From the whole outlet

In the last weekend, the federal channels were able to see the forgotten faces of politicians representing the so -called non -playing opposition: Boris Nemtsov - in the NTVshniki, Vladimir Ryzhkov - in the new current show of the Citizen Gordon, again, Ryzhkov - in Briliev’s Vesti with Brilev. A little earlier, he clashed with Kurginyan in the "Historical Process".

The next morning, we, journalists writing about TV, began to call colleagues from news agencies with the question: what would it mean? Ice, or something, touched? Winter in the cold, and the sun for the summer? Correspondents of foreign media were especially excited. Is it possible to consider what the beginning of the revolution? Indeed, after five or eight years, the strict isolation of these politicians from the viewing mass was perceived as something extreme.

I tried to slow down the degree of amazement with my interlocutors: well, they say, we need to see how to go further. We will wait for the following issues of "Central Television", "in context", etc.

My feelings are mixed. One of them is skepticism.

All programs with the participation of forbidden politicians resembled prison dates. The bargained were in a hurry to speak out for a limited time, to say the most important, most importantly, tried to breathe in the all-Russian ether, feeling behind their backs the presence of strict broadcasters-supervisors and realizing that they could cut them out and throw them out of the air every second. Then, already in the non -state media, and Ryzhkov and Nemtsov told what they had stopped.

Another feeling is secret hope: if this is the first swallow? Or a broken snowdrop? Or flickering light at the end of the tunnel?

There is nothing in common between the public situation of 1986 and today. In addition to incorrect hope.

Then, too, was not very believed in the turn to democracy. Then I and my friends defeated the skepticism and it seemed that the publicity was about to slap like a bleeding fly, beating on the window glass. Then the Lakmusov piece of paper was the film "Repentance". Someone had already seen him and said that this thing is stronger than the Khrushchev report at the twentieth congress. A friend said: "Well, if they show in the house of the movie, then I will believe in the irreversibility of perestroika." Showed. The hall stood and applauded Tengiz Abuladze for about thirty minutes. A friend continued to persist: "Well, let them write about it in the central newspaper." Wrote. "Well, when the film is released, then we can assume that the point of non -return is passed." Released.

When it was - how many water flowed, how many ice drifts passed, and the point of no return, it seems, is still not passed.

*** How to evaluate television free -thinking who is excited about the politicized public? How is a tactical technique? Royal Gambit? Or did the process go? For nothing, or something, the gentlemen Shevchenko, Kurginyan, Pushkov, Dorenko are so nervous, and Peter Tolstoy frowns so ...

If you figure it out, no special revolutionary movements happened. And before, from time to time, windows opened on federal channels, from which a fresh wind of interpretations of famous and little -known events penetrated the house of inhabitants. On NTV, this is a talk show "Central Television" and "NTVshniki. Arena of sharp discussions." On the first - "Plant -PECTORISHILTON". On "Russia" - "on duty in the country" of Mikhail Zhvanetsky.

In addition, it has been broadcasting “rain” for almost two years, which has managed to be honored with evil hatred from Kurginyan, which in itself is a good certification for the channel. And there is also YouTube. And also the Echo and Kommersant's network broadcasting. So the interested democratic minority does not experience information deficit.

Another question: does the conservative majority have the need for the elimination of this deficit? He has a myth about Putin as an effective manager. So a few extra windows, ajar for some time, will not hurt the health of this television simulacra.

Since I remembered the effect of “repentance” here, I can’t help but remind you that this film failed in a wide box office. And nothing could undermine the myth of Stalin in the eyes of the crowd: neither the report of Khrushchev, nor the film by Abuladze, nor Solzhenitsyn's prose, nor the poems of Shalamov.

The myth of Putin, of course, is not so artistic and convincing, but he already to some extent climbed to the masses in the subcorta. So hopes on information drafts on TV, in my opinion, are in vain.

*** And the enthusiasm of our public is understandable. They are akin to what I experienced in the army on election day. In the morning we, conscripts, were not waking up, they were allowed to sleep, they went to the dining room not only in the leg, but also outside the system. Lunch was tasty and satisfying. A brass band played in the dining room. And in the evening they showed several movie comedies by nonstop.

It was a holiday of democracy in the army. Well, the next day, everything returned to its circles. A step is a step, we sang: “And for you, dear, there is a field mail” and for dinner they burned a sloppy frozen potatoes.