The choice of Natasha Morar

The choice of Natasha Morar

She called on the evening of April 6th. She said: “I know: as a journalist, I did not have the right to do this. But as a citizen, I can’t. Forgive me. " At these minutes, several thousand people stood on the square in the center of Chisinau. Among those who organized this first peaceful rally, there was a special correspondent of The New Times, Natasha Morar.

In her blog, she said about this: “Six people. 10 minutes for creative and decision -making. A few hours of distribution of information on networks, Facebook, blogs, SMS to friends and e-mail newsletters. The whole organization is via the Internet. 15 thousand youth went out into the street !!! ”

Then, in a telephone conversation, I told Natasha: “If I were in your place - I would probably do the same. The only trouble is that this is another profession: not a reporter is a policy. ” “I understand everything,” she said, and two days later a statement came from her with a request to suspend the contract with the magazine (p. 10).

“These are all intellectual complexes about a conflict of interest,” one kind acquaintance-politician told me. “When the country has a revolution, you are a journalist or not a journalist, you cannot but take the side.” Can. And it must. Or - you are leaving journalism.

Twenty years ago, in perestroika, the journalists of the Moscow News, led by their chief editor Yegor Yakovlev, went out into Gorky Street-they went the first chain in front of the 100,000th crowd. The first - because the police with water mixtures were waiting ahead. Not like journalists - as participants in protest. But then newspapers and magazines were not the media - in fact, there was no information then. The role was prescribed by another - collective agitators, propagandists and organizers, as grandfather Lenin bequeathed. Then normal journalism appeared, and so far it has not completely died. “Normal” - this does not mean that journalists do not and cannot have political views - should be. And these views inevitably affect how and what the journalist writes about. But this is “about what” and “how” cannot depend on party affiliation, on groups of interests, on what the authorities like or do not like. As soon as the journalist is included in public policy, he inevitably becomes a party, and the reader has doubts: he reads a report or party agitation?

That's exactly why Natasha Morar wrote her statement, and I took it into account (despite the fact that the magazine retains all its financial and other other obligations to her). Obviously: in Moldova, she cannot already be a journalist, she is there a politician. In any other country, including Russia, when and if she is opened here, it may be. In Moldova, today - no.

In the week of these Moldovan events, a real propaganda war was unleashed against Natasha-both in Moldova and in Russia, which included state information agencies, television, and teams of Internet propagandists.

All dogs were hung on it, they agreed almost to the fact that she organized pogroms. This is a lie. That's exactly why both the Prosecutor General of Moldova and the Ministry of Internal Affairs were eventually forced to refute the misinformation of her arrest and criminal investigation against her. The absurdity of these accusations is obvious to anyone who at least heard something about street politics. If you follow this principle, then the “green” in Germany and various leaders of the “left” in other European countries should have been sent to jail for a long time - a crowd that joined the anti -globalists during various “eights” and “twenty” in Sweden, in Italy, recently in London and Strasbourg. Those who directly smash, robs, beats are sent to bars.

Natasha Moral is simply fighting for the future of his country. And no one can take this right from her. And she can’t occupy the courage.