About "rain"

Passions around the Rain TV channel continue to heat up. Mass indignation of the survey about “hand over to save” has already led to the fact that a number of satellite and cable operators suspended the channel’s broadcast, and the St. Petersburg prosecutor's office began the “rain” check. Why did society and power react so hard to “simply unsuccessful”, according to the channel itself, a survey?

A lot of different problems are intertwined in the story with the rain - so that, raising one, you inevitably catch another. Moreover, they relate to a variety of areas - these are just the most significant of them: the struggle for power, relations of power and the media, ideology and propaganda, society and the media, historical memory, values ​​and ideals. All this was reflected, as in a drop of rain, in this scandal, because the clouds gathered for decades, and broke through one day.

The main essence of the conflict is very simple: the society is finally tired of listening to the Russophobic propaganda of the liberal media. Because it has accumulated - everything spilled over for years to people through the "Echo of Moscow", NTV and "rain" now overwhelmed the edge and threatens to fall on the heads of perplexing creative journalists. How is it that it was possible before, but why is it impossible now? Just a sick society recovers - and no longer wants to endure what was eaten in silence before. But first about the authorities.

At the Rain, they really are convinced that the authorities are taking revenge on them for their exposure - this is the general director of Sindeev He says that this is a retribution for their reports based on publications of Navalny about the dachas of the Kremlin officials. The point is not even that the leaders of the TV channel remembered about the dachas three days after the scandal, they are really convinced that they were dealing with them for politics. And this has its own truth, only it is not very attractive for the rain itself.

It's no secret that the channel was and is a participant in the political struggle at the Russian top. Most likely, this explained the quick free connection of the TV channel to all kinds of satellite and cable operators than the other day I was indignant The creator of Lifenews Aram Gabrelyanov: some operators asked for 10 million for connecting his television channel, while others offered to wait a year.

Questions about the State Procedians to save Kit Finance, whose owner was the founder of the rain of Vinokurov, They began to set recently , and although it was extremely difficult to prove that the TV channel was created on budget money, but in any case, it is at least strange that the oligarch, who lost the main business during the crisis, immediately after that launches a political media project.

“Rain” was sharply, frankly “swamp television” - and an active participant in the struggle for power. If we consider the “rain” as an instrument in this struggle, which it is first of the head, then there is nothing strange that in the battle of statesmen with liberals, each side beats the enemy’s hands. And “rain”, like a sword, is now simply knocked out of the hands of a liberal party.

At the same time, the owners themselves and the journalists of the rain are trying to give the situation completely one -sidedly, imagining themselves as a victim, and not as a participant in the political struggle. It is very difficult to believe in the sincerity of Paphos Sindeeva, that is, in the fact that she really does not understand what she actually does. We are independent journalists, says a fighter of the information and propaganda department of the warring army.

Nevertheless, the political aspect is not at all the main thing in the present case, the reaction of the public is much more important. Yes, the usual general public, which simply turned out to be completely in the public, to which the "best people" are used to. The Kremlin only strengthened this indignant voice, bringing Rupor, helping to spread it wider, joining it, but did not organize it. And this does not fit into the heads of “raincoats” - because it does not happen in the world invented by them, where “crooks and thieves” should be against them. The masses, the public, that is, the so -called silent majority, were offended.

Which, by the way, is silent not only because it is not engaged in verbal creativity, but by production, but also because his views are considered “like not formers”, are declared fiction of state propaganda and guardianship. Over the past couple of years, the voice of the information and oppressed majority has become increasingly louder from state television channels, but here creative explained everything by them invented "flirting of power with a conservative majority."

In reality, the authorities began cleaning the information space controlled by it from people who sincerely believed that if it seems to them that Putin should leave, and the people do not think so, then they should “open their eyes to people,” that is, simply discredit and ridicule any step of power, completely consciously engaged in sabotage work. They considered their rejection and misunderstanding of the actions of Putin (and himself) the president’s authoritarianism, not wanting to understand that this is only a derivative of the tragic gap that occurred between them and the enormous majority of the people. Different values ​​and pictures of the world, different ideas about Russia - this is what has become the main reason for the conflict.

But different - is it fine? Of course, if only we are not about trying to impose their views on another, namely, the work of liberal media is built. They give a rigidly ideological installation: we - for all the good, the authorities - for all the bad (the option - the government does not know how). Everyone who does not agree with us is hired by the Kremlin, afraid of the Kremlin or just idiots. Because an educated modern person simply cannot but be with us (the option is against such power). Can power not notice this ideological processing? Only if she does not understand anything at all in information wars.

Could a channel, not just politically opposition, but perpendicular to the values ​​and opinion of the majority of the people, claim to join the nationwide (as “rain) in any of the countries of the world? It is clear that all “decent people” know that this is impossible not only in Belarus and the DPRK. In fact, this is just as unimaginable not only in China, Iran, India or Saudi Arabia, but also in most other countries of the world. But in tolerant and tolerant Europe, is everything all right with this? Alas, just in tolerant Europe, everything that does not fit into a nationwide consensus (which the ruling elites are quite actively corrected, as it happens, for example, with tolerance), is instantly marginalized, and this applies to both politics and media. Only the mainstream of the media - with some shades, of course. Everything else will simply not find funding - neither state nor private.

Is there at least one serious and large nationalist television channel in Europe - no matter in France or Germany? No, despite the fact that a lot of residents of these countries adhere to nationalist views. But no one gives money for such television, because political power has liberal-cosmopolitan forces (albeit often in conservative clothes), and the media control the equally liberal publishers. And they will immediately hang on any right television channel the shortcut of the “fascist”, so not a single businessman who could finance such a project will then be washed off.

The mass refusal of the operators to broadcast the “rain” on the TV channel immediately announced the execution of the order of the authorities, but why not to admit that the operators themselves do not want to bear the costs associated with the negative attitude to the “rain” of most of their customers? The television channel, which is necessary for a very narrow layer of the Russian audience, should live in the same way as any similar television channel lives, but for this this layer itself needs to come to terms with the idea that it is no longer a self -assembled “Russian land”. That is why a lesson in history with a “rain” survey is so important.

The problem is not that in Russia it is forbidden to talk about what the “optimistic channel” likes to talk about, the problem is that the discussion that Putin is a thief, and “Russia is a backward swamp”, should be an internal problem of journalists and subscribers of such a television channel, and not their mission to enlighten the people. Because viewing such television channels can contribute to the wide folk masses of inciting not the best human feelings, not to Putin, but to the "raincoats" itself.

As a matter of fact, the tonality of “rain” is a continuation of the glorious traditions of television of the 90s, it is precisely for all the “rain” that is now responsible. He inherits the “unique NTV journalistic team ”, still reproducing that school of the Russophobic and anti -state version of liberalism, which stubbornly impersonates “objective journalism”. And, by the way, one of its main principles is absolute, total intolerance. Moreover, the predecessors of the current “victims” not only did not allow a different point of view to their broadcasts: they generally pretended that it was not. In the 90s, in a TV controlled by liberals, there were neither Patriots-imperials, nor communists of lavaks, nobody who could argue with the only faithful teaching of the victorious liberalism. And the liberal talking heads discussed among themselves the country's problems from “different” positions that were absolutely opposite the opinion of most of their compatriots, and did not feel the slightest discomfort from the fact that they did not have the opportunity to object to patriots or communists.

Now, thanks to technical progress and the “bloody regime”, the situation is fundamentally different - in one studio, Gozman and Prokhanov argue. And the Rain TV channel can broadcast even on the Internet, at least on a satellite ... And it will do this even when it ceases to be an instrument of political struggle, it will not be at all interesting to officials and political players - I’m afraid that then it will die quite quickly. Because in pursuit of popularity with its narrow, but fanatical audience, it will become more and more rabid - and periodically run into such a response wave of popular outrage that the operators will place it in special packages, where the television channels “not for all” are sold.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

The article is not mine. Original