Some implicit ...

Sechin is trying to force the "new newspaper" to refute what we have never written about

On October 10, the Basmanny Court of Moscow fully satisfied the claims of the head of Rosneft Igor Sechin, who was offended by the publication of the “Secret of“ Princess Olga ”. It is unlikely that someone is not aware of what is at stake, but still recall. In the text of the novel, Anina talked about how the wife of the State Businessman for a long time rests on one of the most luxurious yachts in the world, only the rental of which can cost $ 1 million per week.

We were ready to trial, since the only information set forth in this publication - about Olga Sechina’s rest - was confirmed one hundred percent, and herself (twice). At first, when she published a photo on her Instagram page, and then - when she filed a lawsuit against Novaya Gazeta on an invasion of private life. This lawsuit, however, was left without movement, but the lawsuit of her husband was accepted into the work - already on the subject of inaccurate information, belittling honor and a good name.

In fact, we were at first at a loss: here, as in a joke: either it was a long time, or it was not true ... But in the end it turned out to be even more enchanting.

Representatives of the plaintiff just refuted the facts and did not want to, considering that they did not relate to the subject of the claim, and dodged direct issues and attempts to introduce documents to the case, like children from the ball in the “hollow -binding”.

In their opinion (which, alas, the court also divided), what their expert-linguist came up with and outlined in their conclusion: exclusively phantoms, which Sechin's representatives sciencely called “hidden allegations” based on some very intricate associative chains.

Well, this is like in a different joke. A man rides in an electric train, sees - stands a young woman. He decided to give in to her place and said: "Fish, sit down." And that one has just such an associative chain: fish is a pike, pike is teeth, teeth are a dog ... "Citizens, he called me a bitch."

The doctor of philological sciences, professor of Moscow State University Maria Shulga, who discovered “hidden allegations”, who, according to the representative of the plaintiff, and brought numerous readers to some “specific conclusions”, acted in the text of the article (readers, were not interpreted in the role of the same thousands of thousands of heads, and how the same conclusions were explained and the same conclusions, explained. It was not).

The study of Shulgi is impressive not only with volumes, but also with scientific courage.

For example, that Igor Sechin or his wife are the owners of a chic yacht ( *note, the article was not only not said in the article, but even doubts about this. - *Ed .), The expert was made on what basis.

Association chain. “Factual argument. 1. The occupation and the temporary sequence of events: attention is focused on the fact that earlier Igor Sechin “supervised Russian shipbuilding”, and a few years later the “Oceanco shipbuilding company from the Netherlands” launched a yacht into the water. <...> Applied the intake of artificial design of argumentation, the essence of which is as follows: "After, therefore, due to."

Further - more: “Thus, in the publication we have the following set of information about property related to Igor Sechin:“ The yacht “St.princess Olga” is the property of Igor Sechin and/or his wife ”(implicit information, hidden statement) <...> the company from the Kaimanov Islands <...>. Until today, the name of the owner <...> has been kept in strict secret. "

And - a conclusion that in itself can become the subject of a lawsuit against the expert on the protection of honor and dignity: “The semantic investigation follows from the semantic and logical structure of these information, which can be verified as follows:“ Igor Sechin hides information about his foreign property ”( although there is no letter about this . - Ed. ).

About the same thing that the publication is negative and defamatory, Dr. Shulga, in particular, writes this: “The genre of the journalistic investigation and the author’s participation of the editor of the investigation department <...> suggest the appearance and discussion of the negative information hidden from the public.”

That is, if the text was signed by the editor of the Department of Culture, then no negative nature would have been able to find.

And here the broken three hours we discussed not the facts set forth in the article, but the speculation of an expert, which now should refute.

Therefore, I do not want to somehow consider myself losers. And not only because we will appeal: even if the court sides the side of Sechin - well, we will publish a refutation of what was not in the text. But, following the “associative chain” of “hidden statements”, we can already conclude: since the plaintiff has not disputed anything else, it means that everything else (that is, everything really stated in the article) is true.

PS

We ask not to consider the signature by information, which is negative and defamatory.