Answers in the form of questions

The role of personality in history is reviewed in manual control mode

Dmitry Kiselev invented a new genre on TV. The first pen test looks like this: "Questions to Mikhail Gorbachev to the 25th anniversary of perestroika." The name is quite conceptual, because for Kiselev his questions are much more important than the response of the interlocutor. With all ...

Dmitry Kiselev invented a new genre on TV. The first pen test looks like this: "Questions to Mikhail Gorbachev to the 25th anniversary of perestroika." The name is quite conceptual, because for Kiselev his questions are much more important than the response of the interlocutor. For all the courtesy of appearance, the interviewer is not able to hide the radical task - to drive the first president of the country into a corner.

When Kiselev seems to be in an apple, his eyes flash a triumph, which he immediately carefully extinguishes the next tricky issue. You really believed that everything is formed by itself - after all, many perceived freedom as chaos? What did the archaization of the economy mean for the once powerful state? Has the USSR fell as a result of betrayal? And in a voice completely strangled from indignation: that is, you seemed to put the state forward of the state?

We must pay tribute to the guest of the program - Mikhail Sergeyevich was calm, unusually brief and very ironic. As an expressive example of the complete degradation of the system, he said that a commission on tights, headed by secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU Kapitonov, was even created in the Politburo. "Can't be!" - sincerely exclaimed for a moment the interviewer who fell out of the role. “Well, I congratulate you,” Gorbachev remarked not without malice. “You learned something new for yourself.” Kiselev is not just a leading main state channel, he is also the deputy general director of the VGTRK, who oversees the information broadcasting. Therefore, his “questions” are perceived in our Byzantine political reality as a kind of message to the city and the world. I would like to understand which one. Since this is impossible, you will have to follow in the footsteps of Kiselev, that is, to write an article mainly in the form of questions.

What does a sharp interview mean in the context of constantly changing ideological meanings? Replacing the dashing of the 90s as a gum for dashing 80s? It is unlikely that the previous topic still brings good dividends. Is it the fact that the statesman Kiselev personally recorded his addictions? So they have long been clear. From the very moment he erupted by the transfer of Russophobia and sang posture to Mikhail Katkov. The life of the father of political journalism in a sense rhymes with Kiselevskaya. Katkov, whose name has become a household name during his life, is a liberal, which turned into a guardian. Not always our hero was a wise statesman. In 1991, he refused to read a statement in the Baltic states in the frame, for which he was dismissed with Tatyana Mitkova with GOSTERADIO. Previously, his “national interest” was emphasized by a democratic character and did without Narodnitskaya. And today he, who invented the program “Freedom of Speech” and “Window to Europe”, blames for all troubles “Radical Liberal Field”.

It is unlikely that yesterday, when I started writing this article, I would have stopped in the personality of Kiselev in such detail. But there was a terrorist attack, and the TV again brilliantly demonstrated its helplessness in force majeure. That TV, in the signs and symbols of which Kiselev is listed. It is difficult to forget how almost two years ago, entering a new high position, he told a correspondent about his creative credo: “I would like to make our information stream more positive and inspiring.” He said and did. Now this stream resembles the Gogol ladies, pleasant in all respects, because they did not "have the need to cause trouble in their nature."

Manipulation of the consciousness of citizens is a common thing in any state. But we are too much abuse this right. In Russia, even the role of personality in history is rethought almost once a month in manual mode. That's why I was alert when I heard Gorbachev’s conversation with Kiselev. Maybe again something is rethought? Our political reality is such that the analyst has degenerated into the interpretation of signals. The process of capturing signals is a whole art.

Of course, there are relatively simple situations. Here we take, for example, Anatoly Sobchak, whose recent memorable date was marked with an unprecedented scope. The celebrations were crowned by Alexander Gabnis’s documentary “10 years later”, where a new optics was recorded. From now on, Sobchak is reformatted from the father of Russian democracy to the teacher and mentor of the best people of the new Russia - Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev. This seems to have happened in Russian history for the first time. Already what Vasily Zhukovsky block, but in his pedagogical asset only the emperor from poetry Alexander Pushkin and simply the liberal emperor Alexander II appear. Sobchak brought up two presidents at once, authorized to determine the fate of the country, probably for a long period.

Egor Gaidar brought up only himself, so the rapid rethinking of his role in the post -Soviet life looks more mysterious. Yesterday, TV, despite death, continued to consider Yegor Timurovich the main culprit of Russian troubles, and today he is called the “great”. Three television projects are dedicated to him, one better than the other, Pavel Sheremet, Nikolai Svanidze, Dmitry Bykov. Even Tatyana Yumashev and Boris Nemtsova, who is usually admitted at best only on REN TV, was allowed into the frame of federal channels. And what does this dream mean? This personality is rethought because it is dead because the public climate warmed up or because someone in the mountains gave a go-ahead-now you can do it differently?

What is Gaidar, the other day, the state channel waved to Stalin himself. Evgeny Rozhkov erupted with a very angry plot. The Generalissimu is charged with a crime, which few, according to the correspondent, remembers-in 1947 he canceled the celebration of Victory Day, appointing him working day. He took the front -line soldiers of Todorovsky, the late Astafyev, the assistant to Gorbachev Chernyaev, who pronounced many accurate words about the leaders and his role in the war. But again, there is a question: whether the channel allows with his whole power to go to Luzhkov with his dreams about the Stalinist posters (Rozhkov began his report from him), or is this the official opinion from now on? The question is by no means idle. After all, until recently, the Name Russia contest on the same second button was won by Stalin, which at the last minute of decency was replaced by Alexander Nevsky.

Managed democracy is fruit. Now (in relation to TV) the traditional system of checks and counterweights is poorly working poorly. It had at least some logic that could be issued for pluralism. And today, there is still on one flank of Maximovskaya, on the other - Pushkov. But even inexperienced spectators know: it is only important that the sovereign's mouth is pronounced, that is, two federal channels. It is they who tirelessly translate the signals and place accents. Personality of a historical scale is an excellent help in work. So you see a neat gentleman with an elusive look, who in the silence of the cabinet decides no worse than the whole Politburo in former times, who to bury and whom to honor in connection with the need of a historical moment. Dependence on a certain higher mind, which controls the thinking matter, is becoming more and more offensive. At some point, you catch yourself on the fact that the permissible enthusiasm (even those with whom you agree) are almost as unpleasant as the permissible hula. The stronger souls, of course, have long gained immunity to such manipulations. And what happens to the souls of fragile? And where to get normal history textbooks? And how long should the porridge in the head, consciously provoked, should remain a favorite dish of Russians?

In the documentary of Swanidze, the mother of Gaidar says: “I am very grateful to the president and the prime minister that they said kind words and thereby let people know - the dead Gaidar should not be kicking.” Ariadn Bazhov-Gaidar can be understood. Her grief is so great that she grabs any straw. But what is the citizens of the great power to constantly realize that they live in a country where the fate of everyone and everyone depends on what their rulers will “let people know” today?