The Russian government is totally corrupt! I looked into the story a bit (there's also a Wikipedia article that gives a detailed rundown). There's an interesting tidbit in the Independent
In an article that appeared in the Independent on Jan. 29, 2000, there was a reference to the Swedish daily, Svenska Dagbladet, making an admission on June 6th of 1999, that is, more than four months before the apartment bombings began, that high-ranking members of the Russian government were already discussing the option of framing Chechen terrorists for bombings in Moscow:
In an unnoticed reference in Svenska Dagbladet, the Swedish daily, on 6 June last year, the paper's Moscow correspondent Jan Blomgren wrote that one option being considered by the Kremlin and its associates was "terror bombings in Moscow which could be blamed on the Chechens". This was four months before the first bomb. Mr Blomgren told the Independent that his sources, whom he cannot name, were familiar with discussions within the political elite.
So, I think the motivation here is admirable, and it's an optimum use of the Web's more salient qualities—copyright issues aside, of which there are many. While I think Condé's likely motivation is commercial, given how fast and loose retaliation against journalists in Russia has been—and it's probably not just state-tolerated but at times state-initiated—might there be a possibility that Condé is protecting the staff and writers of their Russian titles? In which case, it would certainly be their prerogative, and a little presumptuous of you guys to subvert it without knowing one way or the other. Like I said, not the likely motive, but worth thinking about while you're busy banging the "Democracy in Russia" drum (which it hilarious, by the way).
@Jasper Reardon: Even if you put Condé Nast's actions in the most favorable light, as you do, it doesn't explain why they not only sought to keep the story out of Russia but also sought to bury it in the U.S.
Among the many disheartening things in David Folkenflik's report was his line about how GQ publicists -- the American ones -- were told not to promote the story, making it "an act of quiet defiance" when Scott Anderson's editors contacted NPR.
It says something awful for the magazine business that the Condé lawyers were pretty confident that no one would notice an article if it were merely printed in one of their flagship titles.
@Gabriel Snyder: I didn't put their actions in the most favorable light...but okay, I'll bite. You're right, it's not what one would hope for, in terms of a compelling story in an anchor issue (which by the way has at least two other great stories—the Sullivan and the Saunders). But, as mentioned below, Vanity Fair ran a story about similar subject matter previously and didn't try to bury it. I guess I just wonder why this would be the occasion that Condé would try to fly this one under the radar when they have stood behind many more "dangerous" stories, like Sy Hersh's of the last few years, and many others I can think of. I'm not trying to get behind Condé here...I'm just wondering if there isn't more to it? Honestly, if you think of the stories they've run, why do you think this is the one they're trying to mute? Honest inquiry. I'm wondering what you think. I'm not sure myself.
While I applaud the translation effort, that's not the main point of the Conde Nast campaign against this story. Most Russian versions of Western magazines (GQ, Esquire, Vogue, Cosmo etc) don't carry translations of the original US work but unique content instead. So the lawyer was seeking to ban distribution of the US version here. Just as insidious, and the translation idea is great, but thought I'd point it out.
@MoscowNeverSleeps: This is probably closer to the real reason for the prohibition. Maybe not exactly, but closer. But whatever, Gawker is making the world free for serious journalism (written for and published by other publications).
@MoscowNeverSleeps: I agree, Condé never wanted to publish it in Russia. There's already scads of articles about it in more prestigious publications that are better researched and make a better case.
It merely wanted to keep things quiet that it published an article implicating Putin in a conspiracy that resulted in mass murder from Russian business and governmental leaders.
In any case, the bigger the controversy, the better the chances that people abroad -- and most certainly, the Russian diaspora -- will look at this strange episode again.
"...and at length implicating Russia's shadow leader in a string of Moscow apartment bombings that killed hundreds in 1999 and were officially blamed on Chechen terrorists. The wave of fear created by the attacks played a critical role in launching Putin to power."
@Jezedude: Pretty sure they're not a publicly traded company, so more like Alexander Lebedev orchestrates a "friendly" takeover.. Oh, balls, I take it back. Why mess with such a thing of beauty as your comment?
Doesn't it stand to reason that by doing this, large corporations will be less likely to sponsor hard-hitting journalism in the future? Not saying the Russian people don't have the right to read this, just think it's something to be considered.
@LoveHandles: Great. So, instead of us using the internet to promote democracy for Russia, we should let Putin use it to extend his dictatorship to us, because - all we care about is making a buck, and he has a whole bunch of them.
@Niko Bellic: Yes, but journalism such as this is exactly what promotes democracy. Whether you like it or not, it took a lot of money to give this well-respected journalist the time and resources to investigate and report this story. Without Conde Naste, the story wouldn't exist in the first place. Smaller pub's just don't have the money to spend on this. It's a conundrum, to be sure. One that would be resolved if Conde Naste voluntarily distributed the article the way it should be, yes, but nevertheless, if this turns into a ballyhoo, than they're certainly going to think twice before sponsoring more articles that may interfere with their corporate interests.
@LoveHandles: Without Conde Naste, the story wouldn't exist in the first place. Smaller pub's just don't have the money to spend on this
So, in your world, the only kind of journalist outfits are big corporations and small corporations? Let me guess: "your world" is United States of America (everything else being "the national socialists").
From my own personal experience, I've found that if I tag a post "sex" and submit it to Technorati during the evening hours, I generally get several visitors from Russia (along with quite a few from US military bases).
Worth nothing the chilling effect the Condé Nast cooperation with Russian censorship has even in the west. Surely this article would be available online otherwise and receive some decent promotion. After all GQ hangs whatever reputation it has as a "serious" magazine on these sorts of pieces.
Putin/Condé Nast is not only censoring in Russia, but also dampening the impact of the piece globally.
I have a friend that speaks Russian fluently, but is unfortunately illiterate. She said she'd be willing to send it to her parents, "but that means [she'd] have to type out the translations for them because they type 10 WPM."
Not sure if you're that desperate at this point; that said, if you don't find anyone soon and you're willing to wait it out a bit, I can see if she'd still be willing to assist.
09/05/09
09/05/09
In an article that appeared in the Independent on Jan. 29, 2000, there was a reference to the Swedish daily, Svenska Dagbladet, making an admission on June 6th of 1999, that is, more than four months before the apartment bombings began, that high-ranking members of the Russian government were already discussing the option of framing Chechen terrorists for bombings in Moscow:
In an unnoticed reference in Svenska Dagbladet, the Swedish daily, on 6 June last year, the paper's Moscow correspondent Jan Blomgren wrote that one option being considered by the Kremlin and its associates was "terror bombings in Moscow which could be blamed on the Chechens". This was four months before the first bomb. Mr Blomgren told the Independent that his sources, whom he cannot name, were familiar with discussions within the political elite.
09/04/09
09/04/09
Among the many disheartening things in David Folkenflik's report was his line about how GQ publicists -- the American ones -- were told not to promote the story, making it "an act of quiet defiance" when Scott Anderson's editors contacted NPR.
It says something awful for the magazine business that the Condé lawyers were pretty confident that no one would notice an article if it were merely printed in one of their flagship titles.
09/05/09
09/04/09
09/05/09
09/05/09
It merely wanted to keep things quiet that it published an article implicating Putin in a conspiracy that resulted in mass murder from Russian business and governmental leaders.
In any case, the bigger the controversy, the better the chances that people abroad -- and most certainly, the Russian diaspora -- will look at this strange episode again.
09/04/09
09/04/09
This sounds scarily familiar here in the west.
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
Something to be considered, indeed.
09/04/09
09/04/09
So, in your world, the only kind of journalist outfits are big corporations and small corporations? Let me guess: "your world" is United States of America (everything else being "the national socialists").
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
"Us" in this case may be the Russian people, but you know it often works like that here too.
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
Putin/Condé Nast is not only censoring in Russia, but also dampening the impact of the piece globally.
Who won the Cold War anyhow?
09/04/09
Not sure if you're that desperate at this point; that said, if you don't find anyone soon and you're willing to wait it out a bit, I can see if she'd still be willing to assist.
09/04/09
Hello, feminism?
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09