This is a stylistic and semantic confrontation. A fight for minds. And its main instrument is glasnost, the only democratic institution that has survived since Gorbachev's time. Civil activists would have failed if they had not had allies, their own representation - a kind of party. As one of the political scientists noted, due to the absence of a political liberal party, its function was taken over by the media. The mass media party was not created by anyone specifically, has no leadership and will never be registered. But according to the principle of common worldview and aspirations, a powerful energy field has formed, where the blogosphere, online media, print media and radio interact. These resources resonate and reinforce each other. A discovery made by a blogger quickly spreads across the blogosphere, flows into print, is amplified on FM waves, and becomes all-Russian.

Despite or thanks to the state's energetic measures to suppress freedom of speech, the importance of uncensored media has clearly increased. The expulsion of entire groups from publications whose owners do not want to quarrel with the authorities does not cross out, but rather emphasizes the special role that the media and blogs have acquired since the beginning of the Bolotnaya events. Immediately after the first protests in December 2011, there was a short period of thaw on TV, but with the onset of the acute phase of Vladimir Putin's elections, programs that allowed pluralism were quickly closed, and the purge of the media space has been ongoing without a break.

At the same time, a most-favored-nation regime for parties has been declared. More than fifty political structures are registered, including under the slogan of criticizing the current regime, they are given more and more electoral options, their representatives are invited to high offices. However, after a year, their influence in big politics is not felt. The party opposition, it seems, has remained on the sidelines.

All this time, the Russian ruling class has been receiving sensitive blows – but from other forces. A tense struggle is underway – but not on the party or political field. The real struggle is being waged by civil activists, public figures, human rights defenders (as in the days of Soviet dissidents). Deprived of legal grounds to participate in governing the country, they nevertheless achieve a lot. By revealing embezzlement schemes, false dissertations, secret property, they disrupt deals and appointments, change plans and ruin careers.

As a result, the mass media not only broadcast, but also form the agenda. The new role of journalists was demonstrated by the elections of the Coordination Council of the Opposition: 10 out of 30 winners of the elections to the CCO on the general civil list are publicists and popular bloggers.

The political managers of the government, perhaps earlier than many, realized where exactly the center of resistance is, who is currently testing the system for strength. Large campaigns against journalists and entire publications have begun: the "Pozner case", the "Gusev and MK case". The attacks are complex, with all means of intimidation. And this is against the background of the already adopted law on libel with ruinous fines, a ban on many types of advertising, a ban on any personal information in preparation, and the development of a law on Internet regulation. And this, one must think, is only the beginning.

The new situation is extremely dangerous for journalists and journalism. The role of the party for the media is not organic and is fraught with many consequences. The government's retaliatory aggression is just one of them. Another is the growing information deficit. Officials no longer perceive journalists as ordinary correspondents and observers, but as opponents and a source of threat. Therefore, the task is not to provide them with facts, but, on the contrary, to protect them, toss smoke bombs of disinformation, hide and protect military secrets from the enemy. The issue of freedom of speech arises in a new plane. To a much greater extent than the right to disseminate, the right to learn is torpedoed.

And this, let's be honest, is happening due to the fault of both sides in the conflict. There has been a significant shift in the consciousness of journalists themselves. Many have felt like politicians and newsmakers. This is evident at protests: journalists are no longer just observers – they are organizers, activists, and speakers. The line between correspondence and agitation, interviews and debates, news articles and journalistic blogs is rapidly blurring. Journalists have felt like they are on the front lines and are shifting the agenda. Content is becoming media-centric.

Those who adhere to the old standards find themselves under double pressure – from the front and from the rear. Emotional colleagues and a heated atmosphere push them to the barricades. And decision-makers stop believing in the ability of their counterparts from the newspaper or radio to provide objective information.

The problem of separating politics from journalism is more acute than ever. The fourth estate will hardly be able to effectively defend its sovereignty if it encroaches on the competences and instruments of the first three, if it starts playing on someone else's territory, thereby leaving the protection of the law on the media.

However, the main protection is the audience's trust, which is damaged by politicization. The reader must be convinced that he is receiving a signal that is not distorted by the political goal or accusatory fervor of the author. He is told something not because it is important for the fight against the regime (or, conversely, against dissenters), but simply because it is important to know.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to remain calm, objective, and unbiased – in a period of endless information warfare, with the obvious successes of the media party against the backdrop of the impotence of traditional parties, in conditions when other means of defending society are running out, in an era of vile laws against orphans and minorities. But there is no other reasonable strategy in sight. It seems that this is the only way to preserve the atavism of glasnost, the last institution that has not yet become a simulacrum.

Maxim Glikin: Successes and risks of the mass media party