Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   Rena Mooney, Sep 9th, 2009 @ 8:03pm

   
   

   Maybe they were worried about the collateral damage. The reporter was likely too obvious of a target to be killed, but what about his Russian sources for the article? You're probably right, and Conde Nast's actions were all about money and protecting their multinational corporate interests, but maybe there was a valid reason for deciding to bury the story.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   Designerfx (profile), Sep 9th, 2009 @ 8:14pm

   
   

   Re:

   maybe you don't understand what Mike is saying: if it has been out anywhere, even obscured, it will still be found and shared, and even more so.
   
   This is like hiding blood in an ocean - sharks will find it.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Chargone (profile), Sep 9th, 2009 @ 8:47pm

   
   

   maybe the point is to make it More obvious while appearing to be trying to 'play nice'?

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   random, Sep 9th, 2009 @ 9:45pm

   
   

   re: Chargone

   Interesting viewpoint. I know that I want to see this article now simply because there is a buzz around it.
   
   Even bad publicity can be spun the right way. the steisand effect combined with the internal memo could end up helping their American sales in the end.
   
   Are there any people who have read the article and have some insight into how the russian public will react?

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   ReallyEvilCanine, Sep 10th, 2009 @ 12:53am

   
   

   You clearly don't understand Russia

   Condé Nast doesn't give two shits about what we in the West think about their policies for Russian publications. Even Solzhenitsyn knew there were worse things than the gulags and Siberian labour camps. First there's an "audit", then there's an "inspection" which invades the homes and families (including two generations of extension) of anyone remotely involved, then come the gov't-puppet media tabloid-style "stories", and this can carry on for years. If those involved (whose lives and those of their families have already been ruined) haven't capitulated, that's when the real fun starts with criminal and/or civil prosecution. Think of Putin as a slower, more thorough and equally effective version of Stalin.

   By doing their best to bury this both in the Russian magazine and company-wide as regards Russia (including allowing themselves to be publicly martyred in the West), Condé Nast is protecting themselves, their Russian employees and their reporters, and for that deserve credit.

   The word you're looking for is Realpolitik, Mike.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 10th, 2009 @ 1:35am

   
   

   Re: You clearly don't understand Russia

   By doing their best to bury this both in the Russian magazine and company-wide as regards Russia (including allowing themselves to be publicly martyred in the West), Condé Nast is protecting themselves, their Russian employees and their reporters, and for that deserve credit.
   
   Then why commission the article in the first place? They don't deserve credit at all.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   Blatant Coward (profile), Sep 10th, 2009 @ 1:37am

   
   

   Re: Re:

   Shark one: Yes, definitely human blood, type O RH factor positive.
   Shark two: Blood in the water. *puts on sunglasses* I see.
   
   *OH YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhh*

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Sep 10th, 2009 @ 2:04am

   
   

   Re: Re: You clearly don't understand Russia

   >Then why commission the article in the first place?
   >They don't deserve credit at all.
   
   Editor: This is a great story lets run with it. It's all set to go.
   
   Corporate Management: Do you know what sort of life expectancy Putin's enemies have? Pay the man and make it disappear.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   Sheinen, Sep 10th, 2009 @ 3:40am

   
   

   Shark 3:I cant...I know it's here somewhere, I just can't find it! Oh, wait - it's under that rock! Who puts blood under a rock? I mean, it took an extra couple of seconds to spot it, but it wasn't exactly in a frigging safe? Wow - boy am I gonna eat the person who comes back to collect this!

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    

    AM, Sep 10th, 2009 @ 12:53pm

    
    

    Gawker crowd-translated the article to Russian

    On 4 Sep Gawker http://gawker.com/5352827/ invited its readers to submit/correct transaltions, part of which had been shoddily done by Google Tranlate. As the post says, it took just over 24 hours to complete it. You must mention this as an update to your readers.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    Michael Kirkland, Sep 11th, 2009 @ 8:23am

    
    

    Probably of more interest to people here is that they own Ars Technica.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment