Alexander Shubin. History and telemyths

History and telemyths
Russian television on the verge of centuries. Essay III

Alexander Shubin

Publication date: February 22, 2001

And history is the sphere in which the deepest stereotypes of thinking are laid, comparable only to linguistic ones. Naturally, the manipulation of information cannot do without the construction of historical myths . However, television has not yet brought the issue of disinformation to the proper level on the historical front.

The problem with television journalists is their low qualifications. A graduate of the Faculty of Journalism is well prepared as a philologist. Being involved in the political process or, say, sports, he develops his skills, specializes, and knows current information well. But with history it is more difficult - its reality is not heard. We hear historical myths, stereotypical images formed in past eras. Operating with them, the journalist becomes hostage to school textbooks , historians from the “Ochakov era,” bronze forms cast into monuments to the winners of historical battles. Attempts to break out of this circle without proper preparation, to critically “deny” established ideas, often plunge the journalist into the swamp of a story invented from his own head, in which the Battle of Kulikovo is transferred to Moscow, and Christ to the 11th century (as in the pseudoscientific theory of A. Fomenko , glorified on the night air of TVC for several evenings). In both cases ("dogmatic" and "critical") journalists try to manipulate, although they themselves are deeply manipulated.

Election race of historical characters

Journalists' lack of historical knowledge is compensated by inviting experts. No, of course, not academic historians, but cultural figures. Recently, E. Radzinsky (he even graduated from the history department) and V. Wulf have emerged as leading television historians. The emotional playwright is better suited to the role of mythsmith than the rational historian. But with all his emotionality, he does not let go of the idea for a minute, for the sake of which emotions splash out on the viewer.

The “Friday Evening” program, inviting E. Radzinsky to play the role of expert , conducted an interesting telephone vote: “Which of the political figures of the past would you like to see at the head of Russia?” It is curious that these virtual “elections” are held according to all the rules of the real ones. The range of characters is artificially limited. Lenin and Khrushchev were absent, not to mention others for whom the viewer would have liked to speak out, but could not. was presented But Alexander III , whom the authors of the program considered a more significant figure than Lenin. The result of this simple manipulation was not long in coming: Stalin pulled ahead. A total of supporters of Stalin himself, as a symbol of a merciless state power towards enemies, and a significant part of Leninists, supporters of the revival of Soviet civilization, voted for him. With 8,690 callers, Stalin received 36.3%. The liberal votes, on the contrary, were “snatched” between Alexander II and Gorbachev. Together they amounted to 22.9%. The more radical liberals didn't have their favorites and probably didn't call. Just like democratic socialists. The result achieved thanks to such “rules of the game” was needed to confirm a certain idea that became the key myth of the program. Russia is a country unsuitable for democracy. “I said before the broadcast that Joseph Stalin would lead in our poll,” comments Radzinsky. Of course, in the absence of Lenin in his “electoral field”.

Radzinsky himself, as a participant in the election struggle, focused on denouncing Stalin’s rival Ivan the Terrible. And he did it on a Shakespearean scale. He recalls that Stalin believes that Ivan “undercut” the boyars, which led to the Troubles. Radzinsky does not agree with Stalin: “Ivan the Terrible cut it! He cut it!!! And he cut it to such an extent that after this cutting there was no one left! Dignity, honor - everything was gone. What remained were sycophants, ready to endure everything that he did to them. "Slaves remained. He destroyed all the military leaders. And when False Dmitry comes with the Poles, there will be no one to defend the country." We have to remind the respected playwright that when False Dmitry came, he was immediately defeated by the “undercut” commanders (if we can talk about this at all, since there is a whole generation between the Oprichnina and the Time of Troubles). Dmitry ascended the throne without any military victories after the death of Godunov, since he was recognized as the legal heir. Radzinsky immediately talks about the servility of the boyars under Ivan III. This is necessary to confirm the typical nature of servility among the Russian elite. But then it is not clear why the terror of Ivan the Terrible was declared the cause of general servility - it also happened before. And God be with her, with logic. Radzinsky's thought flows freely (from the facts) further - this time to the times of Ivan the Terrible's youth: "And here is freedom. Now the boyars can create - well, a dream - a feudal republic... They have ten years." Let me, let me. Whose dream? Radzinsky? He didn’t live like that in the 16th century. Many times in the Middle Ages and later, power fell to feudal clans under a minor monarch. And they did not use this “chance” to create a republic. They didn't have such a dream. Apparently, there were reasons for this not only in “Russian servility.” Radzinsky also found another “reason”. The boyars steal. That's how they always steal. And under the republic. A century later, England matured into a republic, but the lords who came to power stole no less than under the king. Radzinsky needs such “breaks” from the “boring” laws of the era to confirm an extremely illiberal conclusion: “the people understand that only the nooses of strict and merciless tsars can limit this theft and self-will of the boyars.” A relevant conclusion, isn't it? In light of the fight against the "oligarchs". But “the people don’t understand.” Despite this propaganda and the crafty conditions of television voting, by the end of the program (when 27,000 called in) Stalin's opponents woke up, and his rating dropped to 29.5%. Moderate liberals scored 28.5%. There was no room for Democrats. For professional historians too - the program featured ultra-short fragments of interviews with them, in which it was impossible to have time to convey anything meaningful.

The myth of the “nationality of the autocratic whip” is also strengthened in their own way by Western liberals from NTV. L. Parfenov is trying to glorify Peter in his new cycle about the Russian Empire using his postmodernist methods. In pseudo-computer style with double screens, footage from apologetic films about Peter flashes. The text is also full of admiration for the carpenter king, which may seem strange if we remember the despotism of Peter and the liberal views of Parfenov (and the canal leaders). But there is no contradiction: the liberalism of a Westerner always pales if one has to choose between freedom and Westernism. Peter introduced Western cultural forms into “wild Russia”, and therefore despotism is excusable for him - in Russia in general a typical phenomenon. To confirm this simple idea with artistic means, Parfenov, in the story about the reign of Anna Ioannovna, omits the constitutional projects of the rulers and focuses on the construction of the ice house. With the usual extravagance of NTV, Parfenov even builds a building out of ice. But the empire’s budget, at the expense of the multimillion-dollar peasantry, could support the construction of an ice house, but NTV’s budget could not yet. So Parfenov’s fans have no reason to wonder why the project with the history of Russia has now stalled. Now the leading esthete of NTV is assigned to cheaper events - to talk about the fact that there is no “telephone law” in the USA.

Empire is in vogue these days. The ORT series “Empire Under Attack” also glorifies it “through artistic means.” This is not even about mannered acting, but about the free manipulation of historical facts. Consider the New Year's wave of explosions in the capital, invented by the authors, allegedly organized by the Socialist Revolutionaries in 1901. The Socialist Revolutionary Party, which arose somewhat later, began to use bombs a few years later. But for the sake of an artistic image of the struggle of noble gendarmes with revolutionary maniacs, any plot will do.

But role models for current politicians can be found not only in the gendarmes, but also in the authoritarian politicians of the West. V. Wulf prepared a monumental cycle about the greatness of Western politicians of the 20th century. They have one drawback - they themselves did not realize the greatness of each other: “So Roosevelt died, not realizing either the greatness of de Gaulle , or the strength of his mind, or his unconditional courage.” So we have to realize. In order for us to admire de Gaulle, we need to talk about his great deeds. They are invented contrary to historical and geographical facts known even to a schoolchild: “He spent the entire war in Africa. And he gathered troops in North Africa. And he fought in Lebanon and Syria. ( Syria and Lebanon are not Africa, and no one fought there. - A.Sh. ) And then the French troops began a movement for the liberation of France. It was he who ensured that the French army, together with the British, would march on Paris" (the Americans are forgotten, Leclerc's division has been transformed into an entire army). With the same delight, Wolf talks about how de Gaulle lost the war in Algeria and was offended by the rioting students, which is why he resigned (and not losing the referendum a year after the student unrest, as was in reality). The greatness of the authoritarian politicians of the West is a super-idea for which any facts can be sacrificed. The practical significance of this work is evident from the program "However", which "pick up the baton", reporting the salvation of France by de Gaulle as a self-evident fact. Supporters of right-wing dictatorship need a role model. NTV resists hesitantly, timidly criticizing Pinochet . The hints are as clear as ever. We say de Gaulle (or Pinochet), we mean Putin.

Education deficit

Often television journalists say stupid things not for any specific purpose, but because of laziness and a lack of historical education. Let me give you a few striking examples. E. Masyuk found a Warsaw Pact facility in Yugoslavia - a military airfield built in the 70s. But Yugoslavia was never part of the Warsaw Pact.

In terms of the number of errors, the leader is probably the TVC program "Data", which is explained by the "historical" profile of the program, in the absence of knowledge corresponding to this profile among its presenters. The daily pace of transmission does not allow for in-depth study of the topic. There is still hope in experts, but historians rarely appear among them. So it turns out that Sorge was shot (and not hanged), Louis XVI was executed by the Jacobins led by Robespierre in January 1792 (this happened in January 1793, but still before the Jacobin coup). The following remarks are also interesting: “The only thing Tukhachevsky could not defeat was fate.” This is said about a man who did not defeat a single foreign commander at all and suffered a military defeat from Pilsudski.

But in terms of the “quality” of mistakes, L. Mlechin breaks all records in his “Results of the 20th Century” and “Secret Folder”: “Unlike the first, Stalin entered the Second World War without allies.” What about Great Britain? Sometimes Mlechin contradicts himself within the same phrase: Stalin and Molotov “tried to seize a piece of Finland, but the Finns defended their independence.” So what did Stalin and Molotov try to capture: all of Finland (then independence was under threat) or a piece (which they did not try to capture, but captured)?

But what can we say about the days so far from journalists, if M. Sokolov builds the entire “However” program on the “fact” of the end of the 1998 rail war after the default. Let me remind M. Sokolov and other people with the memory of mankurt that the rails were unblocked at the end of May, and the default occurred on August 17. This is a story that unfolded before Sokolov's eyes.

Of course, everyone makes mistakes, including historians. They criticize each other mercilessly for every mistake. As a result, mistakes among professional historians are rather the exception. There are also calm, thoughtful programs that are prepared by professionals ("Archival Secrets" RTR, "The History of a Masterpiece" ORT). But in the conditions of the television information conveyor, where people without historical qualifications work, mistakes are typical, and “correct answers” ​​are exceptions. The reason for this is the different tasks that modern science and the media set for themselves. A historian-scientist, when starting a study, does not know the conclusion he will come to. His task is to get to the bottom of the truth. The “fighter on the ideological front” (a significant portion of historians were among them ten years ago) knows in advance the answer, which must be “confirmed” with historical examples. Superimposed on myths from old textbooks, journalism, on the conscious mystifications of the channel owners interested in strengthening certain stereotypes to “prove” the truth needed at the moment, all this information garbage destroys a person’s orientation in historical space and disrupts his connections with culture. If you're ready to defend yourself against this onslaught of chaos, it makes sense to get your historical knowledge not from television, but from scientific literature.