Reykjavík Grapevine - 14.01.2005, Side 30

HOW CARELESSNESS CAN BECOME CENSORSHIP
For a person born in Russia or one who has lived in that country
long enough it’s easy to see that many events are often misrepresented
or misinterpreted in the Western media. This misinterpretation of
Russian events can be supposed to be a hangover from the Cold War,
but there may be other reasons.
INTERVIEW
Haukur Hauksson is an Icelandic
journalist fluent in Russian who
has been living in Moscow for
15 years and graduated from the
journalist faculty of the Moscow
State University (MGU). I asked
Haukur to explain the situation in
the Icelandic media, and he told me
about his experience in journalism in
the autumn of 1993.
Yeltsin and Stalin
When Yeltsin dissolved the
government in September 1993, it
caused disturbances, such as street
fights, in the center of the Russian
capital. At the time Haukur was in
Moscow delivering news reports for
the TV channels RÚV and Stöd 2
as well as for the radio. As he had
a journalist card it gave him the
possibility to get into the Moscow
White House when the main events
were taking place.
- “I remember walking home
once during the curfew that had
been imposed in Moscow. I was
nearly shot down by one of the
sharpshooters who sat on house
roofs in those days,” he says.
Haukur stresses that the Western
media in general, and the Icelandic
in particular, always tend to
oversimplify when speaking about
events from abroad.
“All the acting parties are simply
divided into good guys and bad guys.
It is easier to build up a black-and-
white picture of the event instead
of getting to its real meaning.
The same thing happened in the
autumn of 1993. Those Icelanders
who kept up with the news from
Russia, including journalists, divided
themselves into supporters of Yeltsin
and supporters of his opponents.
Many of them would regard the
things Yeltsin did as a Stalinist
action: people kept interpreting
current events in the light of some
old pattern. There were several
Icelandic journalists reporting about
the events in Moscow, but many of
them took their information from
some foreign information bureaus.
I always had my phone with me
and was in direct connection with
Ríkisútvarpid, so I was the first one
to deliver them news,” says Haukur.
Settlers and terrorists
These pieces of reporting were
eyewitness accounts, accepted by
the Icelandic audience. But they
did not fit in the black-and-white
picture that some parties in the
West would like. “On the 3rd and
4th of October, when the White
House was on fire, - I was dismissed
from the television, although I still
remained working at the radio,”
Haukur adds. “A man named
Jón Ólafsson took my place, an
experienced journalist that also
happened to be in Moscow at that
time and a representative of the older
generation.”
Are you saying that RÚV willingly
replaced you for political reasons?
“Journalists are not instructed at
their meetings about the terms
that are under prohibition. They
may well be instructed about the
correct usage of the Icelandic
language, for example, that one has
to say not “mér langar”, but “mig
langar”, but nothing else. Many
texts are even not written by the
Icelandic journalists, but translated
from some foreign sources. As a
rule, nothing is ever changed in
such pieces of reporting, mainly
because the translators simply have
no time to reinterpret the news
text that is supposed to appear
in the tomorrow’s paper. As a
consequence, opinions of some
British and American journalists
filter into the Icelandic press.
Recently there has been a lot
written about conflicts between the
Israelites and the Palestinians. As
the first ones were called “settlers”
and the second ones “terrorists” in
the original American text, they
became respectively “landnemar” and
“hrydjuverkamenn” in the Icelandic
papers. Just think how the word
“landnemi” (settler) can influence the
Icelandic audience, for it has some
very patriotic connotations, being
linked to the first settlers in Iceland!
Such a choice of words programs
the attitude to the both parties
from the very beginning. But these
words do not reflect the Icelandic,
but the American point of view
on the conflicts. It’s not so much a
conscious censorship as carelessness”.
As the extreme of such carelessness
one can name measuring distances
in miles in Icelandic news texts
where one would expect to see
kilometers. The time pressure turns
to be a gentle and effective way of
control. Ríkisútvarpid does not apply
tyrannical methods of controlling
people’s way of thinking, but uses
some other methods that are not so
striking. But still they seem to work
perfectly well.
Where do they go from here?
Davíð Oddsson
Having spent almost a decade as top dog
in the city, and then another decade as top
dog in the country, people wondered what
he would do when he left office. Before he
entered politics he was a promising actor,
and his performances in Áramótaskaupið
and the annual RÚV news first of April
spoof prove that he’s still got it. However,
a man of his age and build would probably
mostly get Edward G. Robinson or Oliver
Hardy parts, which may not be appealing
to someone used to being a leading man.
He has also released two volumes of short
stories, but the one book everyone will be
waiting for is his biography, mostly to see
whether he will slag off the current Presi-
dent. To everyone’s surprise, he decided to stay on the cabinet as Foreign
Minister. And people were even more surprised when his first high profile
decision went against the American alliance by offering Bobby Fischer a
residence permit. The unpredictable Oddsson may not have strayed too far
from his roots in absurdist theatre after all.
by Olga Markelova
Bill Clinton
For eight years he was the most powerful man in the
world. He was President of the United States in an inter-
regnum between Republican incumbents when the US was
generally admired and respected. When he toured Eastern
Europe shortly after the collapse of communism, he was
hailed as liberator. When his term was up in January 2001,
he had a hell of a resume, but hasn’t been able to hold a
steady job since. But what do you do after having been
the most
powerful man
in the world?
With his
autobiogra-
phy generally
considered a
bore, and his
talked about
talk show not
seeming likely
to materialise, his brightest career prospect might be as the
United States first First Husband, Mr. Hillary Clinton.
Jennifer Aniston
For a decade she was America’s sweetheart. Eclipsing both
her co-leading ladies in Friends, she was the most desirable
woman in television. Then she married the most desir-
able man in the world. Aniston was
probably the most envied woman
on the face of the earth. With films
such as Bruce Almighty and Along
Came Polly, she has so far been the
most successful Friend in cinema but
has yet to prove that her charm can
make the transition from the small
to the big screen. And then came
the bombshell, Brad Pitt dumped
her. Whom do you sleep with after
the most beautiful man in the world?
A genius? Who cares. Aniston is
still a star post-hubby. But she is no
longer the most envied woman in
the world. That title will probably
go to whomever Pitt dates next.
Exiting planned day tours and
custom made tours by your own wishes
K
Ö
-H
Ö
N
N
U
N
/
P
M
C
30