an eye-opener to the bosses of the TV in the USSR, as they realised their politics had denied people knowledge and proper coverage of such a monumental event.

It's fine - my blog is long! Nearly 40 chapters so far, so if you ever are bored on a cold winter's night maybe it can entertain you

The dating game show, Найди Меня, was actually in production long before I arrived in the USSR. However, it was really nothing like American dating game shows at all. It was more of a serious sort of matchmaking service to help young Soviet citizens find the loves of their lives. I describe it in a lot more detail in my blog.

I was very disappointed with the reaction of my fellow Americans. They just are not as open-minded as I am, and if anything they seem more closed minded today. provincial, self-absorbed. Few of them are interested in other countries. I blame our media for that mindset, really. And I agree, it is a common expat experience. Russia changed me forever, in ways I am still ascertaining. But I am grateful for that experience, even if some people "punished" me psychologically for it.

By the way, I have posted a few clips from Найди Меня on youtube. This is just one of them: