I'm refering to his accounts at the time and elsewhere, which were that the paper became economically unviable after investors pulled out after the paper had a visit from the inspectorate, which supposedly scared off the investors. That's why they had a fundraiser. If he says something different now, I suppose something must have changed. I don't see what your disagreement is. They were investigated, but they weren't actually shut down. The shutting down was because of no money.
Here's what he wrote at the time:
"The partners who'd financed us fled for the hills, leaving my publisher and me holding the debt-bomb in our hands." http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/06/the-end-of-the-exile.php
--- On Sat, 8/30/08, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> Chris, it's one thing to counter devious and stupid
> Western
> propaganda, and another to dismiss Mark Ames' account.
> Unless he's
> lying, and I'd be shocked if he were, the paper was
> shut down because
> some bureaucrats visited the paper for an "editorial
> audit." Did you
> actually read his account? You're starting to sound
> like a reflexive
> apologist for anything the Russian gov does.
>
> <http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/06/russian-government-press-feedom-putin-ames-medvedev.php
>
> >
>
> Doug
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk