Peter Lavelle’s “Cross Talk” On Lobbying In The United States

Last week, I took part in Peter Lavelle's popular Cross Talk program on RT.  The topic was foreign lobbies in the U.S. and their role in the American political system.  Two other guests on the program were Bill Allison from the Sunlight Foundation and Yousef Munayyer from The Jerusalem Fund.  I'd like to acknowledge the highly professional way Peter led the discussion and also the quiet effectiveness of his producers. 

Here is the link to the program:

About Eugene Ivanov

Eugene Ivanov is a PMI-certified Innovation Management Consultant who helps organizations increase the efficiency of their internal and external innovation programs.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Peter Lavelle’s “Cross Talk” On Lobbying In The United States

  1. Mike says:

    Wow!
    Congrats Eugene!
    You put forth the issues in the right direction. That show’s topic should be at least a two part series.
    Simply put, much more is substantively needed. An important factor is getting the most effective people in the key positions, who know the issues well and how to best reply to the predominating slant. Ideally, such a determination should take into consideration what has and hasn’t worked, or can work better, in conjunction with the available options, that haven’t been utilized, or fully utilized in high profile situations.
    Some additional input comes to mind regarding the mentioned Ukrainian lobbying efforts, which were briefly touched on at the 6:49 and 19:45 marks.
    A certain kind of Ukrainian view has been getting the upper hand. On a number of key issues, that perspective isn’t shared by the majority of Ukrainians. This aspect relates to how small numbers can develop a compensation for their actual existence by being more active than others.
    Note the pro-Bandera support at this link:
    http://www.rferl.org/content/Yushchenko_Defends_Making_Bandera_Shukhevich_Heroes_Of_Ukraine/1991175.html?page=1&x=1#relatedInfoContainer
    That support doesn’t reflect Ukrainians at large. If it did in Ukraine, one would find monuments in Bandera’s honor at the level of what’s evident in Galicia.
    Note the slant in this informative piece written by a frequent contributor to Russia Profile:
    http://grahamstack.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/would-the-real-ukraine-please-stand-up/
    My qualm with this piece pertains to what the author does and doesn’t stress in one instance. Note how he describes the general Russian public’s negative look at the situation in Ukraine. He attributes the negativity to the much vaunted “state-controlled” media.
    JOKE! For openers, Russians have other media options in addition to being known (at least some of them) for having a knack of reading between the lines, with the accuracy varying among them. Whether in Ukraine, Russia or elsewhere, many have had a low opinion of the situation in Ukraine.
    Note how the author of that piece doesn’t discuss another media aspect. This relates to what I previously said about the greater censorship being the one which isn’t discussed. The author doesn’t bring into full focus a main point of his article having to do with how many might be surprised to know how many Ukrainians don’t have such a negative image of Russia.
    The reason for this has to do with the slant typically found in “free” Western media. Consider the kind of Ukrainian views typically getting the nod at such outlets. It’s no small wonder why folks primarily dependent on that media are surprised at the overall degree of positive Ukrainian attitudes towards Russia.
    This leads to another aspect having to do with the termed “fear factor.” I know a number of Ukrainians in the US who’re reluctant to get more actively involved in some political discussions because they sense they might get subjected to personal criticism that they’d prefer not to subject themselves to – like the sometimes misused “sovok” term which has been derisively utilized to describe Ukrainians who aren’t so negative towards Russia. Sovok is generally used for people having Soviet like views. It apparently doesn’t apply to anti-Russian/Ukrainian nationalists, who aren’t against Ukraine’s Communist drawn boundaries.
    Note how the “fear factor” is often stressed like this example at: http://trueslant.com/people/juliaioffe/. IMHO, that journalist regularly writes what can be reasonably considered as anti-Russian propaganda, without much “fear.” Meantime, what of English language journalists writing a noticeably different take of Russia at leading Western media venues like your favorite one Eugene?
    As part of an improving process, folks seeking a positive change can get more substantively involved. For example, is openDemocracy’s slant so much the result of a sheer bias, or folks with views similar to my own not submitting articles? (I’m writing that venue’s name in accordance with its preference.) In other instances, the sheer bias is evident. Beware of the letting some air out of the tires route, which lets some differences get in, while still having a preference.
    You pushed my buttons again Eugene!
    Best,
    Mike

  2. Eugene Ivanov says:

    Thanks very much Mike, I’m deeply appreciative of your expert comments.
    Obviously, this isn’t the last time I wrote on the subject. Goes w/o saying, you and I will have plenty of chances to discuss the issues in more specific detail.
    Best,
    Eugene

  3. Natalie says:

    I’m jealous you got to be on RT🙂 I love your blog, by the way.

  4. Mike says:

    Natalie:
    As I sense you’ll quite likely agree: concerning Eugene on RT, your stated with a smile jealousy is perhaps respectfully best substituted as an inspiration.
    Your day will come.
    Blogs like Eugene’s and yours serve as motivators.
    Please keep up your great work.
    Eugene:
    Ditto on that last point with you.
    On your last set of comments on “plenty of chances,” the higher profile the venue, the better.

  5. Plugged!😉
    I’m with Natalie in that I’d like to get on Crosstalk, preferable discussing something I’m familiar with like Russia’s demography or peak oil.😉
    I did get an appearance on Al-Jazeera two years back, but they behaved unethically, gave me the wrong impression of what their program was to be about, and edited my words out of context.

  6. Eugene Ivanov says:

    Natalie,
    Thanks very much for your kind words. I like your blog too — especially the seemingly effortless way you travel between different subjects. (And the quality of your pictures is amazing!).
    As Mike can attest, TV appearance can be very stressful experience. At least, it was for me. The way the program was being shot: with Peter in Moscow, two other guests in DC, and me in Boston (sitting alone in small dark room with two light beams in front of me and an earpiece) — was quite challenging. Hopefully, it didn’t show up too much🙂
    Anatoly, Al-Jazeera has paid with plummeting ratings for their treatment of you🙂
    All the best to you guys,
    Eugene

  7. Eugene Ivanov says:

    Natalie,
    Thanks very much for your kind words. I like your blog too — especially the seemingly effortless way you travel between different subjects. (And the quality of your pictures is amazing!).
    As Mike can attest, TV appearance can be very stressful experience. At least, it was for me. The way the program was being shot: with Peter in Moscow, two other guests in DC, and me in Boston (sitting alone in small dark room with two light beams in front of me and an earpiece) — was quite challenging. Hopefully, it didn’t show up too much🙂
    Anatoly, Al-Jazeera has paid with plummeting ratings for their treatment of you🙂
    All the best to you guys,
    Eugene

  8. Mike says:

    You did great.
    In terms of having a comfort zone, TV is something that requires frequency.
    Likewise with public speaking before a live audience of informed individuals.
    Talk radio from the house is considerably easier – especially when raised in NY on NY talk radio over the decades. (New Yorkers at large have a deserved reputation.)
    There’s an art to what can be termed as polite interruption.
    Best,
    Mike
    PS – Back to the show’s topic: an aspect not covered (if I correcetly recall) was how the US government has directly or indirectly aided some of the ethnic lobby groups over others. Differences exist, as was briefly touched on in a recent Ivanov Report thread discussion.

  9. Eugene Ivanov says:

    Thanks again Mike. And re: your PS, there is a lot to cover here, and I look forward to the opportunity to make some splash — with your help, of course🙂’
    Best,
    Eugene

  10. Mike says:

    You got it Eugene.
    I plan on making some waves very soon.
    It’s needed to keep the rascals in some kind of check.
    Salut!
    Mike

  11. stepan says:

    hi peter, sr, as u know that that amirecan pres spek in 1984 that,GADDAFI moust be go,but they are waiting for right time. and dear sr, ALJAZEERA TV give theme a great time. caz ALJAZEERA dint show any body from libya how spek that gaddafi is in the feur of libya. and i ask a question that, if a person from 40years doing his good job for a country,and he didnt make only A singal friend?? thin why aljazeera not show A singal persona for gaddafi?? why aljazeera doing this? what is bihaind this? what aljazeera want to show? what is the aim of aljazeera in the war of libya?? sr plz, nixt crosstalk on 17 r 27 of april 2011 u moust ask this question from ur guist. thinks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s