I have received today a fax from the "Magyar Koztarsasag Elnokenek
Hivatala" part of which reads:

"A miniszterelnokseg informatikai foosztalyan van E:MAIL, tobb fohivatalban
ugyszinten. Lepj erintkezesbe Simon Geza Foosztalyvezetovel:

 cimen."

For what its worth. (pogacsa maybe?)

Regards,Jeliko.

>Songs, art etc yes, and they do survive if not actively supressed, (and
>even then, and no borders necessary). Eating or worshipping people etc,
>no thank you. Eva Durant

I think, the above is not unconditionaly true. If the size of the cultural grou
p
 is
very large, it is possibly true. If it is small, than song, art, language could
 die out
(the smaller the group, the more likely that it will disappear.) Therefore it
 will
take active nurturing, and laws, to keep it alive. Whether this is worth it, or
 practical,
that is another question, and the decision depends on emotions rather than
 practicality
and common sense.
I would rather fight for it, even if in the long run, we ( hungarians, welsh
 etc.)
would loose our identity.

Sandor Lengyel

Andras Kornai quoted this from Magyar Narancs:

>MaNcs: A famous hungarian politician [Dea1k] once said that the law
>governing journalism should only contain one sentence -- it is not
>permitted to lie. What do you think of that?
>
>Rosenthal: This is the most stupid thing I ever heard. Who decides what's
>a lie and what isn't?

Well, my first reaction was that if Mr. Rosenthal considers the opinion of
Ferenc Dea1k, "the sage of the nation" stupid, what he must think of the rest
of us :). But seriously, Andras, it is hard to see how you could possibly
defend the piece of so-called investigative jourmalism I quoted a few days
ago from *168 o1ra.* I very much doubt that Mr. Rosenthal would have printed
it in the *New York Times,* although accuracy is not always the *New York
Times*'s virtue. Every time they write about something I know a lot about,
the information is always inaccurate. A high-powered lawyer friend of mine
from New York complains bitterly about the *New York Times*'s coverage of
cases she is involved with. On the other hand, she praises the *Wall Street
Journal* as the most reliable paper in the United States. And she is not a
conservative Republican but a liberal Democrat.

But let me return to the case under discussion. I am sure that the only
reason this particular alleged shady business is covered in *168 o1ra,* a
political weekly, is because the journalist involved suspected a connection
between the former government and the owner of the company, Tibor To1th. In
fact, he claims that Tibor To1th enjoyed the protection of "the highest
circles," i.e., the Antall government. This is the thesis of his piece;
that's why it was published. But then, some proof must be offered for the
accusation. The four so-called proofs are no proofs; moreover, one of them,
the alleged letter from Foreign Minister Ge1za Jeszenszky to Tibor To1th,
turned out to be totally bogus. It was written by someone else as a quick
glance at the handwritings of the two Ge1zas proved beyond a doubt. But that
comparison between the two handwritings was done *after the fact,* after
publication! The "young and talented" journalist was so sloppy that he took a
letter simply signed Ge1za and accepted it as proof of Jeszenszky's
involvement.

Andras claims, along with A1kos Mester, that these poor Hungarian journalists
are simply learning the tools of the trade. They are unfamiliar with the
rules of investigative journalism. Moreover, they are being mislead. Sorry, I
can't buy this. I am no journalist, I haven't ever been involved in any
investigative journalism, but common sense tells me that if I receive a
letter signed simply Ge1za I have to find out who that Ge1za is. I can't take
someone else's word for it. I must check my sources. And surely it is not
terribly difficult to double check the signature of a public figure.

No, I don't think that there can be any excuse. Without extensive experience
with investigative journalism one must be intelligent enough to know some
basic rules of the game. It shows inexcusable incompetence or bias, or, both.
But definitely imcompetence.

Eva Balogh


P.S. By the way, I would be very grateful if you could summarize for us the
"bunch of results from a new sociological survey of journalists." You may
recall that I talked about how useful such a survey would be. Please, share
it with us. EB

Eva Durant writes:

>I am certainly not sorry for the monarchy being put to rest in Hungary - or
>should it been kept as a typical tradition?

Just as a footnote to this. Hungary's population was purported to be very
much attached to the idea of the monarchy. It is another matter that some
people didn't want to have a Habsburg monarch--but there were relatively few
republicans in Hungary, let's say in 1920. As it happened both King Karl and
his son Otto were/are very decent people and a constitutional monarchy is not
the worst thing that can happen to a country. It doesn't have to be as
antiquated as the English monarchy--there are some other European monarchs
who have done a lot of good things for their country with little fanfare. A
constitutional monarchy can be a stabilizing factor in the political life of
the country. Eva Balogh

Jeliko writes:

>May I propose writing an e:mail message to Simon Geza of the Prime
>Minister's information office and describe to him what this and possibly
><soc.culture.magyar> are about.

Do you have an e-mail address to Geza Simon? The answer on my part: yes, of
course, we should get in touch and arrange something. I hope they will be
open to the suggestion--after all, this is a great way to communicate. Eva
Balogh

Let's invite Simon to a potluck. :-)

One pound of pogacsa for the Jeliko. I guess you should send me you address off
list, 'cause I don't think I can get the pogacsa into the modem. :-)

Regards,

Marc Nasdor


P.S., I expect a posted review of the pogacsa.