Dump

In every big city there are homeless people who rummage in garbage tanks. They are looking for incredible food there and suitable unfinished objects that can be sold.

For many years I have been feeling like such a homeless person, getting into someone else's link to the MK website and seeing the headlines like "Wang predicted the terrible future of Europe" or "Black man with the MANPADS raised the question of the future of Erdogan." It is extremely difficult to read the right article and not smack in some rubbish. About two years ago, in the same mountain of information garbage in which the liberals Dmitry Gudkov and Artemy Troitsky are adjacent to the singers of the regime Sergey Markov and Vladimir Sungorkin, unfortunately, the “Echo of Moscow” also turned. In time, this coincided with the arrival of Ryabtseva on Radio Radio, but it is unlikely that Ryabtsev is the reason, rather, also a symptom.

For some reason, many believe that freedom of speech should look like this. Nothing of the kind. Freedom of speech is freedom from state intervention. Freedom from censorship, from arrests and murders of journalists, from calls from AP and from the mask show in the editorial offices. And the porridge of liberals, Putins and communists on the same pages is not freedom of speech, but the lack of intelligible editorial policy. Mediaswall.

Each edition, with the exception of the yellow press, should have its own clear position. Not knee-elbow, like many Russian publications, crushed by the state machine, but civilian, socio-political. The normal reader and the listener are looking for in the media not so much the source of information - there is Internet and news agencies for information - and the interlocutor with similar or at least compatible views. He does not want to delve into garbage to find something useful.

This, of course, does not mean that people do not need to invite people of other views to liberal publications. Need to. But every time the publication does this, it should clearly indicate its position. Markovs and Sungorkins should not feel safe. Interviewers should ask them inconvenient questions and not allow them to move away from answers. Unknown questions must be asked everyone, but this is especially. Because most readers of liberal media are interested not so much that the conditional brands think about Turkey or the Kremlin cuisine - he still does not know anything about Turkey, and he will surely lie about the Kremlin cuisine - how much he came to his life. Otherwise, readers have a feeling that they are slipped by some dirty trick. As when you see a product on the store shelf, which clearly passed the shelf life.

Recently, Gleb Pavlovsky has become such a product. After he was kicked out of the Kremlin, he began to regularly appear in Vedomosti and Kommersant, in Novaya Gazeta and in the New Time, in Snob and the Elephant, BBC and Radio Liberty. It seems that there is no publication where he was not invited.

The sudden love of the liberal media for a person who played a huge role in Putin’s coming to power, and then for many years built the ideology of Putinism, brought many readers to more and more perplexity. It’s not even the very fact of Pavlovsky’s appearance in his favorite media as an expert, but that journalists and leaders behaved as if Pavlovsky were always an oppositionist and there can be no questions for his past.

A month ago, this general bewilderment was expressed by Sergey Kuznetsov in the article "The opposition that elected Putin." The article received almost 2.5 thousand likes, including from many journalists. A month after that, Pavlovsky, it seems, did not appear anywhere - neither in Vedomosti, nor on the "elephant", nor at "Freedom". It seemed that the situation would begin to change. But in early December, the next big interview with Pavlovsky went to the “Colt” , and the interviewer again did not ask Pavlovsky the main questions. On this occasion , I wrote a post on Facebook , in which I turned to the editors of Kolta directly. Many - both journalists and not journalists - supported me.

The reaction of the "Coaters" was unexpectedly sharp. Gleb Morev replied with a commentary on my post: "Hand -shaped is the one to whom I give a hand. The rest go to [bad word]." Mikhail Ratgauz reacted with an article in which he called our questions to the editorial office "hysteria", "seizure", "convulsions" and "spasms". I will not guess what caused such frustration from the editors of Kolta. But, not counting the accusations in the style of the newspaper Pravda, both in the article and in the comments to my post, completely legitimate questions were raised, which must be answered. Here they are:

- Why only Pavlovsky? Why do you have no questions about Helman, Belkovsky, Litvinovich, Kashin, Khodorkovsky and others?

Pavlovsky has no mitigating circumstances. He was one of the main ideologists of the current regime, possibly no less important than Surkov

- Not only. These questions arise about all of the above, and not only them. Not a week takes place so that someone does not publicly ask the rhetorical questions “How can you invite Belkovsky on the air?”, “How can you take an interview from Gelman?”, “How can you publish a kashin?” But claims about them really sound less often than about Pavlovsky. Apparently, because each of them has something to throw on another bowl of weights. Kashin and Khodorkovsky is difficult to make claims, if only because both of them suffered greatly from the regime. Litvinovich had long abandoned the Effective Policy Fund and has since made no less to combat the system than to build it. Gelman and Belkovsky with excuses are worse, but since 2005 they have not been working on Putin and, on the contrary, they are actively and consistently criticized.

Pavlovsky has no mitigating circumstances. He was one of the main ideologists of the current regime, possibly no less important than Surkov. He worked for the regime until the very recent time. He did not break with Putinism himself, like Litvinovich and Gelman, he was fired. He never scolds the regime seriously and does not encroach on its (also built) foundations, allowing himself only to gently bite power beyond the sides. He is still happy to speak at the New Prochrevskaya Lent.ru, and in Kabaevsko-Gabrevanovskaya RSN. It is not surprising that it is his appearance in liberal publications that causes the greatest indignation.

- Why only now?

- Not only. Questions about the invitation of Pavlovsky to decent media arise regularly, every time he performs in them, for several years. Of course, it is unlikely that anyone monitors all Pavlovsky’s performances in the press and is outraged each time-people have other things. But literally for every such interview is someone who is quite unambiguously expresses their attitude to this fact in LJ or Facebook.

The question is actually different - why did the Kolita editorial only now noticed this indignation? I would venture to assume that she noticed such questions before, but just ignored them. It was more difficult to ignore my question, since it was not addressed, as usual, “into the air”, but directly to the editors and also received publicity.

- The country is rising to hell. Do we really have no more important things than to think about Pavlovsky?

- Eat? Then, of course, do them. If you go to pickets weekly, collect money for political prisoners or participate in the FBK investigations, you obviously not be up to Pavlovsky. But if you do not do anything like that, but just sit in the evenings on the Internet, it will not be superfluous at least for a short time to think about who and how exactly brought the country to the handle. As one Czech writer said, not everyone can be a hero, but everyone can choose evil for himself and fight him.

- He has already answered many times. Are you not enough?

- This is perhaps the most important. Pavlovsky really asked this question several times. But the way he “answered” to him raises only more questions. Here are Pavlovsky's typical answers to these questions (taken from his conversation with Alexander Morozov in 2012).

" - the main question that cannot be avoided: tell me, you came up with all this? These abominable concepts:" Vertical power "," dictatorship of the law "," Putin's majority "," Russian world ". And now, tell me, are you not ashamed of all this?

- [...] I am always ashamed, and not according to the register of abominations. [...] And then, you are talking about words. I invented so many different words at different times. So what?

- How what? These words resulted in reality.

- In the ninety -ninth year, there was no person who would not want United Russia, the vertical of power and dictatorships of the law. Well, there was almost no. "

Both answers are interesting here.

It is indecent to call Pavlovsky for an interview and not ask him sharp questions

The first is that in it Pavlovsky puts everything that he did on one board. The destruction of freedom in Russia has the same weight for him as any other bad act - for example, lie to a friend or rude to his wife. You can, of course, ask: "Why don't you admit that for Pavlovsky every little thing has a huge moral weight?" But it will be cunning. If all the bad words laid on his conscience with a heavy stone, he would have dressed in the Rubshita long ago and went into the hermits, save his soul. Here we clearly are dealing with the opposite: the fact that the person whom he led to power has quarreled the country with the whole world and puts people in prison for participating in rallies, for Pavlovsky is the same trifle as a careless word.

The second answer is even worse. In the 2000 elections, Putin scored 39 million votes - despite the fact that there were 109 million voters in Russia. 70 million people who did not want to support Putin, in the interpretation of Pavlovsky, were "almost never." These people do not exist for him. But the worst is not even this, but the fact that Pavlovsky is trying to smear his guilt evenly throughout the population of Russia. We forget for a second about 70 million who did not vote behind Putin. Let's talk about those 39 that voted for him. According to Pavlovsky (so follows from his words), and those deceived voters who, having voted for Putin, received not at all what they were counting on, and he, who deceived these voters, bear the same guilt for what had happened.

These answers are not humble guilty admission and its proud denial. This is an attempt to slip away, get out, get sick: "What am I? What am I? A little what - I am at once! Everyone did that!".

And the last question:

- And what answer will suit you?

- Here everyone should speak for themselves. In my personal opinion, Pavlovsky made so much bad that a very, very much should be abandoned on the other bowl of Libra. I don’t know what he needs to do in order to balance his “merits” - personally organize a dozen massive protests? Conduct an investigation of the activities of the entire Russian elite, in the spirit of the FBK investigation on the Seagull? Give all your money and time to the fund for assistance to political prisoners or orphans? Yes, something like that.

But the frank admission of guilt would be a step in the right direction.

So far, even this has not been done, it is indecent to call Pavlovsky in an interview and not ask him sharp questions. It is indecent to allow him to change the sides as gloves, to avoid not only punishment, but even public condemnation, to preserve himself “in a clip” for those and for these, to embed for any system and occupy an honorary position in it. And yes, it is necessary to ask such questions not only to him, but to everyone the same as him.

24 years ago, after the collapse of the Soviet totalitarian system, not wrestlers with the regime came to power and not even honest, not smeared people, but representatives of the second and third echelons of the nomenclature. The same nomenclature rules Russia now.

Vladimir Putin, since 1975 in the KGB.

Sergey Ivanov, since 1975 in the KGB.

Alexander Bortnikov, since 1975 in the KGB.

Nikolai Patrushev, since 1975 in the KGB.

Vladimir Churov, until 1991 at the CPSU.

Dmitry Medvedev, until 1991 at the CPSU.

Sergey Shoigu, since 1988 at a leading party work.

Sergey Lavrov, since 1976 in a leadership in the Foreign Ministry.

Alexander Bastrykin, since 1982, secretary of the Leningrad city committee of the Komsomol.

Valentina Matvienko, since 1984 at a leading party work.

Sergey Sobyanin, since 1984 at a leading party work.

How little has changed since 1984.

Someday they will lose power. But others may come instead of them, from the second echelon of the same team, serving them now staff. First they will come as experts in the liberal media. Then - as assistants to mayors and deputies. And finally, as members of the government - and above. And the country will again slide into the rut, which leads to the same landfill in which we find ourselves every time.

Do not give them another chance. They did not learn anything. I would like to believe that we have not forgotten anything.

Ostap Karmodi - journalist and blogger