Anti -first channel

"Opposition television" is a strange idea. It is not clear whether financing will be under it. It is not obvious whether normal content is enough for the project. It is not clear at all why this is necessary, since the market already has a similar and quite held project. And why copy the authorities and integrate into their agenda?

“Bolotnaya leaders” want to start their television. As Dmitry Gudkov told Izvestia, the TV channel can be launched in the fall, and it is invited to pay for pleasure to the citizens themselves that they are unhappy with the quality of the current telecontent.

Representatives of the authorities, represented by deputy Vladimir Burmatov, have already predicted this venture. Burmatov even suggested that it would be just sawing, and the channel rating would be zero. There is an interesting nuance: if the undertaking is so failure, then why is the Burmatov (that is, indirectly “party of power”, after all, the vice speaker Sergey Zheleznyak doubted that the opposition would get to the channel) reacted to it at all? If in winter mosquitoes do not bite in the swamp, then he will hardly talk about them if he is not paranoid with a mania of pursuit of mosquitoes. Since it is not possible to suspect the State Duma deputy in mental disorder, which means that the idea of ​​“opposition TV” is not so failed. At least, one of the representatives of the authorities visually tensed about this.

Understanding in the authorities that, although it is a dominant player on the field of creating an information field, it seems far from a monopolist.

And all the initiatives to create “public television” or the desire to somehow regulate the Internet (see the Internet strategy of the Kremlin )-they are taking place in this category. However, the fact remains: the previous monopoly right to the television book there is no more information agenda in power and its opponents in the information space occupy more and more serious positions, threatening to deprive the power of even its dominant position in the future.

The critics and arguments of the representatives of the Party of Power cannot withstand the critics and arguments of the representatives of the channel will be two and a half speakers. There are plenty of people and opposition, almost more than the United Russia themselves, which are generally able to speak and which are not scary to let into the TV.

So far, however, creative decisions of the opposition make a very weak impression. That the “kind car” is either the truth, or propaganda, invented by Alexei Navalny, that opposition television on folk remedies. The undertaking will be very expensive (Gudkov spoke about 100 million rubles a month) and, of course, it will be needed not only to raise funds “with the world on the thread”, but also by specific investments of specific businessmen. One project of this kind - Sotw - already literally went bankrupt, left without financing. And the cry “Help, good people” did not help.

The second consideration against opposition TV is that there is already one strong player in the market of “opposition Internet channels”-the Rain TV channel.

For all, as it were, the neutral position of the channel of the representatives of the radical opposition on its air can be seen more often than representatives of the authorities, and the channel’s agenda is precisely the most “opposition-Internet”. If opposition TV will differ from it only by the complete absence of speakers from power on the air, then it is unlikely to be able to compete seriously. And the niche is busy. In addition, “rain” is still made by professional journalists, and who will do “Opposition TV” is not yet quite clear. The fact that Navalny and Sobchak can connect to the process of its creation, rather, makes his prospects more foggy and even ghostly.

Finally, in order to fight for the imposition of your own agenda, you need to at least offer this agenda. What our opposition is often problems with. TV, which broadcasts from a rally to a rally, is, of course, great, but meaningfully poor. Ten programs on the topic “Putin - Thief” or how specifically to drown and hang corrupt officials are unlikely to be very interesting to the public, which is already familiar with these theses and even slightly overfeed them.

You can, of course, react to the agenda imposed by power, but then it will definitely be a clone of “rain” and there will be no meaning in such a channel. It is difficult to say what is happening there with the financial situation of “rain”, but since the owners have not closed it in two years, it means their state of affairs (the quality of the content, the cost of the product, and so on) is satisfied. Why do the same when there is a completely successful project is difficult to understand.

In general, this whole idea is some kind of bad copy of power practice. The authorities have Seliger, the opposition comes up with Antiseliger. The government has a government - Ilya Ponomarev distributes positions in the “shadow government”. The authorities have “Channel One” and “Public TV” will appear - the opposition plans to make an “Anti -First Canal”.

The focus of the swamp was that suddenly critical people managed to impose their summons to the authorities.

The authorities were confused - she was so weaned to work. All these throwings (either “beautiful people” and a political form, then suddenly “Bandertlelog” and “liver on asphalt”) showed that the authorities did not understand what to do. And for the first time in recent years, the authorities were forced to react to the agenda openly alien to her, and the opposition was ahead of power. Copying of the practices of the authorities, in this context, means to give the initiative. Not scary, of course, but politically losing.