Media puzzle A. Volin

A few days ago there were two socio-medical scandals : the news “Vesti” on Facebook appeared a quote from J. Hebbels about V. Lenin, the Rain TV channel conducted a survey on “ whether it was necessary to pass Leningrad to save hundreds of thousands of lives .” But the scheme of the symbiosis of the media and the state, presented in the comments on this occasion from the deputy minister of communications and mass communications, Alexei Volina, is more interesting.

It was simple with Vesti, they posted the statements of individual newcomers of the past about V. Lenin, among which Goebbels came across. And Goebbels here is a taboo (for example, “Goebbels’s book , to be afraid of everyone!”, So-a scandal, after which it was reported in the same account that “ SMM-edit of the Directorate of Internet Sits of the VGTRK was dismissed in full force .”

It is theoretically curious why only certain names are taboo in the Russian Federation. Napoleon is in general almost a hero and a great man, although, in fact ... and Goebbels about Lenin is a completely specialized statement. But this is a theory. In general, they fired and fired, the public did not turn, spoke out about this.

In the second case (“ whether it was necessary to pass Leningrad in order to save hundreds of thousands of lives ”) the discussion was undertaken seriously - the Communist Party promised to initiate a prosecutor’s audit against the “rain”, deputies from the LDPR said that they would submit a bill on criminal liability for insulting the memory of the war of war. Anyone.

Well, yes, the authors of the survey are not very with the reason, at first it should be asked the type " would save the surrender of Leningrad hundreds of thousands of lives ." But after all, public activity, so that the stupidity of everyone was visible - as Peter I wrote. For example, a public statement of durusts is useful in order to see the state of minds in society. The state of minds showed itself in the future, already in the discussion. And then it’s not about who is right, who is not - exactly about what state the minds are now and how they react to what.

Also in this regard, A. Volin gave comments. And he is interesting in that he likes to remind of the meaning of the media. For example, a year ago, he spoke at the journalism faculty of Moscow State University (“ myth is knocked out by myth ”, having won public enthusiasm with words like “today's journalists, you need to obey the uncle who pays money.” “Journalism does not have any mission, journalism is business.” “Young journalists should know what the owner will say to them, that is, the owner”. Teach - you commit a crime. " These are quotes for" Echo of Moscow ", but Wolin subsequently did not refute them, but even developed.

So here it will not be good or not Wolin thinks and comments, but - he has a life scheme and he consistently sets it out. And the scheme is interesting.

Wolin and cable operators

In the course of the story with the rain, the president of the Russian Cable Television Association Yu.Pachkin proposed to disconnect from broadcasting the Rain television channel, wondering: " It is possible or it is possible, how will the authorities react to this, how to react, is it possible to express a civil position as an operator? "

The commentary of A. Volin RIA-News was that from the side of the regulator there would be no objections to the operators: " By and large, we have 10 channels that cannot be turned off-this is a list of all-Russian public channels. On all other channels, this is the absolute decision of those market participants who make a decision for themselves ."

He also found positive in the disconnection: " If from the side of society in the defiant cases we dealt with at the end of last week, there was a similar consolidated position, then it was precisely the forces of civil society and the forces of many participants that would have a much stronger educational effect than even the use of some legal or other measures ."

In addition, Vololin is inclined to find business everywhere: “ None of you include [in your packages], roughly speaking, pornographic channels and similar things, realizing that this will lead to the outflow of spectators. If one of the market participants from the side of the television men pursues such an editorial policy that is able to cause the outflow of your client base, this will be understandable, justified to be taken, which can be disconnected. From the side of the regulator, there will be no objections or actions to you . " Well, we think that the inclusion of a porn channel in the package will lead to the outflow of spectators.

But this is the main topic: state and market, which in certain situations and areas do not contradict each other, but vice versa. In this case, referring to the field of interests of civil society, which - yes, this is how it turns out - also have a market aspect. Sudden harmony. About her, there is further.

How to strain correctly?

A little earlier, A. Volin gave an interview to the "elephant" , where all the same is interesting: how the disparate parts of the state-medical life are set out. In particular, we are talking about the fact that the guest evidence is inclined to create enemies, for example, by the efforts of D. Kiselev.

Wolin refutes:
" - is not true. You are very simplified by what Dmitry Konstantinovich does on the air. He does not overshadow and does not create enemies. It is another matter that any action provides for certain plot rules. The plot should be laid out a conflict. The more interesting the transmission for the viewer, the higher the voltage level should be.
- That is, the level of aggression should be higher all the time?
- The question is not about aggression, but about holding the storyline. You will meet the same conflict in any art work, film, play ... "

But then a contradiction. "Rain" also produced a storyline, creating a voltage level. And that the question there was idiotic - and here everything is in order, it is precisely such things that are best exciting the audience. And everything turned out: the society tensed and massly expresses, what is the problem that Volin sees for the operator of cable channels?

State marketness and market statehood

And now the topic of state marketness will be disclosed. In an interview, it comes to the fact that the state - according to Volina - now unites people: " including with the help of the media ... Sports are without a doubt the country. Good films are rallying. General holidays. The state is united. The state does a lot so that we are aware of ourselves a unified community ."

"A single understanding of history" - yes, they are doing this now. But such an idea is always a consequence of the topic of a single understanding of what is happening now. Mr. Volin claims that there is no unification here, even on basic television channels:
" - if you look at the news on the" first "and at NTV, then they are different, and stylistics and topics. There is no unification.
- The position on the first person too, right?
- Look at the polls of public opinion. Our population is united in relation to the first person in the state. Well for the rating? You cannot impose what they do not like and will cause rejection. Out of love for art? Pure with it? "

That is: everyone is shown about Putin and everywhere precisely because (and only because) that he is the most rated, and not vice versa. So political affair is a market business. Scenario: “The population is one in relation to the first person” - this makes a political rating, as a result, the first -person television rating is growing, it is shown the most, and in a circle - the population is even more united in relation to the first person, etc. All Chosha. The scheme of Volin is generally monolithic:

" - and the state as the owner is not trying to influence his own media?
- No. We have appointed managers who are responsible for this . "

That is: the state - not, does not affect. Well, the last level in this scheme: who is the journalists in it?

The place of the journalist in all this harmony

It was the basic topic of the story of a year ago: "To teach today's journalists you need to obey the uncle who pays money." "Journalism has no mission, journalism is a business." "Young journalists should know that they will write about what the owner will tell them, that is, the owner."

And also in this version (then): " I know that there are colleagues who are firmly sure that they have the right to take money and then shit it on their heads. From my point of view, firstly, it is unethical, and secondly, in such a situation the giving hand begins to impress very quickly ." Actually, this is a practical question: how in what cases to shit on the giving way so that he does not notice? And how to develop strategies that will not include his hand to impoverish even with time.

Of course, the topic looks far -fetched. Since where did they find such giving people who were versed in everything in a row and who were the case with everything in a row? This remark was made in order to note: the position of A. Volin is partly idealistic. One way or another, this time, in the same interview "Elephant", he confirmed this point of view:

" - according to your concept of" work for uncle ", what will the uncle say, will you write?
- I do not refuse my ideas.
- If the owner of some media calls the media editor that belongs to him, does the state perceive this as the norm?
- I would like to draw your attention to the fact that no one prevents the business owner from setting the task of hired employees. If the editor does not like it, he can go and get a job . "

And also:
"- ... give the journalist the task:" Write like this, "and he says:" I won’t write like that, because I don’t think so. "I went out!
- Does the journalist have the right?
- It has. Not for my money.
- And the media law?
- What does the media law have to do with it? Where he says that I have to pay for what I do not want to pay. The journalist has the right to write about what he considers necessary. No one canceled this right. You do not agree with your editor -in -chief, you do not agree with the owner. Great! The media law allows you to go and create your own media. Write everything you want, but answer for all this with your money. The media law does not say that one person must pay another work that he did not order and with whom he does not agree. The media law does not force the businessman to support a journalist with whom he does not agree. The media law says that you have the right to express. Please! But then find money for this right. Or earn. Or borrow. Maybe you got it from dad. Or find an uncle who agrees with this. We have many different people, we have many different uncles, hence we have a lot of media, good and different. And good and bad . "

Well, about the quality of journalism (a quote from the “Elephant”): “It shocks me every week, a couple of times exactly when the journalists call and begin to ask questions on the subject that they didn’t even delve into and did not figure it out, but didn’t read anything at all. I feel that the person received an editorial task, he was said:“ Ask him about it, ”and you are honestly gaining the phone number, articulating the question. Speak, and a person, in principle, is not in the subject.

This is a complete tracing paper of a year ago: “ Sometimes a journalist calls you, asks a question and you understand that“ a person is not in the subject. This is not a journalist. This is a stand for a recorder. "

But (not at all a philosophical, but a technical question): if a journalist works in the frame “went out”, then how, in fact, he will not be a stand for a microphone? Volin has no answer - of course, it cannot be, because he did not ask this question to himself. But he has an answer to the question about ("Elephant") whether his level of Russian journalism satisfies. Given the previous one, the answer is predictable:

" - the level of journalism has not satisfied me for a long time.
- And what to do?
- increase the competitiveness of domestic journalism.
- How?
- I believe that the best way to increase the competitiveness of Russian journalism is the emergence of a large number of unemployed journalists. This stimulates people very much to work better. I believe that the market will have to put everything in its place . "

So, everything is completely logical, but only separately. And how to add up all this-within the framework of a boss-citizenship-raising unity?