| Channel One defended the honor and dignity of Nikita Mikhalkov On Sunday, the final program “Time” showed a story about the congress of the Union of Cinematographers. This forum earned the reputation of being one of the most scandalous in the history of the RF IC: the team of Nikita Mikhalkov, who was elected to the position of chairman for the third time, clashed with a group of colleagues united around the Moscow IC. There were debates, insults, and as a result of a secret ballot, the current chairman received two-thirds of the votes, which, according to the existing charter, is not enough for legitimate re-election - a qualified majority, that is, three-quarters, is required. As a result, another, this time open, vote was held, and by midnight the filmmakers remaining in the hall, who no longer constituted a quorum, nevertheless elected Mikhalkov. It was difficult to understand the cause of the conflict: mutual accusations were expressed emotionally in form, but vague in content. And, it would seem, what does the general public care about the internal affairs of a single creative union?
But everything was decided by the fame of the defendants. Andrei Smirnov, Vasily Livanov, and most importantly, himself, a renowned director, popular actor, aristocrat and patriot, Oscar and Cannes winner, spoke “for” Mikhalkov; against - Eldar Ryazanov, Stanislav Govorukhin, Rustam Ibragimbekov, Yuliy Gusman - also well-known and beloved figures by the country. And watching how such eminent people publicly sort things out turned out to be interesting to a large number of the public. The conflict in the RF IC, which has been going on for several years, overgrown with an endless number of details, ambitions, poorly understood even by its other participants, has spilled out onto the pages of newspapers and television screens
Channel One immediately and irrevocably took the side of its partner Nikita Mikhalkov - with his studio TRITE, the channel is working on the most ambitious film and television series projects. After the first day of the congress, it was Channel One that showed Stanislav Govorukhin, who directly on air refused the role of the main competitor and assessed the position of the Moscow Union, which made this offer to him, as having no support - his colleagues did not yet know about the refusal at that moment . It is clear that Mikhalkov could have been given more airtime to present his own position, that he and his supporters could not have been shown in unfavorable poses and angles, that, on the contrary, opponents could have been caught with inaccuracies and distortions...
But still, it is so shameless to falsify the entire course of the congress, as was done in the Sunday report! I witnessed the events taking place at the congress, not all of them, but a very significant part. I saw the performances of the participants, fragments of which were shown on TV. That is, I am a simple eyewitness, and, frankly, not at all interested. What was shown to me on Channel One has nothing in common with what actually happened... There was a report on TV about how white and fluffy Mikhalkov was suffering from an angry bunch of “oppositionists” who were first secretly robbing the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, concealing funds received from renting the Cinema Center from their colleagues, and then brazenly scandalizing them at the congress. But if there are only a handful of people “against” Mikhalkov, then there are two “for” groups, since the votes of the delegates were divided exactly in this proportion: two thirds - “for” and one third - “against” (that is, for Elena Tsyplakova, nominated spontaneously and unpreparedly, to formalize a protest that was actually shared by a third of the delegates). Why Mikhalkov angered his colleagues is a question for his opponents, let them formulate and prove it, although it would be better if they did this before the congress. But the facts show that the community is really split, that there is discontent and mistrust, and Mikhalkov begins his third term in very difficult circumstances. TV viewers were informed that the newly elected chairman, wearing a dazzling white shirtfront, left the meeting to work honestly, as always. The job must be done, gentlemen...
I understand: supporting commercial partners is a sacred matter, protecting their image and reputation is an indirect protection of one’s own business honor. But to defend yourself in one place and skimp on your own professionalism?.. The simple science of a first-year journalist is that when reporting, you do not have the right to ignore the positions of all participants, no matter how much you would like to support one of the sides. It turns out that on Channel One it is possible. You can show Eldar Ryazanov shouting “bastard!” to a colleague who is interfering with his speech - which, of course, is not very good. Just like shouting “shut up!” to Andrei Smirnov. addressed to another delegate, which, of course, was not shown to the public. Okay, let ten people speak for Mikhalkov on the all-Union screen, but let at least one from the opposition speak... For the sake of formal decency.
We can only assume one thing - the channel's managers do not value the reputation of their own information services at a penny, giving up on it as obviously tarnished, but protect only those interests that are really important to them - that is, commercial ones. Alena Solntseva |
|
