This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Many newspapers and TV stations in Russia are controlled by Kremlin, either directly, through Gazprom, or by other means. It would be interesting to know if The Moscow Times is loyal to Kremlin, is in opposition to Kremlin, or takes a more neutral or balanced stance. Could somebody include some information on this? Joreberg (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Look at the people writing the opinion columns. Most of them aren't even Russian. The topics are like this: "WTO's Tough Medicine Is Good for Russia", "Snowden Doomed to Dreadful Life in a Capsule", "The Cultural Underbelly of Russian Repression". It's not owned by a Russian company. It's owned by a Scandinavian company.
"The Moscow Times" is not just in opposition to the Kremlin, it's owned by foreign opposition to the Kremlin. It's as if PressTV spun off its American news section and called it "The American Times". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Notice the following edits which have been removed from the article. They are unsourced political opinion, which is why they could be removed. But they indicate that there is more to the story of The Moscow Times than the bland information in the current article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
No, they indicate nothing of the kind. They merely show that someone who is either ignorant of or contemptuous towards the concept of an "encyclopedia" tried to use Wikipedia as a platform for their opinions and was rightly prevented from doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)