Why is Putin saving Andreev. The chilling portrait of the mother of "Channel One"

Ekaterina Andreeva is the main TV presenter “Channel One”, a mouthpiece of Russian propaganda and a symbol of Putin's “Stability”. What is the secret of her success and how she manages to stay on the screens for more than 30 years - Pavel Kanygin understands

This message (material) was created and (or) widespread by a foreign media that performs the functions of a foreign agent, and (or) a Russian legal entity that performs the functions of a foreign agent “continued”

You read the text version of the analysis

Equanimity. Sincere peace. Inner harmony. Continuousness and stoicism. Such quality in our time. How rarely we manage to observe examples of such behavior .

But now I’m not talking about Marina Ovsyannikov, who in March 2022 broke into the air of Channel One with an anti -war poster in her hands. Her actions are a desperate civil act. But the way Ekaterina Andreeva behaved at this moment, well, just an advertisement for the psychotherapist’s selection service. The world around is collapsing and are you on the verge of a nervous breakdown? Sign up for an online consultation, and you can also keep a calm face in any incomprehensible situation. Like Katya Andreeva, who did not even lead an eyebrow, while someone shouted and discredited the Russian army behind her.

Any journalist who is in the profession longer than a week will tell you about the emotional barrier arising between him and the information field. Simply put - it is impossible to respond to every news, it is a direct path to emotional exhaustion or, as it is called, burnout. When you read 24/7, write, discuss the news, you inevitably become less susceptible to them. Feelings are dull. You are not stale, but there is a professional democration. This is both strength and weakness. The journalist naturally transfers this skill to his life outside the editorial office. The ability to maintain calm and concentration becomes the property of the personality.

But in the history of Ekaterina Andreeva, it seems that the cause and investigation have changed places. She is one of the main long -livers of Russian television - and it was precisely due to the fact that from the very beginning was immune to the outside world. And to someone it may seem conventive and paradoxical that a person, interacting with information, is indifferent to it. But I will explain this phenomenon further.

Andreeva has been conducting the program “Time” on “First Channel” for 26 years. Colleagues are dying, television channels are smashing, it throws the country into heat and cold, employees make desperate gestures. The muscle on the face of the host does not tremble.

---

Andreev in the prosecutor's office
Such impenetration is actually the property of scouts and special services. James Bond never turns into an explosion. So the young Katya Andreeva wanted to become Uncle Stepa.

“Since childhood, I wanted to be a security forces - to work as a fireman, or a policeman, or an astronaut. I wanted to restore order, observe laws, justice, ” she said. From the age of three, she played in the local policeman. “I put on rubber boots, took a plastic gun, a hat like a sheriff, grandfather's awards focused on herself and walked, patrolled the village of Dachny.”

And it sounds logical. As if the epaulettes would come ideal to the image of Andreeva, agree? You will be surprised, but she even managed to work in the prosecutor's office. At 17, she combined the position of referent in the Investigation Department with a study on legal. Clear prospects, the sale of children's dreams, a prosecutor’s career , whose crown is a summer house on Rublevka, well, or in Forte-de-Marmy, there will be as it will go.

But it did not work out. The case, colorfully described by Catherine herself in an interview, prevented. Believe it or not…

Once, the referent of the office of the office of the investigative department Andreev left work later than usual. The main entrance was already closed, it went through black. And there, in the gateway, they were waiting for her. At that time, she worked on the case of the murder and dismemberment of the girl. The man was already sitting, the case was ready to transfer to court. But the accomplices remained at large. Further, the story of Andreeva herself is vague - either the attackers were two, or one. Either the knife was put to the liver, or they offered a bribe. One way or another, they demanded to take out the case from the safe. Andreev hit one of them. Either in the groin, or in the nose. And she ran away. Having reached home, I realized: work in the organs is not her.

So we gained a TV presenter.

Andreev on a side dish

She was always. The generation has already grown, which was reported to Andreev about the news from the cradle. Twice - in 2009 and 2018 - she was, according to rumors, on the verge of dismissal. We still do not know the reasons for removing from the air, this is a secret behind seven seals. But Julia Taratuta journalist, Julia Taratuta, says that with political disagreements, at least in 2009, it did not smell there.

Putin personally intervened in the situation? Such rumors went: they say, Andreev herself reached him, and he stood up. But is it so important? As a result, she was not fired. For almost 30 years, Andreeva became in many Russian households something like furniture. Here we have a Swedish wall, here is a chest of drawers from Ikei, there the Czechoslovatsky service is dusting, and here Katya Andreeva reads the news.

She is not even leading, she is an announcer. Neutral feed borders on something mechanical, not quite human. “Old -fashioned monumentality,” called the manner of Andreeva Taratut. The main principle - the side dish should not interrupt the taste of the main dish. Buckwheat and rice are better to undergo - you can always add spices. And if you immediately throw too much salt, there is no way back.

Andreeva is not even associated with the word propagandist. Really? In fact, we, therefore, only now we reached the analysis of the figure of the host of the “Time” program. Because propaganda, first of all, is such .

By the way, Andreev herself is not looking at the neighbors on the air grid. Toxic , the energy is bad. “The level of aggression, which is now pouring from the screens, is dangerous to health,” she says. “I love myself very much in order not to give my neurons to destroy my neurons, the connections in the brain for those who are very aggressive from the screen.”

I am all thinking, what Channel Channel’s program is talking about? "Time will show"? Maybe she doesn’t like “let's get married”? Or is she tired of the endless “twist the drum” Yakubovich? Let's think together.

But I personally subscribe to her every word. This is really just Bue. On duty, unfortunately, I have to watch it, and it would be by no means. Both for neurons are bad, and the gag reflex still exists, and in general, the lesson is unpleasant.

Andreeva and position

Andreeva, from an interview, repeats in an interview - she makes state television, which imposes some obligations on it. Like, "If we work on the state TV, we support state policy, these are a priori."

I was tired of bending my fingers, considering how many manipulations I managed to fit Andreev in one answer.

Firstly. To talk about what the authorities are doing is really your work. Like mine, by the way. However, it seems that this is not our only function. Tell - yes, and also criticize ,ins, ask questions, find out. All this cannot be done to a journalist working on a state television channel? But then, logically, you are not a journalist, but an information service service.

Secondly. About "something dissatisfied with something-go to the polls." It is very difficult to fade their results when the vast majority votes one way or another, says Andreev. I would like to ask, Catherine, but you really are really talking like that now?

In general, listening to Andreev, I want to put on my knees and stroke your hair on a rich shock. Because as if she is not about a serious conversation at all. And is there any point in, for example, to calculate that it will change its infantile look. But in general, honest elections are not only and not so much about mathematics and a thorough calculation of ballots, although this, of course, is important. Honest elections are about the independence of the courts and the ability to conduct election campaigns, and most importantly - equal access to the media. In particular, and, I would say, first of all, to state television.

But let's figure it out - what is state television in general? And is it different from the public? After all, this is how - public Russian television - was called "Channel One" until September 2002. In fact, of course, one is different from the other, although it sounds like.

A classic example of public television - Air Force. The British broadcasting company, which is directly funded by British taxpayers. The main source of income is the subscription fee, which is charged from most households. In fact, tax.

BBC is a giant, strictly structured corporation. She works on the basis of the royal patent. This document is formed by parliament and imposes specific requirements for BBC. Once every 10 years, a patent - he is a charter - is updated. But there are unshakable rules that wander from a patent to a patent. The company should be independent of political and commercial influence and report only to its spectators and listeners. She is obliged to inform, train and entertain. Finally, her social responsibilities include supporting civil society, promoting education and craving for knowledge.

Well, what, after all, concerns criticism of power? Is it permissible on BBC? If you have this question, look, for example, this is an interview . During the pandemic, the Joblian public television journalist took him from the then Prime Minister of the country Boris Johnson.

This-truly public television-is, for example, in Germany, Canada and many more where. The subscription fee ensures the existence of such channels, journalists do their job without thinking about commercial problems, guided exclusively by public interest. Of course, public TV and its noticeable shortcomings have. Which, in truth, are common with those media that are financed from state budgets: there is no particular difference here, whether Russian, or American. For example, the management of such media corporations is not particularly susceptible to changes in the market, the introduction of innovations occurs slowly, and inside the groups are often not the most healthy atmosphere of Soviet offices with solved places. Often such media corporations can afford to spend a lot of money on the production of content that will not gain a large audience and will not work on advertising. For a market company, this is bad. But the whole essence of public institutions is that they are protected from external fluctuations: both the authorities and the market. The only main thing is not to be criminally.

And if it succeeds, then this is quite a working model. Although, for example, in the United States, the quality of journalism is a consequence of just economic competition. CNN and FoxNews are fighting for the audience, which means - for their money.

And the leadership of “Channel One”-that’s the point-is not disturbed, by and large, neither earnings, nor the problem of the country and people who live in it. “Channel One” (however, like the second, third, fourth and so on) - the instrument is not public, but that state. In the sense that he serves the state. Some may object to me here, they say, Radio Liberty is also funded by the state. One hundred percent, with the only difference - despite all the disadvantages that I have already said about, Radio Liberty is not afraid to bite the State Department that feeds him.

Andreeva and energy swirls

In general, Andreev - now you will be surprised - apolitical. But this is true. When the light goes out in the studio, she forgets everything that she just said. Where did Putin go? What did you sign? What settlement did the Russian army capture? How did Macron glanced at his own wife? Ask Andreeva five minutes after the broadcast, she will look at you as a madman. Because in Ostankino - work. And beyond - life. Life, which, by persistent conviction of the leading news, has nothing to do with what she reads by the souffler.

Her Instagram is a meme for a long time. More than 600 thousand subscribers are watched daily as she travels around the Russian North, meditates, participates in safari, tries exotic cosmetic procedures. And this, in general, is charming in its own way.

The breakdown of the image always works. For decades, we see a leading in a strict suit, with cleaned hair and steel intonations in the voice. And then suddenly a young girl, who loves nature, is looking for answers in the supernatural, trying to solve the riddles of this world.

But periodically Andreev is drawn to speak out on public topics. More precisely, she has to. They ask her - she is forced to answer.

And when she talks about society, about the authorities, about the country and its history, without a pre -written text and strict direct euphoreal framework, trouble happens. For example, a quote that issues an ordinary average chauvinist in Andreeva:

“I know stories when, doctors themselves told me, illegal migrants come, bring a woman who should give birth, leave her on the threshold of the hospital. Doctors cannot refuse, because they must take it, and then the whole maternity hospital will be disinfected by various terrible diseases that can be transmitted. ”

“I know stories”, “doctors told me” - these are classic introductory ones, with which the authors of myths and conspiracy theories begin. “A friend’s father works in the FSB”, “A friend at the Moscow City Hall gave information 100%” - remember this? Well, the thoughts of the journalist about the diseases that migrants carry, from the same genre.

Andreeva - by education, a historian. From a legal one, which has not completed, it transferred to the History of the Moscow Regional Pedagogical Institute. The diploma wrote on an incredibly interesting topic - a comparison of the regimes of Stalin and Hitler. And so, from the height of his knowledge, the presenter discusses the history of Russia.

So far, everything seems to be fine, right? Indeed, in general, the revolution had catastrophic consequences, a fair view of history. What are the catastrophic consequences, you ask? Well, for example .

So here it is! Energy twisters interfere with the development of the country. And I thought ... Fuh, well, well, now everything fell into place.

Although ... wait for your own? Is this text the main news presenter pronounces for sure? The face of television, whose work is to inform and pass?

Andreeva’s interview more than once became the subject of ridicule. Perhaps that is why she seeks to give them to a minimum. Although she likes attention, and who is not? She likes to be in the frame, I like to know that the whole country is wondering - how old is she actually, 63 or 59? And, nevertheless, she did not become the face of military propaganda. So, he practices the number and with much greater pleasure and enthusiasm talks about beauty, about success, about beauty processes and purification of karma.

This apoliticality is, of course, a symbol of the era. The one in which Andreeva took place as the host, Queen Mother of the news broadcast.

In the nineties and beginning of the zero, the ability to be outside politics was not just a personal choice, but a generally accepted norm. And the survival strategy. You know less - you sleep stronger. You say less - you work longer. Ekaterina Andreeva became the perfect illustration of this rule: she did not interfere, did not argue, did not express opinions, but simply read the text from the souffler - the one that she wrote or editors.

And with her, the viewer got used to not knowing, not thinking, not to contact. Everyone in one way or another lived like this: someone-in order not to lose their jobs, someone-so as not to lose friends, someone-just for the sake of preserving the psyche. Andreeva only brought this to professional perfection. And, looking at her equanimity, one could say to yourself: well, so, you just need to maintain self -control, do not clog your inner world toxic news.

Andreeva and a reward for fidelity

In April of this year, the Corruption Fund issued an investigation about Andreev.

Three citizenships, free travels, villa in Montenegro. She must be under sanctions - the Navalny team insisted. She even got into the shorter of the so -called “6 thousand list”. There are those whom the FBK considers the incarnators of the war. Andreeva - in the first two hundreds of the most notorious inciters.

The campaign for the introduction of sanctions against Andreeva has only partially worked. In June, Latvia banned the leading entry. Montenegro authorities do not react to the demands of the journalist of citizenship. Naturally, she herself did not give any comments on this subject, like her Ostankino authorities. They have long been investigations of corruption and materials denouncing their duplicity - like water from a goose.

And here it is important to understand one thing. Everything that the FBK presents as an accusation in the eyes of many spectators Andreeva looks like a reward. Three passports? So, a person is in demand in the world. Villa on the Adriatic? Well, so you have to rest somewhere after tense broadcasts. Free travels to the era, when are the borders tightly closed for an ordinary Russian? This is not a duplicity, but a sign that life has been a success.

For a viewer who is used to associate success with access to a deficit - whether it is imported jeans in the nineties or Schengen at the twenties - Andreev remains a standard: it is its own inside the country, and it feels comfortable abroad. The fact that she is not under sanctions is more likely a plus for her audience. “Ours will break through anyway” - this is the main conclusion. Privileges are not corruption, but a well -deserved reward for fidelity.

At whatever point did you turn on the TV over the past quarter century, the chance to see Ekaterina Andreev was higher than the chance to meet on the street of her neighbor. «Время» – это не просто информационная программа. Во многих домах это ритуал. Ровно в 21:00 включается «Первый канал», и на экране возникает все то же лицо, все тот же тембр, все тот же прищур, который не выдает ни удивления, ни раздражения, ни радости. Более того, знакомое лицо все эти годы почти не меняется. Чуть матереет, но не стареет.

В России времен Андреевой сменилось три президента, конституция, курс. Страна пережила дефолт, войну в Чечне, Олимпиаду в Сочи, присоединение Крыма, вторжение в Украину. Но почти каждый вечер в эфире она. Для миллионов зрителей Андреева стала чем-то вроде говорящих курантов: сама не производит новости, но сообщает, что они наступили. Ее собственная позиция не так важна, как сам факт ее присутствия.

Власть это прекрасно понимала и понимает. Люди могут не доверять депутатам, министрам, губернаторам, но если в их телевизоре на месте привычный диктор, значит, жизнь продолжается. Андреева работает как эмоциональный стабилизатор нации, убаюкивает и укачивает. Даже в эти три с половиной военных года в ее интонации нет паники, только стабильность.

Можно ли в таком случае назвать Андрееву идеологом? It is unlikely. Но инструментом – да. И это, кстати, объясняет, почему даже громкие расследования про виллы, паспорта и пересечение границ не наносят ей серьезного урона. Для зрителей она – не человек с биографией, а образ. А образы не подвержены санкциям.

В одном из интервью 2024 года Андреева говорит: «Я хотела бы обладать сверхспособностью такой – силой мысли останавливать любые войны, любые конфликты в любой точке мира» . Угу, а я бы хотел прыгать по облакам, вылечивать песиков и кошечек взмахом волшебной палочки и чтобы у меня дома стоял автомат с бесконечной кока-колой. Ну вот серьезно, спустя годы войны, ведущая главной новостной программы страны мечтает силой мысли останавливать танки и пехоту.

От этого лицемерного пацифизма, к сожалению, плохо пахнет.

Иди и останови, если не силой мысли, то словом, которое у тебе есть. Ведь Екатерина могла бы сделать многое для завершения войны. Не любой, не абстрактной. Конкретной войны – той, что в прямом эфире уносит жизни сотен тысяч украинцев и россиян. Только представьте – чего бы стоило ее слово, не выскочившей из ниоткуда Овсянниковой с ее плакатом и пропавшей в никуда, а всеми любимой Катерины? Скольких миллионов зрителей оно заставило бы задуматься? Introduced? А теперь прекращайте, потому что в эти миры розовых пони мы погружаться, в отличие от Андреевой, не будем. Она не скажет ничего против, не выступит с по-настоящему антивоенным заявлением. Не порвет по своей воле отношения с «Первым каналом», как это сделала, например, ее многолетняя коллега Жанна Агалакова.

Агалакова работала на Первом совсем немногим меньше Андреевой. С 1999 года она вела новости, делала программу «Времена» с Познером – не путать с программой «Время», которую, впрочем, Агалакова тоже вела. Позже стала корреспондентом в Париже, затем в Нью-Йорке. Сразу после начала большой войны в феврале 2022 она уволилась .

Они никогда не были подругами, но делали одно дело. Разница оказалась лишь в том, что у Агалаковой был предел компромисса, а у Андреевой его нет.

Думаю, на самом деле, что дело тут не в отсутствии совести. А в природном хладнокровии, которое перетекает в безразличие. Которое позволило ей не испугаться на заднем дворе управления прокуратуры в 17 лет. Сохранить самообладание во время пикета в эфире. Не растеряться, оказавшись на грани увольнения и дойти до Путина. Что уж говорить – действительно – правоохранительные органы потеряли очень ценный кадр!

Наблюдая за этим каменным лицом, мы не заметили, как его обладательница потихоньку сошла с ума. Поверила в завихрения, увлеклась гигиеной собственной кармы. А эта заставка загипнотизировала не только миллионы зрителей, но и саму ведущую. Впрочем, «Время» не повернуть вспять, а значит – продолжение следует .