
At the weekend there was a story: Grigory Okhotin left Inosmi, because he did not like guiding instructions on his work. Well, fine - he left and left, having his reasons. But in what classic way "RIA Novosti information agency refuted censorship on the Inosmi.ru portal."
According to Lente.ru, who retold the commentary of the Agency’s press service, the following method was applied to the hunting: “ As for Okhotin’s accusations, the agency noticed that they are based“ on personal speculations ”and represent an editorial policy in distorted form .” Of course, there is a huge Russian tradition in this, it is difficult to say. From whom starting. Well, in order to completely far from climbing and more solemn - from Chaadaev.
In general, if not crazy, then unbalanced-in fact, who will leave such a global place as RIA Novosti. Well, yes, RIA Novosti can be understood, because they even need to somehow explain why they are leaving when they are so good. Well, in a word, if it is not unbalanced, then the “personal speculation” that took up over the considerations of objectivity and the labor schedule - which is non -incompetence in kind. The main thing is that this is a universal method. Everything is in perfect order, but excesses sometimes happen to performers. People generally only interfere.
As for the unbalanced and personal speculations of hunting, refutations are not required, since for any this point of the answer cannot be dominant in any way. There must be some actual texture. Other explanations should be reported, in addition to this trump card.
Quote from Lenta.ru: “ The Agency’s press service, commenting on these statements, said that Russian laws prohibit publishing some materials on Russian elections from the Western press, for example, research data and statistics.“ We did not give any instructions regarding the mitigation of the headlines in relation to certain political parties, political activities, ”the press service emphasized in the press service The agencies, adding: "RIA Novosti throughout the election campaign should be the gold rule of the journalist - to remain on the fight ."
There are three points or even four. All of them are beautiful, although somehow the same. Here, the correspondence of Okhotin and the leadership.
It is easy to notice that there is not a word about "data of research and statistics" there in principle. This is time.
Two - about "we did not give instructions on the softening of the headings." Well, it is written there, how it was not given.
Three are the most delightful place: “RIA Novosti throughout the election campaign followed the gold rule of the journalist - to remain above the fight.” In other words, RIA Novosti did not give, for example, on Sunday, reports about the congress of the EP party and V.Vputin personally? Or balanced them of the point of view of the other side - and how, in this case, “stay over the cage”?
But, of course, with such arguments, it is necessary to use the simplest: having embarked on the path of personal speculation, Grigory Vyuskh introduced an editorial policy in a distorted form.
But these are not four, four here, systemic. There is a foreign press, which in this case translates in this case, but in general not only it. Here is what such a bill is, in fact, that "Russian laws prohibit publishing some materials about Russian elections from the Western press, such as research data and statistics on Inosmi.ru." The fact that it is on the Inosmi is okay. At that moment, they did not think about others. But in principle? We do not really know this law here, but how not to trust the country's chief information agency? And they could not overwhelm them-what, the main information agency does not follow how the comments of their press services publish?
So what's interesting: in the very business? Well, on the border of the Russian media, there is specifically stands a filter that filters the western press? Moreover, he does it somehow subtly: “some” are these? Moreover, "research data and statistics" have nothing to do with it.