Study Hannah Arendt?

Responsibility of writers

Maria Rozalskaya

On Friday, July 8, 2011, the Dozhd TV channel invited evening broadcast of the modern National Socialist Dmitry Demushkin. This just one example, in fact, the number of interviews given by Demushkin about his recent trip to Chechnya is in the tens. What is this? Ratings chase? The desire to fully and comprehensively illuminate important issue? Just the idiocy of the crowd, not allowing any channel, edition, radio stations skip some event if it is already did others say?

Whatever it is, but next time some liberal journalists will ask what are the reasons for the next "Manezhnaya Square" or "Kondopoga", they can just laugh in face. Because the reasons are to a very large extent in this. In that frank cannibals legitimize, give them the floor, monstrously interviews are unprofessional. One of the leading ones at some point tried to ask a relatively pointed question about the swastika used Slavic Union (SS), but Demushkin simply brazenly did not answer, continuing to speak his own pre-memorized text.

Freedom of speech, you say? This, we note in passing, is a favorite argument the cannibals themselves. I will only say that freedom of speech is always limited freedom to give that word. It is the choice of a journalist who to give word and who doesn't. And also that in a society where freedom of speech is almost sacred, in the USA, there is a powerful public control in the form political correctness, which we do not respect so much. Let's remember the last the case of the dismissal of an aggressive homophobe from RIA Novosti. It seemed would, we should be glad that the social mechanism has worked, that the matter is not came to the intervention of the state. No, a howl is raised about an attack on freedom of speech. And serious people in the mainstream media are arguing whether it was necessary make a scandal.

But back to Demushkin.

First, the story itself is inflated. The Chechen administration decided show off. This in itself is interesting. But only in the sense that In fact, it turned out to be a grandiose session of self-disclosure. invited some self-proclaimed leaders of the nationalists, and they say: “Cool! This is real National Socialism!” I doubt that the Chechen authorities expected just such an effect. What Demushkin said in numerous interviews, ridiculous even from the point of view of nationalism. Which Is this Kadyrov needed by Russia? Or do they want what they've been through Chechnya, has it happened now also on a national scale?

Secondly, no matter what happens, you can not give free tribune to people involved in violence. Even sit down to discuss with them impossible, because only those who initially is in comparable positions and wants to achieve comparable results. The position of the recently banned Demushkin organization is such that they would at least not object to the natural physical death of their opponents. Nicholas Korolev, who blew up the Cherkizovsky market, killers anti-fascist Alexander Ryukhin, whose mother was represented in court Stanislav Markelov, many other criminals, more or less openly associated with the SS, were defended in court by the lawyers of this organization. And about what talk to these people? The fact that the Chechens, so be it, we will leave in alive - if they go to Chechnya, and Tajiks, perhaps, can still be sometimes cut? That some liberals can be left for divorce, but those who who is more to the left or who is simply more vociferous against nationalism, still put against the wall as traitors to the blood?

TV channel "Rain" went even further. He just gave Demushkin podium. No one even tried to argue with him. Invited obviously for decoration, co-chairman of the Russian Congress of the Peoples of the Caucasus Khalidov clearly couldn't, and didn't want to, argue. (Note that according to part-time Denga Shakhrudinovich is vice-president of the Academy geopolitical problems of the famous anti-Semite Leonid Ivashev. I wonder if the Dozhd employees had enough professionalism to to figure out?)

Suppose the TV channel employees were in a hurry, did not notice connection of his guest with Korolev and with the murder of Ryukhin. But they knew for sure they themselves said this at the beginning of the broadcast - that Demushkin's organization was banned for extremism. Didn't that give them any thoughts? Or we have now all bans - even if it's a serial killer union ban – are perceived by the liberal society as the intrigues of the Bloody Regime? Not I bet the Bloody Regime did a lot to compromise the fight against so-called extremism. But you have to have your head on your shoulders. Or now there is a Liberal Journalist for every Chikatilo, which will write articles about unjustified repression every time in the accusation of this Chikatilo flash the word "extremism"?

Thirdly, if we give the floor to neo-Nazis, then only two ways. Either this is a “quotation”, almost a scientific analysis with detailed comments, dissecting like frogs. In this case, the presence the Nazi himself on the air is not at all necessary. Quality journalistic materials of this kind can sometimes be seen in Novaya Gazeta.

Either this is a sensible public "spanking". Such spitting paper balloons of a neo-Nazi tied to a chair. They are capable of this - if capable - units, because it requires not only a rare journalistic professionalism, but also a deep knowledge of the subject, as well as remarkable personal courage.

I personally know only one attempt, and that is not very successful. Tatyana Tolstaya and Dunya Smirnova were once invited to the "School slander" by Alexander Belov-Potkin. While talking about history and culture, areas in which the knowledge of the leaders clearly exceeded the knowledge of their guest, everything was beautiful and as it should be. Potkin writhed in his chair and carried nonsense. But as soon as he stepped onto his path - modern anti-immigrant populism - they somehow had nothing to oppose to it, and he immediately looked better.

Unfortunately, instead of professional analysis or mockery, more often all we see is the provision of a platform for overt propaganda, glorification of marginals and false enthusiasm of the leaders.

I really hope that the journalists who read me to this part The articles are already getting pissed off at me. I hope that at least I can reach them. Because I want every time they not that they are called on the air, but they simply call for a comment like this here's a demushkin or a potkin, so that every time they see with their mind's eye scales on which this demushkin or potkin sits and on which with each the interview given to him increases his weight. And so that every editor, every reporter understood: I'm growing a monster. And when the next one comes "Manezhnaya Square", would not lament, but stood in a corner on the peas to teach by heart Hannah Arendt.

We do not want to invent a parallel reality

Mikhail Zygar

What happened on December 11 at Manezhnaya Square? The liberal public learned that in our country there are nationalists, and there are quite a few of them. If no TV channel reported on events at the Manezhka - and, therefore, would not give them a platform - this the phenomenon would not disappear. The public would simply remain in the dark.

I suspect that thousands of Russian teenagers are becoming nationalists not because they read about Dmitry Demushkin in newspaper, heard about him on the radio or saw him on the air of a TV channel "Rain". I don't think the media has anything to do with it. They learn about the existence of Demushkin and his comrades in some other way. AND it is not the media that provide moral and material support to the nationalists, but completely different characters.

We share the concerns of the SOVA human rights center - and it is precisely therefore, we regularly call its employees on the air as experts. AND I am sure that it is better to know about the danger than to pretend that it is not exists.

There are no blacklists on the Dozhd TV channel. We are free to choose as experts of those people who are sympathetic to us and close to us in beliefs. But we don't choose newsmakers. If Chechen President Kadyrov meets with Russian leaders nationalist organizations, we must tell the audience about it. This is a very curious fact. And ask the participant of this meeting - our the format involves obtaining first-hand information. We must not and we do not want to invent a parallel reality in which there are only the “right” events and the “right” guests.

And if the viewer complains about the lack of a black list of guests on our TV channel, then I it seems that this is not the most terrible problem of modern Russian television. Moreover, in other places it has already been solved.

Sources

• Teach Hannah Arendt? // OpenSpace.ru. 2011. July 13.