Tarot cards are not just a deck of cards, they are magical, secret, mysterious ...
Recently, the Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor) published a list of mass media with Russian jurisdiction that receive funding from foreign sources.
The official name for such a list is: "Notice of receipt by the editorial office of a media outlet, broadcaster or publisher of funds from foreign sources" (full list is also there).
The publication of this kind of data is a new practice.
Previously, the media worked in the Russian Federation, without providing data to the supervisory authority on the sources of their funding.
However, in 2015, a decision was made that changed the situation. For example, Roskomnadzor obliged the media that receive funds from abroad to disclose information of this kind. This was done as a kind of analogy (for the media environment) to the legislative norm on NCOs-foreign agents.
The point is that all non-profit organizations engaged in political activity in one way or another in Russia are obliged by law to designate their status as an NPO-foreign agent.
As in the case of NGOs, not all Russian media outlets received such a legislative norm with a calm reaction. And why only after such an innovation did not Roskomnadzor hear about it! .. First of all, from the "non-profit" media.
Apparently, the reason for the uneasiness on the part of certain media platforms is due to the fact that their management team tried in every possible way to hide from readers (viewers, listeners) the fact that the media feeds on the hands of representatives of foreign states. And if it feeds, then, therefore, in many ways it reflects (protects) the interests of the investor.
After all, it is naive to believe that if a newspaper, magazine, TV channel, radio station or Internet portal is financed, for example, by a Western fund, then in this media the reader (viewer, listener) will find something that sheds light on the real tasks of this kind of financing.
Although these real tasks sometimes reveal themselves too actively ... Simply, the leadership of some media is too zealous to master foreign funding, obviously hoping that the flows (or at least streams) of foreign funds will not run out in the future.
Responsibility for one-time evasion from providing Roskomnadzor with information about the availability of foreign funding to the media entails liability in the form of a fine in the amount of 30 to 50 thousand rubles.
For large media, the funds are, to put it mildly, not the largest, and must be significantly lower than the amount of foreign funding. Repeated refusal to provide information on the availability of foreign funding from the media leads to the possibility of revoking the registration certificate by the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media.
It is worth recalling here that since January 2017, an amended rule has been introduced with respect to the Russian media, limiting the share of foreign shareholders to 20%. In addition, since 2017, both foreign citizens and persons with dual citizenship will not be able to become founders of media in Russia.
If we talk about the media that are associated with the publication of political and / or economic news materials or analytics on the same topics, then the fresh list of media receiving foreign funding is as follows:
Vedomosti newspaper (organization of CJSC Business News Media);
publications of the publishing house of JSC "Kommersant", including the newspaper of the same name, as well as the Ogonyok magazine;
"Economic policy" (organization of ANO Editorial Board of the journal "Economic Policy");
"Financial newspaper", Fingazeta.ru (organization of LLC "MMG");
SNOB portal (SNOB) (organization of Snob Media LLC);
"New Newspaper" (ZAO Publishing House "Novaya Gazeta");
Portal blocked by Roskomnadzor "Grani.ru" (LLC "Flavus").
There is also an unexpected representative of this list. Quite unexpected ... It turned out that foreign funding for information activities is received and "Russian newspaper"... The very combination of the words “Rossiyskaya Gazeta” (FSBI “The editorial office of Rossiyskaya Gazeta”) receives foreign funding, ”looks like a kind of oxymoron, but it really does receive ... And hardly from Astana or Minsk ...
And if everything is clear with the aforementioned "Snob" or "Granami.ru", as they say, then the foreign funding of "RG" raises certain questions. One of them: what was the need for foreign funding for the mass media, which is the official publication of the Russian government? Or does the government of the Russian Federation do not consider it necessary to adequately fund its publication? ..
Information about the volume of foreign financing and "investors"-donors of the mentioned Russian media by Roskomnadzor, it just so happened, has not yet been published. And it seems that it is not accepted to count other people's money, but ...
It seems that for many Russians it would still be useful to know which foreign state (foreign company) and how much invests in a certain Russian media outlet. At least for the citizens to understand how much objective data and Russian interests are actually reflected in such media.
Who is the owner of the opposition media
How many tubs of claims, compromising evidence, slander, accusations and other negativity have been poured out by our opposition media on the current leaders (of course, first of all, on Putin) in recent years?
Tons? Megatons? MegaMegatons?
In short, dofiga.
Who owns the Russian media
The map is divided into squares, each of which is assigned an index indicated in the alphabetical list opposite the name of a private person
Do people in these media support the people, are they really interested in the country's exit from the crisis, its development, or are their actions dictated by some other motives and they are pursuing someone's ordered interests?
Knowing exactly who owns our most ardent denouncers will help a lot to answer this question.
EchoMoscow - owner (66% of shares) Gazprom-Media Holding, owned by Gazprombank. The chairman of the board of directors for a long time (from 2000 to 2008, until the moment when he went for a public promotion) was D.A. Medvedev. Miller is currently the head of the gas monopoly. Both Medvedev and Miller have been Putin's associates since the 90s. This information is publicly available, in particular on Wikipedia.
NTV - with the coming to power of Putin, the TV channel moved under the wing of Gazprom.
RenTV, as well as Fifth and First channel, belong to the National Media Group, the main shareholder of which is Bank Rossiya, headed by a friend of Putin, Yuri Kovalchuk.
In addition, the company of Sindeeva's husband and Slon's co-owner, Vinokurov, which went bankrupt in 2008, KIT-Finance, was not saved by anyone, but state-owned ALROSA and Russian Railways hand in hand with Gazprombank.
Alternatively gifted Evgenia Albats.
Newspaper Newspaper (GZT.RU) - British editions The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph.
As you can see, the bulk of the kind of opposition publications are directly related to the Kremlin or oligarchic groups. The assumption that they say that the publications define their own policies and want to chhat on their owners is not well-founded. And not so long ago Alisher Usmanov proved this in practice, who dismissed the management of Kommersant.
A small part of the opposition media, seemingly not directly connected with the Russian elite, are prominent representatives of the fifth column and spokesmen for the aspirations of the overseas "regional committee".
Such are the fillers of the information field in Russia today.
Actually, it is logical. A country that lost the Cold War is automatically deprived of the right to its ideology and history ...
- The legal framework in which the media work
- Restrictions on foreign media owners
- State control of the media
- Media owner concentration
- Competition with foreign media
- Views of international organizations
1. Legal regulation
In Russia
More than 30 laws regulate and restrict media activities in Russia. Initially, media activities in Russia are only permitted under the media law, which obliges media outlets to register and imposes significant restrictions and obligations. Also, Russia has adopted a number of laws to restrict the actions of the media on the basis of such vague formulations and concepts as "incitement to hatred" or "insult to religious feelings" or "insult to government officials" or "dissemination of information about private life" or "propaganda of homosexuality" or "distortion of history" or "disrespect for society." Russian the legislation contains a very broad definition of extremism, which is usedofficials to tame government critics, including journalists. These laws are often applied in practice against journalists, but the very fact of their existence and the threat of applicationencourages self-censorship.
Like many other laws in Russia, these laws are applied selectively to suppress opinions objectionable to the government. For example, the state media is quite allowed to incite hatred towards Americans, Ukrainians or Russian oppositionists, but Navalny's video, which recalls to United Russia their unfulfilled promises, turns out to be an extremist video inciting hatred towards members of the United Russia party and ends up on Roskomnadzor's stop list. In the state media, one can say with impunity that gays are flawed people who should be imprisoned, but one cannot say that they are normal people who should be left alone. It is quite possible to distort history to whitewash the role of Stalin, but writing bad things about Stalin's role in World War II in the Russian media is rather dangerous, as it can lead to forced labor for up to five years.
It often reaches the point of absurdity. In June 2013, a court in Ulyanovsk closed access to kp.ru and gazeta.ru for publishing articles about bribery. According to the prosecutor's office, with which the court agreed, the publication of articles on bribery contributes to "the formation of an opinion in society about the possibility of committing corruption crimes in order to satisfy their own needs with impunity, in addition, they undermine the authority of the state power of the Russian Federation and current Russian laws." In October 2014, Ekho Moskvy received a warning from Roskomnadzor,after aired eyewitness accounts of clashes between Ukrainianmilitary forces and pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine.Roskomnadzor will consider that the program contained “informationjustifying war crimes. "I read the transcript of this banned program (which was removed from the Ekho Moskvy website), and in my opinion, it was just that the Ukrainian military defending the Donetsk airport were shown by ordinary people speaking Russian and doing their military duty.
Also, in Russia there is a whole series of laws on libel and insult. Article 128.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for criminal punishment for defamation, and Article 319 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation punishes for insulting government officials. In addition to criminal punishment, Russia also has civil liability under Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation for damage to honor, dignity, and business reputation. It is noteworthy that in Russia, the defendant bears the burden of proving that the disseminated information is true, while in other countries, as a rule, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff.
Also, in Russia there are no exceptions for publishing information about government officials. Most other countries understand that the media should criticize government officials, and therefore, in relation to government officials, journalists have more freedom to publish than in relation to private citizens. In Russia, on the contrary, harsher penalties are applied for publishing information about government officials in the media. One gets the impression that the purpose of the law in Russia is to protect poor officials from the attacks of journalists.
If earlier, to block Internet media, a court decision was needed (which was not difficult to obtain) and there was at least the illusion of independent control, but now even this obstacle has been removed, and a decision of the prosecutor's office is enough.Federal Law No. 398,signed by President Vladimir Putin in December 2013,allowed the Attorney General to bypass the judicial system andorder - through Roskomnadzor - block websites spreading calls for massriots, "extremist" activities and participation in illegal gatherings. Lawwas regularly used against independent and opposition websites in 2014.
In May, Putin signed Federal Law No. 97, dubbed the Blogger Law. Now the legislation effectively imposes on personal blogs and other sites thosesame restrictions as for official news media, including bans on anonymousauthorship and obscene language, and legal liability for comments,posted by users. Additionally, in accordance with Law No. 97 andsubsequent law passed in July, social media and other internet companies,processing data of Russian users must store information onservers located in Russia, where they could be accessed by the authorities.
The lack of clear legal boundaries, and the threat of media closure if these unclear boundaries are violated, simply lead to harsh self-censorship. The media, even if they are independent, simply repeat what they say on the first channel and do not risk adding anything of their own. Or the media simply avoid any controversial topics, and are exclusively engaged in entertainment programs. However, as practice shows, even purely musical programs can lead to offending the feelings of believers (events at Silver Rain).
Imagine if vague rules were introduced into the traffic rules that one should not drive with "obvious disrespect to other drivers" or "too fast" and the punishment for violation would be confiscation of the car and 5 years of forced labor for violators. And for the confiscation of the car, the opinion of the traffic police that you have broken the law is enough. It is in such conditions that the Russian media live. Therefore, it is not surprising that even the supposedly oppositional Dozhd and Echo of Moscow are engaged in self-centeredness and avoid direct criticism of the government.
IN THE USA
It's pretty simple in the USA. There is no media law that requires media registration. You just take and open the media, and you don't even need to notify anyone about it.There are no laws that restrict the actions of the media or the content of messages.
There is no analogue of Roskomnadzor in the USA. The American Federal Communication Commission regulates only terrestrial television and radio broadcasting. And they can only regulate swear words and naked bodies, and the very content of the programs does not regulate in any way. Also, they do not regulate cable TV or satellite channels (which 90% of Americans watch), nor do they regulate the press, books, or the Internet in any way. That is why, in the programs on the HBO channel, you can see naked bodies and genitals and any obscene words (Have you watched Game of Thrones?), Since nobody regulates the HBO cable channel.
There are no defamation laws in the United States because the Supreme Court ruled that they were contrary to the constitution. Also, journalists are protected from civil liability for disseminating any (even false) information about public figures, which includes all civil servants. The only exception is that journalists may be sued for libel knowingly false information with by intent cause harm. And the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. It is so difficult to prove that such civil suits against journalists almost never happen.
2. Restriction on foreign media owners
In Russia
The law, signed by Putin in October 2014, will restrict foreign ownership in Russian media assets to 20 percent by early 2017. The law is expected to have the greatest impact on independent publications like Vedomosti and Forbes Russia, which are owned by American and European media groups.
IN THE USA
In the US, there are practically no restrictions on media owners. When Russia adopted a law limiting the share of foreign shareholders, then, as usual, they referred to the world experience - "in the United States, foreigners cannot own more than 25% of the media." And, as always, when checked, this turns out to be untrue. Russian restrictions apply to ownership of all media (TV, radio, cable channels, print). In the United States, there are no restrictions on media ownership, but there are only restrictions on the ownership of television and radio broadcasting stations that broadcast on the air. In the United States, there are no restrictions on cable networks and channels, satellite channels or printed products. Then, in the US, the 25% limit does not apply to owners from countries that have joined the WTO (these are 160 countries, including Russia). And even for owners outside the WTO countries, it is quite easy to obtain permission to own terrestrial TV and radio stations. As you can see, Russian law prohibits such harmless channels as Animal Planet and Discovery, or such newspapers as Forbes, while American law does not at all prohibit propaganda channels such as Russia Today or Al-Jazeera, and does not in any way apply to print media.
3. State control of the media
In Russia
Russia is dominated by media outlets that are either directly owned by the government or owned by companies controlled by the government. According to polls, the vast majority of Russians receive news from television, and the vast majority of Russians watch state-owned channels.
Where do you most often find out about news in the country and in the world? (in %)
Do you watch the news on TV, and if so,
which channels do you watch news more or less regularly? (in Russia)
In Russia, the authorities have a significant impact on the information arena througha vast state media empire. State owned, directly orthrough intermediaries, all fiveother national broadcasters, andnational radio stations, important national newspapers and national newsagencies. The government sets the editorial policy of state-owned stations, and makes reshuffles if their activities are not satisfied with the government. For example, relatively independent RIA Novosti was disbanded by Putin's decree. According to the decree, instead of the liquidated RIA Novosti, the International News Agency “Russia Today"Under the direction of Dmitry Kiselev and Margarita Simonyan. Now, almost all Russian-language news agencies (the main source of news for all media) are owned by the state -ITAR-TASS, Ruptly, Russia Today, Sputnik.
The main trustee owners include Gazprom-Media, a divisionstate energy giant Gazprom, and National Media Group,owned by Yuri Kovalchuk, a close Putin ally and member of the cooperative"Lake" and the chairman of the board of the bank "Russia". The state also controls over 60percent of approximately 45,000 regional and local newspapers and periodicalspublications of the country.
List of owners controlling mainstream media in Russia (surprisingly short)
RF government: Channel 1, Russia-1, Russia-24, most of the regional TVCs, and Culture,Radio Russia, Radio Mayak.Gazprom Media: NTV, NTV-Plus, TNT, TNT-Comedy, TNT International, Friday !, 2x2, TV3, 365 days TV, Europa Plus, TV, HD life, STV, Auto plus, Fighter, India TV, Interesting TV, Comedy TV, Kitchen TV, A minor, A lot of TV, Russian Night, Echo of Moscow, Comedy Radio, Relax FM, City FM, Children's radio, Radio Energy, Radio Romantika, Humor FM. Yes, Gazprom owns the "opposition" Echo of Moscow, therefore, if necessary, they can quickly change its editors and change the station's policy.
National Media Group: TV channels REN TV, "Fifthchannel", Metro Saint Petersburg,izvestia newspaper,radio station "Russiannews Service"
Even the relatively independent channels Dozhd, RBK and Euronews depend on cable and satellite TV operators. The largest of these operators areRostelecom (state),Tricolor TV (owners unknown), MTS (Evtushenko, who is under investigation), NTV Plus (Gazprom). When the Dozhd TV channel became objectionable, all cable operators suddenly stopped broadcasting it, and when it became acceptable again, they just as suddenly resumed broadcasting.
More than 400 daily newspapers in the country remain relatively free and they offer content on a wide range of topics, but rarely challenge the official line onimportant issues like corruption or foreign policy. Significant politicaldiscussion is mainly limited to weekly magazines, news websites,some radio broadcasts and a small number of newspapers, such as Novaya Gazeta orthe business daily Vedomosti, which generally cover a limitedaudience among the educated urban population of Russia (by the way, it is no coincidence that Putin's support is the lowest among this most educated urban population in Russia). These independent media operate in a highly self-censored environment withunderstanding that the government has the means to close them at any time
IN THE USA
In the USA, everything is very simple. The government does not own or control the media. There is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which receives about $ 500 million a year, and distributes them in grants to various independent public television stations and radio stations affiliated with the PBS and NPR systems. PBS gets about 15% of its funding from CPB grants and NPR about 2%. They mainly exist through advertising and private donations. These stations have a very small share of the media market, and anyone who watches or listens to them knows that they do not promote any government point of view, but rather focus on educational programs and programs for children. Although there is a Charile Rose program on PBS, where in June 2015, they showed an hour-long interview with Putin. I don’t remember the last time I interviewed Obama or Carrie on Russian television.
The US government does not interfere with editorial policy in any way, and cannot appoint or remove the heads of these public stations. The government does not interfere in the advertising market, does not engage in Internet censorship, cannot close media outlets, cannot remove editors, cannot cancel registration, since there is no media registration.
4. Concentration of media owners
In Russia
As described above, the Russian government is the largest owner and controls most of all media outlets. The National Media Group controls the remaining media. The RBC TV channel belongs to Prokhorov. The rest of the independent media have a marginal market position.
IN THE USA
There are about 10 large public corporations in the USA which own the main TV channels, cable networks, newspapers, and radio stations. But these 10 corporations are not controlled by the state, are open joint stock companies, and are not controlled by any one oligarch (with the exception of News Corp).
5. Competition and access to foreign media
Competition with foreign media can be one of the factors that limits the effectiveness of propaganda. After all, if the national media lie too much, and people have access to foreign media, then they can just watch foreign media. Therefore, in the presence of competition with foreign media, national media are forced not to deviate too much from international standards of news coverage. Access to foreign media is limited by two factors - technical restrictions and a language barrier.
In Russia
With the language barrier, the Russians are rather bad (we consider proficiency in the main international languages, and not in the languages \u200b\u200bof small nations). According to the 2010 census, only 7.5 million Russians indicated that they spoke English, and only 2 million indicated that they spoke German, 600,000 in French, and 150,000 in Spanish. True, the degree of proficiency in these languages \u200b\u200bis not yet known, and most likely the majority of those who indicated that they speak English do not speak it enough to regularly read or listen to news in it. In total, significantly less than 10% of Russians can receive news in foreign languages.
With such a low level of proficiency in foreign languages, 90% of Russians can only consume information in Russian. And in the world there is a rather limited number of media in Russian, and this market is mainly dominated by Russian government media. The only news channel in Russian is Euronews, which is broadcast on Kultura channel at very convenient morning hours from 6 to 10 am.
About 60% of Russia's population has access to the Internet. Also, about 50% receive TV signals via cable networks or satellite dishes. Those people who do not have access to the Internet and watch terrestrial television (about 40% of the population) are almost completely cut off from foreign media. The remaining 50 percent have access which is limited by their lack of knowledge of foreign languages \u200b\u200band poor choice of Russian-language information.
Internet access also does not guarantee freedom of speech. Although almost everything is available on the Internet, most people perceive information through the filter of social sites, search engines, or news sites. Therefore, the Russian-speaking Internet user sees a completely different picture of the world. For example, if you make a search in Google.ru for the keyword "American general", then the very first line will be the news from RIA Novosti about Americans in Ukraine. Russian state propaganda always gets a more prominent place, and always gets to the top of search engines, and other points of view must be specially sought.
IN THE USA
More people in the US speak foreign languages. According to the census, at least 37 million people use Spanish at home, 2.8 million use Chinese, 1.3 million speak French at home, 1 million speak German, and 900,000 speak Russian. This really does not take into account those people who speak English at home, but nevertheless know a foreign language well. According to a Gallup poll, 25% of Americans said they could keep up a conversation in a foreign language. In total, somewhere between 15% - 25% of Americans can consume information in a foreign language.
But, they do not even need to do this, since almost all media in the world broadcast in English. Have American viewers have access to many foreign channels in English. RT (Russia), CCTV (China), Press TV (Iran), Al Jazeera, Deutsche Welle, France 24, Euronews, HNK (Japan) and many others, broadcast around the clock in English.
Technically speaking, Americans have a lot more opportunities to access this information. More than 90% of the US population has access to the Internet. Also, about 90% of the population receives TV signals via cable or satellite systems, and have access to an almost unlimited number of foreign channels.
6. Views of international organizations
Russian Foundation for the Defense of Glasnostpreviously published the Glasnost Map for different regions in Russia. In 2010, there was not a single region with a free press in Russia, and most regions were divided into non-free and relatively non-free.
7. Conclusion
Yes, one can criticize the freedom of speech in the USA for a long time. But when the residents of Russia do it, it sounds like a criticism of the taste of oysters from people who have never seen oysters. If the United States has problems with freedom of speech and independence of the media, then in modern Russia there is simply no freedom of speech. The media in Russia have simply become into an instrument of state control over the population and manipulation of public opinion.
If we single out the most important of all the professional qualities of journalists, then this quality will be objectivity. For journalists, objectivity does not mean mathematical or scientific accuracy, but rather a coverage of facts that excludes emotion and separates facts from opinions. Journalistic objectivity is often associated with the “inverted pyramid” and structure of writing, where facts are arranged from top to bottom according to their importance and the questions are answered: “who? what? Where? why? when? And How?".
For many, objectivity means accurately reporting facts and events in the form of an impartial description. For example, the Canons of Journalism has a clause called “Impartiality,” which reads: “In current newspaper practice, it is customary to draw a sharp line between the relationship of news and the expression of opinions. Chronicle messages should not contain opinions or be biased in any way. This rule does not apply to so-called special articles, the very nature of which and the signature under them provide the author with the right to his own interpretation ”(1, 237). The first item is the same requirement in the Charter of Broadcasters: “Making clear distinctions between reports of facts, comments and assumptions in order to avoid their identification” (22, 2). Most experts who study the problem of objectivity agree that this rule must be strictly observed. Thus, it is obvious that in recent years the theory of objectivity has begun to allow for analytical coverage of events that goes far beyond the impartial description. In other words, subjectivity is allowed in journalism.
Explanatory dictionary of SI Ozhegov interprets the concept of subjectivity as follows: “1. Inherent only in a given subject, person. 2. Biased, biased, devoid of objectivity. " (14, 371).
American media researcher J. Merrill says that journalistic objectivity is impossible: “Let's look at an“ objective ”article. This will probably be material that is impartial, unbiased, written with knowledge of the subject and without errors. It happens? An objective article will fully correspond to reality and reflect the truth, only the truth and nothing but the truth. Is it possible? No journalist knows the truth, no material can accurately correspond to reality, or, as the famous expert on semantics Hayakawa said, “a map is not a territory yet”. In other words, an article written by a journalist always means more than what is expressed in words ”(2, 179). Indeed, in addition to the fact that all journalists are limited in their objectivity by the imperfection of the language, their creativity is also influenced by their experience, physical condition, education and many other factors. In addition, a journalist is already subjective to the extent that he himself chooses the topic of the material, he selects the facts, considers them from his point of view.
Continuing to quote J. Merrill, I agree with the following statement: “The real state of affairs is such that every journalist, commentator or columnist in the work on material goes beyond simple description of facts. Journalists cannot be objective, even if they want to. They fall into the natural trap of subjectivity. Their personality is inherent in the material. They, for example, decide which parts of the material to cut and which not. They make decisions about where to focus and what to smooth out, which quotes to use and which not, what to paraphrase, and where to use direct speech. Despite the fact that such journalism cannot be called objective, there is nothing reprehensible in it ”(2, 182).
J. Merrill in his work “Conversations on the Mass Media” quotes Donald MacDonald: “The assessment of values \u200b\u200bthat is required from a journalist in the course of his investigation or interpretation of facts should reflect the values \u200b\u200bin which he himself believes. These values \u200b\u200bwere acquired by him throughout his life. He acquired them during his studies, he was influenced by his religion, childhood, family life, origin, friends and social circle, nationality and related culture, life experience and common sense ”(2, 184).
Moreover, this applies to political events, socially significant and contradictory information. Such subjectivity is natural, since reflects the value system and views of an individual journalist. He passes the material through the filter of his subjective perception and, in doing so, he inadvertently introduces an element of bias into his material. The bias may be unintentional, but it is still bias. She is natural and permeates the media.
Even J. Merrill's opponent by convictions and co-author of Conversations on the Mass Media, E. Dennis, admits that “the opinions that we find on editorial pages are expressed from certain positions - and in this sense are biased, although not necessarily associated with bias. The best commentary work analyzes the facts and proposes conclusions. This is its task, and commentators, as a rule, belong to some sector of the political spectrum and proceed from their own experience, personal interest. This is opinion journalism ”(2, 126).
So, as we can see, the requirement of objectivity, which is the main one in all codes of journalistic ethics, is in fact impracticable already insofar as a journalist is, first of all, a person. If we think globally, then subjectivity is the main concept that reflects the essence of each person. However, E. Dennis, already mentioned above, says that “sometimes we forget that objectivity is just a method and style of presenting information” (2, 188). He notes that there are three main characteristics of objectivity as a method. First, it is necessary to separate fact from opinion (which is written in the Charter and Canons). Secondly, emotionally detached coverage of events is necessary. And, thirdly, there should be a striving for accuracy and balance, giving both parties the opportunity to express their point of view, which will allow the audience to receive the most complete information.
Continuing the thought, E. Dennis asks questions: “… is it really impossible even within the limits of human imperfection to try to become impartial, not indifferent and indifferent, but impartial? Is it not possible to observe and describe events so that others can verify our information if they wish? Is it impossible to reach a consensus on what is happening in our immediate environment and in society in general, while leaving room for reasonable interpretations and speculative points of view? ” (2, 192). Ideally, this is probably not that difficult. What happens in the practical activity of a journalist will be considered a little later.
For some reason the oppositionists cannot understand this simple truth in any way. An independent media means objective MASS MEDIA. That is, it writes about power both good and bad, depending on the results of its activities. Have you built the Vostochny cosmodrome? Excellent! This is a great achievement, Russia is one of the main space powers of the planet, this is our future, this is our pride. Have there been thefts? Bad, overlooked, you need to understand and punish the guilty. After all, it reaches the point of absurdity! Specifically, in the story of Vostochny, the pro-Kremlin media were considered much more objective than the so-called "independent" ones, which spread exclusively negativity and somehow forgot to mention that the construction of the most modern cosmodrome on the planet in the taiga is a very difficult task. which we have successfully handled.
There is an excerpt in the memoirs of Vladimir Pozner where he writes about public television. According to him, this is a television that does not depend on advertising, that is, it is non-commercial, and also does not depend on the authorities. It is controlled by the society itself. The TV presenter even talked about creating such a channel with the president in 2004. There is only one problem - financing. Whose money will it support? There are two options: either Russian citizens pay out of their own pocket, as in the case of the British BBC, or the state allocates money, as, for example, in Canada.
It is clear that the population of Russia, in principle, will not want to pay for a TV channel. All the more so for one where opposition-minded journalists will run the show, who believe that there is no freedom of the media in Russia and their duty is to show an "alternative" point of view. "Alternative" means different from the "Kremlin". It means that they will simply scold the authorities with and without reason. Just scold. Always... And for this I will have to pay out of pocket without fail? No thanks.
We have already gone through this. There is a pay TV channel "Rain". Those who do not like the government are subscribed to it. And in general, and in particular. For such people, "Rain" is an outlet. But this is not an objective media. Agree that it is objectively exactly to the same extent as the "Kremlin media", to which this channel opposes itself. He does the same thing, he just has a different target audience.
There is a CBC channel in Canada. It seems to be an independent public television. But it is financed from the state budget. What kind of independence can we talk about then? We learned everything about the degree of their independence when we had a conflict with Georgia. We remembered once again when Crimea was reunited and the ATO began in Ukraine. And why in Russia another state pro-Kremlin channel, which such a media will inevitably become? Or would the opposition want the authorities to allocate money for a TV channel that would scold the authorities from morning to evening? Well, it's not bad to dream.
We made the OTR channel. According to the Canadian scheme, that is, with government money. I can't say how much he is objective, because I have never watched it in my life. As far as I know, his ratings are zero. The same Posner, who was originally part of the working group on the creation of the channel, later disowned him. He did not like that the head of the channel is appointed by the authorities. What other options could there be?
There is no independent media. If there is a master, then the media inevitably turns into a mouthpiece. It is naive to believe that this is not the case. And here objective In theory, there are media. This is when the master fair and objective... The same "Rain" could become an honest and objective TV channel, but they did not set such a task for themselves from the very beginning. The main thing for them is to sell more subscriptions to representatives of the protest electorate. Their subscribers are the hosts and order the music. And they are tuned in a strictly defined way, which means they are biased.
But modern TV channels considered to be pro-Kremlin are largely objective... And I have a feeling that every year there is more objectivity. You don't need to invent anything, you don't need to create new channels. Generations of journalists are changing. The mastodons of Soviet journalism are being replaced by more liberated and more daring guys. These are no longer afraid to scold them on business. And, most importantly, such criticism is broadcast. It is necessary to understand that it is not the state that creates the “lack of freedom of the media,” but the editors who act on the principle of “whatever happens,” this is self-censorship of notorious people. Everything will change when they leave their posts.
