Translated material
: ABOUT! TV ...
Talking about “public television” - a universal tool from censorship on TV - are already supplemented by specific plans for how to divert. It seems, however, that it is empty - no “public” TV will save from power until the authorities and her opponents are sure that the TV rules the world.
The rallies that unfolded after the capital's rallies (representatives of the authorities assure that “after” does not mean “as a result”) a discussion of freedoms and responsibility of the authorities has overgrown with a lot of power initiatives. In the field of freedom of media, the most vivid initiative is the creation of public television - free from the influence of owners and, accordingly, of power censorship. The idea of creating TV was proposed by Dmitry Medvedev in a message to the Federal Assembly, and Vladimir Putin also supported it.
Further concretization, however, showed that the creation of public television, if it takes place at all, will be realized in some way that the “pluralism of opinions” on TV will affect weakly.
First, the bargain began about the site - that is, frequencies or “buttons” - for the channel. It seems that they even suggested that the VGTRK (read “Russia-1”) or “Channel One” will become the site. Later, the TVC and “Star” have already appeared in the Long List of “applicants”, and the latter seems to be preferred. The coverage of the television channels today is different, income and audience too. It is clear that the managers of specific television channels were not enthusiastic about the idea of becoming “social activists”, so they are trying to entrust the “honorary mission” to colleagues with smaller coverage and advertising budgets.
The second important technical moment is the financing of the ot. Since the idea of its creation comes from the authorities, it seems poorly possible to introduce a federal tax on the VS (following the example of the British Air Force) - why irritate the population. The head of the Presidential Council of Human Rights, Mikhail Fedotov, who is involved in the problem, suggested, say, to oblige the television channels to deduct part of the advertising income (three percent) on the ed. Fedotov told Izvestia that the income of all advertising television channels amounts to one hundred billion rubles a year. It seems to be enough money, but again the scope is not for VGTRK or the “first”. Yes, and the idea to share independent advertising money should not like the television channels too much.
However, the main question is - why do the garden at all? Our television, according to the well -known expression of Dmitry Medvedev, is the best in the world, and we have no problems with censorship, by the well -known expression of Vladimir Putin, because there are forty thousand media and their censor will not be able to distinguish qualitatively. In the way of specific practices of “censorship”, no formal protective mechanisms of obstacles are put. For example, several public figures will enter the new board of directors of Channel at once, which in no way depend on the authorities - Fedor Bondarchuk, Karen Shakhnazarov, Nikita Mikhalkov and Andrei Makarevich. How will this affect the channel policy? No.
The order for the coverage of certain events of domestic political life is obviously carried out through other channels. Earlier, this order was traditionally generated in the presidential administration, and the television of the deputy head of the administration Alexei Gromov was oversaw. Sometimes other officials were also connected to the process, but none of them formally, in the position of TV policy, affects. What will change if you add the letter “o” on any television channel to the name?
When a formally independent television channel for the far abroad Russia Today was created, many believed that it would simply become a “handle of the Kremlin”. To the honor of the leadership of the channel, his news was much more balanced by the releases of Russian -speaking colleagues. However, the new ambassador to Russia McFol now requires an explanation for the fact that something about him was not so shown. One or not so shown - we will not go into the essence of the explanation of McFol and the channel - but it is clear that they showed exactly when the ambassador literally “poisoned” on the air of federal television channels. And the McFola's reaction shows that any balance in Russia has its own limits.
Another example: from the air of the Posner program with Tina Kandelaki, it seems that the episode was gone, where censorship on TV (!) And blogger Alexei Navalny was discussed. The version with this episode went to the Far East, but to Moscow, as it happens periodically, the program reached the already truncated form. Vladimir Pozner now even threatens the closure of the gear when he is tired of censorship. Cable to save public television from this? It is possible that two minutes of discussion who is to blame that Navalny is not on the air of the “first” will see the light on the air of the “first”. There is no confidence, however, that the statistically significant part of the audience generally imagines who is the bulk and why it should appear on the TV.
Power and reality come out right along Pelevin. In fact, they are in much more complex interaction. To put Navalny into the TV - the end of Putin's stability: this kind of consideration sins with well -known schematism. However, so far this consideration will dominate the elites, and the rest of the population will be exclusively as a television consumer and will almost never a customer, the authorities will try to determine the policy of television channels at least in the field of coverage of their (authorities) activities. And rub the rest from the television. And any most public television will always be able to say "we have not shown the opposition rally, because this topic is not socially significant." Come on mind: Air Force also does not show every madman from a guide park.