Anton Shmakov. On the farm. Issue 2

On the farm. Issue 2
Anton Shmakov

Publication date: February 5, 2004

And from Kommersant , without a doubt, all Russian business journalism has grown - even (and especially ) the magazine that is ahead of it in ratings. However, the ratings compare the flagship publications of weekly magazines. In this case, it is hardly fair to limit the review to the flagship publication.

The line of brands of the Kommersant Publishing House has no equal (which is also recorded by research). So what if, in the eyes of experts, Kommersant let “Expert” a little ahead in the “trust” category, and let “Vedomosti” get closer to it in all other nominations? All this does not hinder his leadership at all. There are no shortage of advertising-intensive business news consumers in the market. Kommersant publications are for them. But it should be noted that there is an important difference between these publications and others.

If “Expert” is elite analytics and expertise for decision makers, then “Kommersant” in all its guises is elite journalism for the economically active population. In purely journalistic qualities (balance, coverage and presentation of material), Kommersant has no equal - both before and now. In this sense, neither the exit of the Expert team from Kommersant, nor the news of the purchase of Kommersant by Berezovsky, nor the dismissal of Kommersant editor-in-chief Raf Shakirov changed anything particularly. After all these events, evil tongues predicted for Kommersant the fate of Nezaviska (transformation into a simple battering gun) or Izvestia (transformation into a septic tank for retreating professional liberals). Neither happened; Most likely, the most important reason was the “commercial” focus on its reader - unobtrusive, calm and natural. It looks like an intuitive orientation towards people with similar interests - professionals who work hard, earn money and pragmatically manage what they earn. Other things (politics, sports or art, etc.) are either also a subject of professional interest, or a subject of “information consumption” and, ultimately, a matter of taste. Therefore, there is no strict genre division: economic reviews are regularly present in Kommersant-Vlasti, and excursions into history and politics are in Kommersant-Dengi.

But if you want not to lose money when buying an apartment under construction, or, conversely, to return the money lost on buying a “gray” phone, it is better to contact “Money”. You will find here the dynamics of housing prices (Lyudmila Chicherova, "Bottomless Meter." "Kommersant-Dengi" # 2, January 19, 2004), learn about your apartment rights (ibid., Ivan Bogachev, "Share Acceptance"). You have the right to give money and (at best) get it back; It will most likely not be possible to demand compensation from the developer for violating the terms of the contract: standard contracts simply do not provide for such sanctions, and the developer will probably refuse to pay them additionally. That is, you will not be able to obtain from the developer a certificate of registration of the agreement in the Moscow Department of Housing Policy and make sure that the apartment is not burdened with any obligations. "Seller's market" - and that's it. The author of the article shared his own experience of purchasing an apartment, which he ultimately decided not to buy. What happens to the brave souls who go to the end is left to the reader to guess.

As for the phone, everything is simple (ibid., Maria Kochetova, “Adjustment for dullness”). If you are rejected by a company, the process of getting your money back will take a little less than two months and at least three visits. One - to Zhitnaya, 16 with a statement addressed to the head of the GUBEP, Major General Alexei Orlov, outlining the details. Throw the envelope in the box at the GUBEP checkpoint on Zhitnaya, 16. After a while you will have to visit the investigator and tell everything in person. If the phone was purchased from an online store, you may have to explain what it is and why it doesn't have a physical address. An investigation under the rules of trade violations will most likely not be carried out (no one simply needs it), but a third visit is quite possible - they will call you back from the company and still agree to return the money. Perhaps, in the queues of the complaints department, you will realize that the company constantly sells “gray” phones and that everyone knows this. This is exactly what Denga correspondent Maria Kochetova learned about the Euroset company. A remark from the press secretary of Euroset is attached: since January 2004, Euroset and Siemens have been partners, and before that, the supplier accidentally failed with one batch. Those who wish will believe it.

In general, Kommersant is completely on top of the topic of the day. But once you soar to higher and more analytical themes, Kommersant's brilliance comes mainly from its clarity of presentation and genre purity. They sometimes mask the low quality of the examination. This is especially true for “commercial” ratings. (We are not talking about those that do not carry an expert load at all, being image projects in their pure form - like, say, the elite rating .) For example, “Events that most influenced the development of the Russian economy in 2003” (ibid., Olga Buyanova, Pyotr Rushailo, “How the winners are judged”).

I bring to the attention of the reader 18 events, the choice of which from among fifty rated ones was made at my discretion.

- invasion of US troops and their allies into Iraq; division of Iraqi oil;
- arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky;
- BP deal with TNK;
- On November 28, Sibneft announced the suspension and later termination of its merger with NK YUKOS; the largest deal in Russian history ended in failure;
- the president's message to the Federal Assembly with demands to double GDP by 2010, limit tariffs of natural monopolies, fight poverty and develop a contract army;
- strengthening of the ruble exchange rate;
- adoption of a package of laws on energy reform; failure to adopt a package of laws on the gas industry;
- holding a referendum in Chechnya;
- announcement of the creation of NK "YukosSibneft";
- growth of the ruble, increase in the price of Russian stocks and bonds;
- the loss of the right and Yabloko and the victory of the nationalists in the State Duma elections;
- assignment of an investment rating to Russia by Moody's;
- oil prices have not fallen. OPEC is not going to cut oil production;
- tax scandal in the government and the conflict between Alexei Kudrin and Mikhail Kasyanov;
- The State Duma adopted the 2004 budget; the main feature of this budget is that for the first time a stabilization fund is being created, into which additional revenues from the sale of Russian oil at prices above $20 per barrel will be allocated;
- actual failure of pension reform. About 1% of the population turned out to be willing to give their money to non-state pension funds;
- the RTS index set a new historical high of 650 points.

It hurts the eye that the recording of some events contains an evaluative part . Thus, the compilers of the rating assumed the functions of the respondents. There is also a problem with the assessment method. The experts surveyed assessed the events in three categories: impact on the current situation, impact in the long term, and public resonance. 30 experts were interviewed, then their ratings were averaged across three categories. Some of the experts, after reading the rating, were slightly shocked by the distribution of places, although it would be difficult to expect otherwise. Any economist knows that since the political war against the communists, our ruling elite has done everything to ensure that the most important economic decisions are made without public outcry. And in Putin’s times, economic policy generally ended up in fifth or sixth place even among our liberal media. Whether this is good or bad is a separate question; It is important that the nomination “public resonance” does not introduce clarification, but confusion. Additional confusion was added to the assessments by the fact that journalists divided the YUKOS story into several components “to make the rating more informative.”

However, from a journalistic point of view, everything seems to be in order. Any magazine has the right to create any rating - and it does so because the public wants ratings. But at the same time, it is advisable for the reader looking for expertise to remember that when determining the survey method, journalists could consult with experts.

Following the election results, Kommersant-Vlast published an article comparing the results of the Duma elections with polls of voters after leaving the polling station (“Figures against the Central Election Commission,” # 49, December 15, 2003). Expert Svetlana Lokotkova examined a sample of exit polls from the Public Opinion Foundation and compared it with data from the Central Election Commission. If we are based on the premise that citizens answer the FOM question truthfully and the election results are not falsified, the distribution of the deviation of the (incomplete) survey data from the election results will correspond to the known statistical distribution (more details here ). Thus, we can use formal statistical methods to evaluate the joint hypothesis that:

- exit polls give an unbiased estimate of votes;
- The Central Election Commission did not deliberately falsify the elections.

This hypothesis passed the statistical test for three major parties (United Russia, LDPR, Rodina), as well as for the Pensioners Party and seven other dwarfs. A statistically significant deviation of the election results from the exit polls data towards overestimation occurred for the Agrarian Party and seven other dwarfs, and towards underestimation for the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Yabloko, SPS and votes “against all”. At the same time, according to Ms. Lokotkova’s results, the Union of Right Forces lost the “elections by exit polls” in any case, but the permissible deviation interval for Yabloko hits the 5% bar. Therefore, the question of which part of the hypothesis being tested should be rejected becomes practical.

Appealing to the practice of statistical assessment of elections in the United States (in particular, to the accurate prediction of Arnold Schwarzenegger's recent victory in California), Ms. Lokotkova trusts exit polls and speaks of fraud as an established fact. The article disturbed other statistically savvy citizens so much that they are inclined to consider the FOM’s own reservations about the possible bias of the results as ad hoc explanations made for opportunistic reasons. Well, if she wanted, Ms. Lokotkova could find unbiased explanations. Those choosing between an elephant and a donkey do not differ much in wealth and intelligence, but the “intelligentsia in worn-out shoes” stands out from the crowd precisely according to these parameters. Ms. Lokotkova’s research is, of course, interesting, but the journalistic overlap has spoiled it quite a bit.