Face to face

Mikhail Lesin

Anna Kachkaeva:

Our guest today is Minister of Press Affairs Mikhail Lesin. Questions are asked by the correspondent of the British newspaper "Daily Telegraph" Marcus Warren and the correspondent of the "Moscow Times" newspaper Andrei Zolotov. Anna Kachkaeva is at the microphone.

- Mister Minister, all this time you, as a government official, have been asked to assess the situation around Media-Most, Gusinsky, Malashenko. And how does Mikhail Lesin, a former partner, colleague, like-minded person, perhaps a friend, feel about everything that is happening with NTV?

Mikhail Lesin:

Ambiguous. Just as all those, so to speak, possible relationships with Media-Most are ambiguous... You just named them - friend, colleague, partner. Etc., etc., etc. There are many sides to this matter; it is impossible to unambiguously consider any one of them, it is necessary to look only at it together. Therefore, today I believe that, unfortunately, there is simply no easy way out of this situation.

Anna Kachkaeva:

Marcus Warren, please.

Marcus Warren:

In recent weeks, hearings on freedom of speech in Russia have been held in both Washington and Strasbourg. Does this not alarm you, as the minister who oversees this issue?

Mikhail Lesin:

It’s confusing to a certain extent, because I think that the hearings that took place, including in the US Congress, were of a very vague nature. I very carefully studied all the materials of these hearings, including the resolution. I personally did not find any specifics there related to the fact that, indeed, today we can say that there is a threat to freedom of speech.

Hearings in Europe are also quite specific. The situation is normal. I don’t find it at all difficult, depressing, or forcing us to seriously change anything in our own actions. This means - in legislation or in the actions of the same ministry.

But I think that time will pass and the situation will calm down.

Anna Kachkaeva:

Andrey Zolotov, Moscow Times?

Andrey Zolotov:

For some time there was a clear impression that the authorities - and including you, as the Minister of Press - were trying to channel the activities of journalists regarding the situation in Chechnya and the fighting in Chechnya. Well, this is such an area for discussion, right? Does a state that is, roughly speaking, in a state of war, have the right to make certain adjustments to its media policy? Is it possible to restrict freedom of speech here?

Now there is an impression that these restrictions may no longer apply only to the situation in Chechnya. In particular, the situation with Media-Most. What's your reaction?

Mikhail Lesin:

Well, on the one hand, in your question you pose a certain position for discussion. That is, an ambiguous assessment of certain actions. On the other hand, your question seems to state a situation that has already happened...

Andrey Zolotov:

No, it hasn't happened yet, but... The trends are clear.

Mikhail Lesin:

In fact, I categorically disagree that the state was trying to somehow channel the actions of journalists on the events in Chechnya. The state defended its own position, its own point of view, and had every right to do so. Moreover, I myself have repeatedly taken part in trips around Chechnya and taken journalists with me in an attempt to demonstrate as much as possible the events that are taking place there.

On the other hand, I definitely do not agree that the state is in a state of war. Wars with whom? With bandits, with terrorists?

Andrey Zolotov:

Yes, in particular.

Mikhail Lesin:

Well, then all the countries of the world are in a state of war, because they are dealing with their terrorists, their bandits. And this cannot be called a “state of war.”

In fact, it is difficult to say that someone led someone into a certain direction, since we had so many opinions in the information field about the Chechen events that I would not say that there were attempts at pressure. Yes, there were certain emotional reactions. Including the military, including certain politicians. But this does not mean that there are any restrictions. This only speaks about how these specific people relate directly to this or that activity of journalists. To which they also have every right, just as journalists have the right to free activity. You can't blame them for liking your reporting or not liking your reporting.

But the fact that in the situation with the events in Chechnya we had an absolutely clear information war, right? in quotes, of course, - this situation was obvious. And the fact that a huge amount of foreign media was used, among other things, to promote the actions of militants, and for... well, let's call it “leaking information,” unverified information, is also absolutely clear. And what happened on the Internet during these events clearly demonstrates that a very intelligent and capable organizer of these information processes was sitting opposite.

Of course, from this point of view, certain measures were taken, including to identify these sources and demonstrate that - “here, you see, these are these events, how they are reflected, and how they really exist in reality.”

Moreover, what struck us most (me included) when analyzing all these situations was the speed with which coverage of certain events occurred. It felt like information sources were simply standing behind a tree and watching how civilians or our soldiers were being killed in this way. And then they reported on the phone about the events taking place. This, of course, was confusing.

And how, for example, those same Western journalists broke through to the militants, and how good it once was for them there. The journalists didn’t want to look at all...

Anna Kachkaeva:

I think you're exaggerating a bit. Who can feel good under bombs?

Mikhail Lesin:

Well, at least they were protected. Their, so to speak... Things happened differently. I’m not saying that this is exactly what happened, but, precisely in the context of the question that Andrei asked, I’m saying that everything was very ambiguous.

Yes, of course, propaganda actions were carried out by the authorities. The situation is absolutely standard and understandable. This happens in all countries with such incomprehensible actions that took place. But I categorically disagree with the fact that there were attempts to limit this volume and bring everything into line.

Anna Kachkaeva:

Well, to the second part of the question...

Andrey Zolotov:

And now?

Anna Kochaeva: And now?

Mikhail Lesin:

The second part of the question was now where we want to drive in quotes, into the mainstream... or, you think, in this way...

Andrey Zolotov:

I said that even if there are no specific facts yet, the trends are clear. The trends are that the information field and the field of opinions expressed in the media are narrowing.

Mikhail Lesin:

Well, again I disagree with you. Well, until this... We will have a strange conversation all the time. I will say: “Yes? What are you saying? I somehow don’t notice something.” And you will say: “Yes, I feel these trends. Everything is developing and developing.”

Is NTV working?

Andrey Zolotov:

Works.

Mikhail Lesin:

We have different opinions on the information field. There is categorical criticism, and there are also positive responses, right? We see the whole spectrum. No restrictions. Not a single journalist can say that someone called him and said: “You know, here’s a different opinion... There’s no need to write about it.”

What are the trends?

Anna Kachkaeva:

Trend...

Mikhail Lesin:

Look, here NTV has simply become the information bulletin of Media-Most. Soon we will have our own tests...

Andrey Zolotov:

Unfortunately, that's true, yes.

Mikhail Lesin:

...to report on who slept how, who how...

Andrey Zolotov:

Partly.

Mikhail Lesin:

...how to say where you went, etc., etc., etc. Well, where next?

Andrey Zolotov:

They are defending themselves.

Mikhail Lesin:

From what?

Andrey Zolotov:

They can also be understood.

Mikhail Lesin:

What are they protecting themselves from? Well, a criminal case has been opened against a specific person, Gusinsky. And they all defend themselves. From what? Because there is no need to open a criminal case against Gusinsky?

Andrey Zolotov:

No, well... Well, after all, it would be hypocritical to imagine that in a situation in which the owner is in prison, journalists can calmly work and report about this in the “Crime Chronicle” section at the end of the program.

Mikhail Lesin:

You just said a very good phrase - “The owner is in prison, and the journalists are worried.” The owner of the journalists?

Andrey Zolotov:

The owner... the owner of the enterprise.

Mikhail Lesin:

Or - journalists?

Andrey Zolotov:

The owner of the enterprise.

Mikhail Lesin:

So, well, what does this have to do with journalists? Journalists are the media. This is the editorial office. This is not an enterprise. They are independent. Just like you. Or am I misunderstanding something?

Andrey Zolotov:

They... they are independent, but I, putting myself in their shoes, can say that if something happened to our publisher, I would not feel very good about it.

Anna Kachkaeva:

Just like when our colleague spent forty days in an unknown location, he was exchanged for an unknown person - it is completely clear what the editorial team is experiencing at this moment.

Mikhail Lesin:

I absolutely agree and fully support that corporate feelings... and the editorial team will always, so to speak, worry about current events. But not to the point of absurdity.

Anna Kachkaeva:

Marcus Warren, please.

Marcus Warren:

But the journalists believed he was sitting because of their coverage. It’s not just that, for... they thought so. They count and that's why they get nervous.

Mikhail Lesin:

For God's sake. But it would be strange if journalists working at Media-Most came out and said: “But we believe that, indeed, Gusinsky is imprisoned because he is a thief.” Well, it's quite strange. Or "because he is a swindler."

I'm not saying this. I don’t want to insult Vladimir Aleksandrovich until the investigation is completed, until there is no evidence of what is or is not consistent. But journalists have two models of behavior. They believe that he is imprisoned because of politics, or they believe that he is imprisoned because he made financial transactions.

Anna Kachkaeva:

Okay, so Dorenko and Kiselev are now in Strasbourg. Who do you think they are protecting? Berezovsky, Gusinsky?

Mikhail Lesin:

They defend, first of all, their own position, their own attitude towards these processes. And they have the right to do so. And there’s nothing wrong with that either.

It's good that we have different opinions. It is very good that everyone has the right to express their own opinion. And all actions can be justified. And the actions of one side, and the actions of the other side. I don't mean at the moment - a consequence. I mean those people... after all, we also in the journalistic community have an ambiguous opinion on the events in “Most” and in relation to Gusinsky, right? And all these opinions are present on the field.

Another question is how much they will be perceived in the mass consciousness, and how they will be directly translated. This is a very serious question.

Anna Kachkaeva:

Fine. Maybe the last question on this topic. During the days when Gusinsky was imprisoned in Butyrka, by the way, you said on our air that if you were a businessman, you would have signed the “appeal of seventeen” in defense of Gusinsky.

Mikhail Lesin:

Yes.

Anna Kachkaeva:

So, in general, it turns out that, as a former, and perhaps future, businessman (because not all of you will be a minister in life, right?), you are against arbitrariness. And as a government official, I’m in favor.

Mikhail Lesin:

The appeal was not sent, and it did not indicate that this was “arbitrariness.” Let me remind you: the complaint was that the investigation used excessive, inadequate measures at the time of the investigation. And the businessmen signed a letter of guarantee, not to stop the investigation, not arbitrarily, but precisely to change...

Anna Kachkaeva:

But that doesn't change things. That is, as a businessman...

Mikhail Lesin:

Actually, this changes... You asked me if I would sign this appeal. I replied: “Yes, of course.” Why? Because, indeed, there is a certain position whether the investigation exceeds the possible degrees of protection of one’s own actions, or does not exceed. This is a serious question.

And regarding whether this is arbitrariness or not, neither I nor those businessmen who signed spoke about it. Politicians have spoken out about this in large numbers. Any thing we talk about must be correlated with the law, right? When a deputy starts saying things that are categorically contrary to the law, the question arises in me: “What are you doing in the Duma then if you don’t understand basic things?”

I still say that I would sign this letter, because I really understand how difficult a preventive measure is arrest. And, indeed, in my opinion, the current state of prisons and places of pre-trial detention is such that arrest is, of course, an extreme measure that should be applied to socially dangerous people. Gusinsky is socially dangerous, well... it’s hard to call him. The number of guards who travel with him will never allow him to attack a passing person or, for example, steal a wallet.

Anna Kachkaeva:

So - about trends. By the way, a recent quote from Izvestia, a newspaper that, in general, expresses a fairly state position on everything that is happening in the country today.

Mikhail Lesin:

I would say a centrist position.

Anna Kachkaeva:

Well, centrist. Fine. Nevertheless - a quote. “The first to fall will be the regional media barons, or rather, all those who did not have time or were unable to emigrate into the state information business. Gusinsky’s empire is bound to collapse. In 2001, a new redistribution of the market will end.” Is this forecast accurate?

Mikhail Lesin:

In order to evaluate this forecast, I would go a little in the other direction. Now, we have lived ten years in a new era. During these ten years, all layers of society - I mean, the elite, the state, the government, the executive, the legislative - had, in fact, two tools for shaping public opinion. Two such powerful levers. This is the budget and the media. In terms of the adequacy of the impact, both levers were approximately the same. So powerful - you press it and form it.

I believe that in 2000, in fact, these positions of the media were greatly shaken. They have ceased to be an unambiguous lever (that is, together, so to speak, with the budget, as I already said) an instrument for shaping public opinion. All. Television, unfortunately, and newspapers, magazines, and radio, will occupy the place in society where they should be. Necessary, but not sufficient.

And during all this time, all the media, in general, were built according to this political model, basically. And the income of most media outlets consisted of political budgets. From lobbying budgets, from election budgets, and not from real business.

Everything has turned upside down. Yes, the media cannot keep up with this situation, because the flow of information is much stronger, and the tools gradually stop working the way they used to work. The media greatly discredited themselves during the election campaigns. And the viewer, and the listener, and the reader, he does not want to fully believe. He wants to figure everything out for himself, what is really happening, because, well, yesterday they said this, and today they said this. Such a strange situation.

Therefore, today I can definitely say that the media are looking for a new niche.

Anna Kachkaeva:

In the government information business.

Mikhail Lesin:

No. No. Not in the state information field... In general, in the field, in the information field. On this site, called "Russian Federation". Naturally, this will entail the most difficult, including economic crises. According to our forecast, in October-November there will be a severe crisis in the print media.

Why? Lack of advertising. Lack of subscribers. Reluctance to buy publications on the streets. Newspapers with a circulation of less than 50,000 copies simply cannot potentially survive. Based on the cost of paper, the cost of printing services and the cost of all internal work.

Where will the crisis come from? Will this state provoke this crisis? Or will the market trigger this crisis? Of course, the market. Why? Because in ten years we have not formed a media market. We do not sell shares, we do not sell enterprises. They don't die here. Here, not a single enterprise has gone bankrupt from the media. Neither newspaper, nor radio, nor television. They are just a moving prize. From hand to hand. One governor used it and passed it on to another. There, the financial-industrial group came and said: “Oh! Oh okay. Let’s take away this mass media,” and begins to finance... And so on, and so on.

I'm not saying that this is one hundred percent the way of the media. There are, of course, very successful business projects, and they are developing well. But a large number of media live just such a life.

Today's forecast after almost... five months of work in the advertising market shows that there will indeed be real problems with electronic media. Why? Because already today quite serious accounts payable are being formed there, both at the main broadcasting channels and at regional broadcasting channels. Again - due to the fact that the volume of work performed categorically does not correspond to the capacity of the advertising market.

Plus, again, when we say that, well, Gusinsky... And I can say that on the one hand, yes, Gusinsky made a very sensible and very competent project called “Media-Most”. But on the other hand, the damage that it caused to the market today is generally difficult to assess. I think that this degree of depravity of the market, including due to the formation of the Media Bridge, is a very serious damage to the media market, which will take a very, very long time to recover.

If you want, I can explain why I think this is damage.

Anna Kachkaeva:

Yes, of course, I would like to.

Mikhail Lesin:

Let's just take a look. Here's a little story. Partially, right? 1992 I was doing business then and buying Santa Barbara. One episode of "Santa Barbara" cost $600. And initially there was an exchange for advertising time. Just for two minutes, for three minutes. This corresponded, in fact, to the then volumes of the advertising market and was approximately suitable.

1993 The trend has changed a little because, so to speak, barter in the advertising market has been abolished. 1994 Formation of NTV. NTV comes to the film sales market for the first time and sets a high price bar. I remember this project “Santa Barbara” - from 600 dollars the price increased to 12,000. Now Western managers no longer want to sell Russia formats cheaper than 30-50,000 dollars per hour. Why? Because NTV gives such a price.

What about other broadcast channels that do not have such a volume of lending?

Anna Kachkaeva:

Well, Mikhail, in those years...

Mikhail Lesin:

And the same thing...

Anna Kachkaeva:

...apparently, this suited you quite well. By the way, you - or rather, your company - sold advertising on this channel.

Mikhail Lesin:

I want to say again that my company, right?.. I left Video International in 1994, on November 11, which has all the supporting documents.

Anna Kachkaeva:

How, in fact, did NTV and Media-Most harm the market so much? And, say, not ORT or not Russian television?

Mikhail Lesin:

In addition to the films that I mentioned, there are also problems, including with the formation of wages. When NTV pays quite a lot of money to its journalists, the labor market is forced to catch up with these figures, although the broadcast channels there do not have the opportunity to pay that kind of money. Gusinsky, thus, concentrated the cream of the journalistic community on his channel, essentially leaving ORT, RTR, and other broadcast channels in a rather difficult position. “Either raise wages, buy apartments, buy cars, or people will work for me.”

This competition has a right to life, but it is not very healthy, because at this moment no one is thinking about the future. And the future will be very difficult. It will be difficult to move away from all this. The advertising market fell in 1998, and it will take a very long time to recover. He won't recover in one year. According to our forecasts, it will recover, God willing, in six years. How long will it take to bring down those prices now, to explain that the market capacity is completely different, and today the fee must be calculated completely differently. The same goes for salaries.

As a result, we will now actually get the formation of complex economic schemes with constant accounts payable. Why? You can’t reduce expenses, because then everything starts to completely fall apart. And expenses do not correspond to income.

Anna Kachkaeva:

Marcus Warren, please.

Marcus Warren:

Mikhail Yuryevich, well, what - NTV? Of course, all entrepreneurs must live within their means, including Gusinsky. But it does not follow from what you said about NTV that an entrepreneur who successfully runs his business, that he... he has caused some damage to the markets. I don't think there is a monopoly on journalists. And, in fact, there was no such monopoly. It turns out that a successful entrepreneur should be punished for successfully running his business?

Mikhail Lesin:

That is, you are now saying that everything I said before was the basis for Gusinsky’s punishment?

Marcus Warren:

No. But you explain...

Mikhail Lesin:

No, then I don't understand why he should be punished.

Marcus Warren:

...changes in the market, for example.

Mikhail Lesin:

Changes in the market will be due to the economic situation that is developing in the market. It does not depend on the wishes of Gusinsky, mine, or anyone else. And this has nothing to do with the investigation that is taking place in the Gusinsky case.

I’m saying that the people who were involved - and ORT, including Gusinsky, including, and the state, including as a subject of the information field - as major players, were engaged in formal approaches to their own development policy, did not think about what would happen in five years, in six years. There was no industrial committee that could predict further development and say that “you can’t do this, because it will cause serious damage. Yes, we will reach the year 2000, we will hold elections, but if at the elections we are not given a piece of bread for future periods, something will collapse with all its might. All these economic models, all these capitalizations will go nowhere. Because the numbers are unrealistic.”

Today we are looking at various documents that were developed in the preparation of capitalization, and we see that even the numbers that are written there do not correspond to reality. How will we continue to shape the market, how will we attract investment? If an investor comes and says: “Please show us your plan.” They show: here is the income, here is the expense. Everything is in the red. Really. So what next?

This suggests that when people (I repeat again) formed their approaches to market development, they were motivated solely by their own interests. We didn't think about the future.

When I was still working at VGTRK, I talked a lot about the fact that... I proposed creating an industrial committee that would consider all these issues, not necessarily implementation, but in the discussion certain positions and understanding would be developed: what will happen to us in the future? How will the advertising market work? How will consumer demand grow? How will TV channel budgets be formed? What are communication services? Or maybe today it’s better to get together, lend to technological enterprises, and the communication service will be ten times cheaper than what we are currently spending a lot of money on distributing the signal throughout the country...

A huge number of questions. In all countries of the world there are similar, so to speak, informal organizations such as industrial committees, which make it possible to develop the correct trends in market development. And whether Gusinsky is to blame for this or not, I believe that these things are aimed at an instant solution, and not at shaping the future. And the investigation has nothing to do with this at all.

Well, the investigator is sure... well, if I tell the investigator all this now, he will think for three days and three nights, in general, what we talked about.

Marcus Warren:

I don’t mean the fate of Gusinsky personally, but the fate of NTV and Media-Most.

Mikhail Lesin:

And the fate of NTV will be decided economically. And the company will survive in those difficult conditions into which it, among other things, drove itself, - excellent. Well done. If he doesn't survive, that's a normal situation. Do you think that companies in the West don’t go bankrupt or die? They die normally.

Anna Kachkaeva:

Andrey Zolotov, Moscow Times.

Andrey Zolotov:

Well, then let’s talk about another company in this regard. About ORT. The other day, the board of shareholders of ORT decided to send an actual ultimatum to the government, which said: if investments in the signal distribution system are not made in the near future, then by 2003 the company will collapse, and the state must either introduce a special line in the budget for financing ORT, or sell a controlling stake to private owners. Yes, essentially, that's exactly what it looked like.

Your forecast: how will this situation develop further?

Mikhail Lesin:

Well, firstly, I can say for sure that ORT has the right to issue ultimatums. The same as in the Council of Europe and all other organizations. And at the UN too. I don't think the government will consider any ultimatum, regardless of whether ORT or any other organization sends it.

Indeed, there is a problem with signal propagation. Not only ORT, but in general - electronic media. I have already said that the ministry - including, jointly with the Ministry of Communications - is developing a project to modernize the signal distribution network, both regarding the space group and regarding ground-based technological equipment in order to make a strategic decision on what to change, how to change, in what time frame, and where to get these investments.

There are no funds in the budget today that can be spent on investing and modernizing the network for receiving and transmitting electronic media signals. This issue will definitely be considered by the government somewhere in late August - early September, when this model will be fully ready.

But, on the other hand, I don’t think it’s right for there to be a line in the budget that funds ORT. ORT is a commercial organization, a joint-stock company, where there are shareholders, where conditions are absolutely equal for all owners in this market. Just as I believe that VGTRK, having today the form of a federal unitary enterprise and receiving budget money... well, in general, has certain advantages in the market. And I have repeatedly said, and will continue to defend these thoughts, that the government should have a contract with VGTRK. An agreement that must clearly define the forms of activity that the government orders from VGTRK and the price that is paid for this activity.

This is a normal situation; in general, it will make the entire model of relations between the state and the media absolutely transparent. And, of course, that form of unitary enterprise is very difficult for the activities of VGTRK, since, on the one hand, it gives some additional preferences, and on the other hand, it limits it as much as possible. If ORT has the opportunity to pledge shares and take out loans, and NTV has this opportunity, and other joint-stock companies, then VGTRK does not have this opportunity. Minimization of instruments of financial and economic activity. Property - no. Everything is under operational management or under economic management, and there are a lot of economic problems.

Regarding the fact that ORT... the same situation, right? Inadequacy of budget expenditures and budget revenues.

Anna Kachkaeva:

And what about the composition of the board of directors, where out of eleven people seven represent Berezovsky, and there is not even a representative of the State Property Committee on ORT?

Mikhail Lesin:

I'm not ready to comment. I am not a member of the board of directors or the board of representatives of shareholders. It is the right of shareholders to choose such a board of directors. They chose it and I can comment whether I like it or not. Whether I agree or disagree, this is no longer my level. I may not agree, but there is nothing I can do in this situation.

Anna Kachkaeva:

Marcus Warren, Daily Telegraph.

Marcus Warren:

Mikhail Yuryevich, the other day there was a meeting of the Security Council on our information security. During this - either before or after - the secretary of this council said that a new instrument needed to be created. What kind of instrument will this be? And, in general, do you think the state does not have enough leverage to influence the information market, such as the media?

Mikhail Lesin:

When you say the word “tool”, it seems to me that you see a hammer, screwdriver, sledgehammer or something else in your eyes.

Anna Kachkaeva:

This is Shenderovich's - a crowbar, a toilet, and, in general, a rake.

Mikhail Lesin:

And, in general, a rake... such a tool is constantly present in our conversation. What, in general, is meant by this organ, as everyone calls it, “an additional instrument”? Well, it’s clear, right? That information warfare, information doctrine... in general, it seems to cover such a huge range of issues. Starting with technology itself, including production technology, weapons, defense, media, and a lot of things.

It is absolutely clear that all these issues (including each other) need to be coordinated. How this or that develops, what happens... And - coordinate at different levels. This can be done using mail as a tool. Just send papers to each other and sign. Like it or not. And we can say that - “guys, let’s meet periodically, at least once a month, and at such meetings, at such commissions, raise questions that concern us, right? Because we need to make some strategic decisions on how we are moving. Will we develop our own technology or not? Oh, are we developing our own technology?”

But we must definitely understand that our own technology must have software. Are there tools for developing this software? And how long will it take to develop the software? Otherwise, we will do this, and the software will slow us down for another 28 years.

And with this software, we need to understand what technological standards we will meet. Will it work there, in general, everything in the system? But if we decide that today we are computerizing the state management system, the executive system, yes: we are computerizing all ministries, putting them on a separate network, how protected are we in this situation? And does FAPSI have the means, including to ensure network protection? It is no longer a secret that today networks are, so to speak, the object of maximum attention from hackers, burglars, and simply hooligans.

This is normal coordination. Almost all countries have similar bodies that coordinate and harmonize all these issues. Including - I am not ashamed to say that there are issues of propaganda. For many years we have been embarrassed to use this word. We say “information warfare”, “ideological wars”. Just ordinary propaganda of one's own actions. Already, I think that we need to reintroduce this word into everyday use.

Anna Kachkaeva:

Well, yes, Minister Ivanov said “to mobilize the state’s capabilities in the foreign policy sphere.”

Mikhail Lesin:

Before you started this conversation, you said that for the last week and a half you were the only one on air, and defended the position of the state. I also say that this is categorically wrong. Unfortunately, today we have heads of executive authorities, ministers, various heads of committees - they are silent. They are so dumb. They only talk in their offices and on the phone. But they cannot go out to the media, explain their own position, explain their own work - what they are doing, and, in general, how they plan something.

This is also a very serious question. All the media are complaining that it is impossible to get a single minister anywhere, take an interview, or get an explanation for what happened. That even the press service and the public relations center in the executive authorities are inactive, they are afraid, they do not understand, they cannot reach the boss and get a comment.

This is also a serious question.

Anna Kachkaeva:

OK then. So you...

Mikhail Lesin:

What level of official is needed to be able to call the minister and say: “Come on, speak urgently. Come on, urgently comment on the event,” yes? This... this is also, so to speak, technology. This is a technology for power to act in providing information for its own actions. In the same propaganda. I don't see anything wrong with this.

Anna Kachkaeva:

Andrey Zolotov, please.

Andrey Zolotov:

What specific priority measures and decisions will follow from the adoption of the doctrine?

Mikhail Lesin:

The doctrine, in fact, is a document that unites almost all spectrums of activities related to information warfare, computer science in general, and propaganda activities, among others.

This document is the basis of the activity. It must be processed, today, by all structures that are involved in the implementation of this doctrine. And a plan of immediate actions and measures should appear on those aspects that are set out in the doctrine.

Anna Kachkaeva:

What is Russia going to promote?

Mikhail Lesin:

Russia, first of all, is going to promote Russia. And the authorities are going to propagate...

Anna Kachkaeva:

Which one?

Mikhail Lesin:

...own actions. Explain, motivate, inform and shape public opinion. Including telling the West about yourself. We still haven't overcome this barrier. We still haven’t gotten it right... Well, there, at the Security Council, some pretty interesting figures were given, right? The United States spends a budget on propaganda and foreign policy ideology - one billion dollars. And today our budget for the maintenance of the Western corset is four and a half million dollars. This is, in fact, the money we spend on external propaganda. Is there a difference?

Andrey Zolotov:

What... what does "the content of the Western corset" mean?

Mikhail Lesin:

The RIA-Novosti budget for the maintenance of correspondent points and, in general, the foreign currency budget for everything related... business trips, trips, etc. Four and a half million dollars. Is there a difference in the numbers?

What, we should be silent, or what? Why can't we propagate Russia, why can't we propagate the image of Russia? Explain, explain? Promote? Should we explain that we are not so scary, that the bears have already left the streets, that winter can come in summer? Is everything okay?

Anna Kachkaeva:

But, nevertheless, the word “confrontation” constantly flashes in your speech.

Mikhail Lesin:

And confrontation, too. But today we have really hardly dealt with the problems of the development of the Internet, the problems of the development of communication networks. We may find ourselves in a situation where in twenty-five years, indeed, the world will have the most exploited medium - the Internet, and at that moment we will still have lightning rods at telephone exchanges. And it is impossible, even with modern computers, to use transmission lines.

This is also a serious problem that must be solved strategically and very seriously.

Anna Kachkaeva:

Marcus Warren, Daily Telegraph.

Marcus Warren:

The problem here, in my opinion, is that when you, as one of the most - if not the most experienced - information specialist, PR specialist, former technologist, now minister, when you say words such as “tool”, “propaganda”, “confrontation” even - everything sounds normal. And when people with a different background use such words, it sounds different, if you understand me.

Mikhail Lesin:

I understand. You are very afraid of the KGB and people in uniform.

Marcus Warren:

We are afraid.

Mikhail Lesin:

Well, I also served in the army once. I also had shoulder straps.

Anna Kachkaeva:

In the construction troops, in my opinion. Or - to the KGB?

Mikhail Lesin:

In construction. No, not the KGB. These are, among other things, elements of that activity, right? We did not dispel the myth, we did not, so to speak, form a new image. And we did not give the West any reason not to be afraid of the fact that people in uniform are coming, they are doing this business.

All this is a normal situation. Yes, Vladimir Vladimirovich served and wore shoulder straps. Indeed, his people, whom he mostly knows and trusts... just like me - I invite people I know to work. And, unfortunately, I don’t have people around me who served and were in uniform...

Anna Kachkaeva:

How is this? You have a deputy Bolshakov, who, in my opinion, is a colonel general.

Mikhail Lesin:

So what? Well, there should be at least one.

Anna Kachkaeva:

And you say...

Mikhail Lesin:

Well, in general, in principle, right? In my large circle I don’t have people who served. Why? Because I know them completely differently. Vladimir Vladimirovich invites his people whom he knows. He knows how they work, right? Do we now have a ban on employing people in uniform? Why? In America, do CIA officers have no right to work anywhere else? A? Are they prohibited from working in the media, in propaganda agencies, or in government bodies? Do they have a bad past, do they... do they have a bad heritage, are their brains wired somehow differently? It's OK.

Or is it forbidden for intelligence officers to work elsewhere in England? There is no such prohibition. And we need to introduce such a ban. Because it scares you. Because - suddenly you are scared by this.

Marcus Warren:

No, don't. We need to explain.

Mikhail Lesin:

We need to carry out propaganda activities, right? But from me it’s not scary, but from them it’s scary.

Anna Kachkaeva:

Andrey Zolotov, Moscow Times.

Andrey Zolotov:

A few weeks ago, you announced that the ministry you head is changing the approach to interpreting the licensing law and the media law. If previously the registration of a print media outlet was a necessary and sufficient condition for its publication, now it will also be necessary to obtain licenses for publishing activities, and that within two to three months, I think you said, the ministry will notify the editorial boards about how they will obtain these licenses.

Mikhail Lesin:

That we will develop a methodology. I want to warn you in advance that the media will not have any problems, and this approach that we are developing today will not have any restrictive functions. Publishers will have time to obtain a license, all in a soft, smooth way. And we will not close anything from anyone because the publisher does not have a publishing license.

What are we talking about? What is the function of the editorial office of the media, is the function of the publisher, right? In our newspapers today it is often written “Publisher - editorial office of the mass media” such and such, such and such. This means that the publishing house is engaged in publishing activities, that is, the newspaper is engaged in publishing activities. Or rather, the editorial office of the media is engaged in publishing activities.

Now, if it were going... Well, of course, I’m saying this calmly now, because it’s no longer possible to do. Now, if I were the governors, I would use a very simple point, right? I would sue for illegal activities and demand that the registration authority revoke the registration.

Why? Because - indeed, the law is being violated. Yes, publishing activities are licensed. It is impossible, it is impossible to engage in publishing activities, just as it is impossible to engage, conditionally, in the production of weapons without a license. Yes, there is such a certain discrepancy, right? Therefore, the law on the media should be slightly adjusted to indicate who exactly the publisher is. Yes, and the editors of a mass media can come to the publisher and enter into an agreement with him to publish a newspaper as a technological cycle, right? But someone has to answer.

Here, in our country, it is not the media that is responsible for circulation. Our publisher is responsible for the accuracy of circulation, right? We want to bring these provisions into line and protect, among other things, the media from yet another possible threat by which they can be somehow influenced and acted upon.

That's why I say the process will be smooth. Now I can speak calmly, because no one will go to court. It is clear that... we understood how to act in this situation. In two or three months we will develop this methodology, disseminate it publicly, and only after that the question will come directly, the board of the ministry will make a decision on the forms of licensing.

Andrey Zolotov:

But will these licenses be automatically issued to those media outlets that are already registered and already operating, or will they have to meet some requirements?

Mikhail Lesin:

Yes, they will be issued automatically. But, naturally, we will look... Here, some of the publishers. I can definitely say that we will resist. Especially publishers of fascist literature, literature that promotes violence... And now we see a sufficient amount of these products in the transitions, even publishing houses are not shy about putting their name on these products, right? We will definitely deal seriously with these publishers.

Andrey Zolotov:

But at the same time, as far as I know, a license can be for six months, and (correct me if I’m wrong) the license can be suspended for six months for violating some aspects of the law.

Mikhail Lesin:

Andrey, in two or three months I will be ready to talk when the methodology is completely ready. Otherwise, you and I will now enter into a debate on the norms and rules. I'm not ready to discuss this now.

Anna Kachkaeva:

Yes, all the rules and regulations will be completed by the fall, because, as we are promised, the information market will be redesigned.

So we move on to the last part...

Mikhail Lesin:

Just a second, I can't help but comment on your words because you end... again, in this situation, I don't agree with you. I believe that I have now said enough words to outline my approach.

I am sure of only one thing, I will repeat it every time - today it is impossible to change anything in Russia so easily. And all these redistributions that we are talking about, this is all “redrawn”, “remade” - it won’t work, right? Today the position of journalists is clear, and today the position of the authorities is clear. So, a small conflict... I think - a small conflict with Gusinsky to find out, after all, his honesty or dishonesty in business - and that caused some noise, right? Even Clinton came and, so to speak, lobbied for the interests of Media-Most, right?

But, what do you think, how can this all be changed? Where will the strength come from to do this? What is this, what will we look like later?

Anna Kachkaeva:

So, colleagues, I ask you to express your opinions. How did you find our conversation today? Marcus Warren?

Marcus Warren:

I will say one thing: maybe there are some consequences of the Cold War here, but I want that if anyone wages an information war and confrontation, it would be Mikhail Yuryevich, and not other “comrades.”

Anna Kachkaeva:

Andrey Zolotov?

Mikhail Lesin:

Thank you.

Andrey Zolotov:

Well, it seems to me that Mikhail Yuryevich finds himself in a very difficult position, because, on the one hand, he serves in a government that declares that without freedom of the media there cannot be a free democratic society, and never tires of repeating this, while... well, to put it mildly, individual actions of this government say the opposite.

Anna Kachkaeva. Well, I think that the most important thing that the Minister of Press told us today is that the redistribution of the market, which everyone is so afraid of, most likely will not happen.