Mediafiya. Two worlds - two Kiselevs

Putin and Trump are very different people. Their biographies and life experience have little in common. Putin served and served his whole life. Trump worked for himself. Nevertheless, the American billionaire and former KGB officer turned out to be much in common. So much so that last week the term "new doctrine of Trumpoutinism" appeared in the press.

Its author, Frederick Colller, wrote in Le Temps about the general terms of the foreign policy views of Trump and Putin, which, according to the author, can become the basis of their union. This is the need for a joint struggle against Islamism, the priority of the army, focusing on the national, hostility to human rights and the idea of ​​globalization, as well as the cult of a person sent down by providence.

To those general features of Trump and Putin, which was noted by the Swiss journalist, it is worth adding an extreme degree of hostility, which both authoritarian ruler experience free media. The first step of Putin as the President of Russia was the destruction of NTV. One of Trump’s first steps after the president was a meeting with the leaders of the television channels and TV presenters, which its participants called the “Trump's Lamber”. The 45th US President called the leaders of CNN, ABC, NBC, as well as the most popular TV presenters-liars, and the journalism itself-the "lower form of humanity."

Trump and Putin in his attempts to overcome the hostile attitude of the world media act differently. Trump comes to personal contact, throws their accusations in the face. Gives a large interview “New York Times”, which, according to his statement, was the most biased in the media during the election campaign. Then he declares: “Times is a big, huge American jewel. World Jewel. "

Putin, as in the case of the murder of NTV, prefers to act with the wrong hands. I believe that there is no person on Earth who would think that Putin himself recruited an article in the Italian newspaper La Stampa, published under the heading “Time to trust Russia and a united front against terror”. The article, compiled by an unknown author hidden under the pseudonym Putin, repeats the stamps from Putin’s Valdai speech that “NATO Blok has experienced his age”, “the OSCE serves someone's foreign policy interests”, that “it is beneficial to spread myths about the notorious Russian military threat” while Russia is not going to attack anyone. In the history of La Stamp, a shameful period was when this newspaper served as a handle of fascism. After more than seven decades, the editorial office for some reason decided to act as a handle of Putinism ...

The prospects for the confrontation with the media in Trump and Putin are different, since the history of the two countries and the history of the press are different. In Russia, the media were originally state and such in essence remains today. There have never been state media in the USA. The first amendment to the US Constitution, prohibiting censorship, was adopted in 1791, 200 years earlier than the ban on censorship in the Russian media law. So Trump in his confrontation with the media is doomed to maneuvering and maneuvering, unlike Putin, which, having launched a total of total lies a half decades ago, he himself will not be able to stop it, even if he would like to. And today, when the European Parliament announces the Russian media with an information threat along with Al-Keda and ISIS, Putin is forced to mutter something inaudible about the “degradation of European democracy” and praise his tumors who had lined up completely.

Two worlds - two Kiselevs

The world, as you know, is imperfect. The part of the world called the media is especially imperfect. And it’s generally embarrassing about television in terms of perfection. Such muck! Beduced, tendentious and bias. And everywhere, in any country. In the most free country in the world, the majority of the media took the side of Clinton, that is, they were biased, even though they explained this with good intentions to protect democracy from Trump ...

The Ukrainian media, disassembled into the pockets of different oligarchs, are much more far from perfect than American and European. Nevertheless, when you watch Ukrainian television channels from Russia, you often experience burning envy. Not to the quality of the picture, not to the level of professionalism and the possession of the technique of journalistic skill. Here, Ukrainian media still lose not only American and European, but also to many Russian. Envying that there are journalism on Ukrainian television channels, but it is not at all on Russian.

It would be incorrect to say that in the Ukrainian media there is no propaganda, drain of incriminating evidence, ducks and bias. All this is more than enough. But Ukrainian television channels differ from Russian two things. Firstly, Russian television is always lies in one direction, in favor of the Kremlin, and on Ukrainian television channels you can find manipulations both in favor of one political force and in the opposite direction. And secondly, in Ukraine there are programs that meet the norms of journalism, which has not been on Russian television for a decade and a half.

In the program of Yevgeny Kiselev, “Big counterweigted” dated November 25, 16, Ukrainian political scientist Konstantin Batozsky and Russian economist Vladislav Inozemtsev was discussed. The theme of the debate is “What to do with the Donbass?” Ukrainian television devices differ from numerous similar Russian political talk shows in about the same way as boxing, that is, a real sports competition, differs from wrestling, that is, a staged action. An inexperienced viewer can accept what is happening during wrestling, for a clean coin, for a real competition. Perhaps, part of the audience perceives the “fights” and “evenings” by Solovyov as a place where the competition in argument is going on and the search for truth occurs.

The Friday “Big Counteur” Evgenia Kiselev was distinguished by an extremely good and correct atmosphere in the audience, which is unusual for Russian television channels, where hatred of opponents has recently reaches direct Mordoboy. The second difference is a clear compliance with the rules and the impartiality of the host and arbitrators in the studio. The third difference follows in many ways from the previous ones and is that everyone was really interesting to monitor the arguments of the participants in the discussion, which, incidentally, were well -picked up and each had their own advantages.

Konstantin Batozsky was much better oriented in the situation within Ukraine and in the Donbass, and in addition, he significantly exceeded his opponent in expressiveness and brightness of speech, in its metaphoricality and imagery.

Vladislav Inozemtsev, with his creaky voice and deprived of emotions, lost as a speaker, but clearly exceeded the opponent in general erudition and in the honed logic of arguments.

It was a duel of a cynical and cold reason (foreigners) and a strong patriotic feeling (Batozsky), a scientist’s debate, for whom Ukraine is an object of detached analysis, with a political scientist who is within Ukrainian politics and is a patriot of his country.

Hence the position of Inozemtsev, which for Ukraine is less dangerous to lose the Donbass than to take enormous risks associated with its reintegration. As an example, the economist brought South Korea, whose fate would be sad if she had not fenced off from the DPRK, but at all costs decided to reintegen. Batozsky’s position: rejection of Donbass means political suicide for any politician who will announce this publicly. The cynical logic of Inozemtsev Batozsky opposed the argument addressed to the feelings of Ukrainians. “I am a Ukrainian, I was in war,” said Konstantin Batozsky. And he continued: “If we agree to give the Donbass, it is not clear why we fought?”

If you briefly state the position of Inozemtsev, then it boils down to the fact that Ukraine needs to concentrate forces on economic development and integration into the European economy. And then, after 10 years, the economist assures, the population of Donbass and Crimea will want to return to Ukraine. Batozsky’s position is best illustrated with him with the words: “Our moral advantage is that the truth is on our side!”

By decision of the arbitrators of Inozemtsev, he won three rounds out of five. According to Ukrainian viewers, the advantage of the Russian economist was more noticeable: on the Internet, the score was 85%: 15%in his favor, on telephone calls - 70%: 30%. This result was clearly unexpected for Evgeny Kiselev, which the host could not hide. After the announcement of the vote, the Ukrainian political scientist congratulated Inozemtsev on the victory and shook his hand.

Now, for comparison, how the same topic is discussed on the Russian television channel “Russia 1” in “Sunday evening” with Vladimir Solovyov. The performance begins with Solovyov’s exclamation: “Do not beat Kovtun for anyone!” Everyone laughs cheerfully, including Ukrainian expert Vyacheslav Kovtun, who in the last few days beat on various current shows three times.

Solovyov’s ban affected, and this time they did not beat Kovtun, but he was not easier for him, because all evening he was showered with direct insults. Here are a few examples.

“You, Kovtun, the wandering circus Shapito,” his compatriot Nikolai Levchenko explained to the Ukrainian expert his essence. And in response to Kovtun’s question, why does Levchenko do not return to Ukraine, Levchenko explained: “There are debits like you are chasing me.”

The level of discussion on Russian television channels can be judged by the following fragments:

Soloviev: "Why do you need a visa -free regime (Ukraine)?"

Kovtun: "This is a symbol of rapprochement with Europe"

Levchenko: "You yourself have become a symbol of stupidity!"

Kovtun asks the ex-minister of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine Zakharchenko: “Why didn’t you investigate the facts of corruption in the authorities, in particular in relation to the son of Yanukovych?”

The answer of the ex-minister of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Zakharchenko: “Why didn't you write a statement? We would write, we would investigate. ”

The fact that Vyacheslav Kovtun is not Spinoza is a fact. That is why he is called with such constancy to all Russian political talk shows to represent and defend the official position of Ukraine. Other Ukrainian experts, who are invited to these staged actions, also, as a rule, are little known in their country and are not leaders of public opinion. But even in cases where a person who performs on Russian TV from Ukrainian positions says something reasonable, his words are still met by deafening guessing, as if he had said an unusual stupidity.

Speaking at the current show “Freedom of speech” of the Ukrainian television channel ICTV dated 11/21/16. The Minister of Culture of Ukraine Yevgeny Nishchuk spoke about Ukrainian culture in the Donbass as follows: “The situation that has developed in the east and in the south of Ukraine is the gap of consciousness. Moreover, when we talk so much about genetics in Zaporozhye, in the Donbass, these are the cities imported. There is no genetics there. ” The end of the quote. Further, the Minister of Culture explained that it was the "technology of the Soviet Union" when the "imported cities" were created, because "they were afraid of the Shevchenko spirit."

The Minister of Culture of Ukraine uttered rather stupid words about the fact that there is no genetics in Zaporozhye and Donbass. If you take them literally, then the words are not even stupid, but simply meaningless, since some kind of “genetics” are wherever there are people. It is clear that Evgeny Nishchuk did not mean “genetics”, but a culture and a derivative of it mentality, but could not normally express his thought. With the ministers of culture, this happens, it is enough to listen to our Medinsky. Despite the fact that Nishchuk immediately apologized, the Russian media immediately raised the screech of Nazism and Racism, about the measurements of the skull. At the same time, as usual, they attributed to Poveuk what he did not say for a while, and demanded for him if not a public execution, then a long prison term.

The differences between people and peoples are determined, first of all, not by genetics, but in culture, in the formation of which television plays far from the last role today. Since those cultural norms and values ​​that Russian television carry are increasingly different from the norms and values ​​that Ukrainian television channels carry, both cultures and the mentality of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples diverge farther away. If this goes, it can come when it is also difficult to understand the logic of the Ukrainian behavior, as it is difficult to understand today, for example, a Chinese. And you will need to thank the Russian TV for this.

Jokes from J. and racial theory from Weller

Wrestling is a rather specific spectacle. Pumped men and women, straining the bouts of rabies, rush at each other, falling picturesquely and sweeping each other with objects of furniture and other attributes of the sports arena. All this looks even less realistic than Hollywood fights. Perhaps to someone from among the connoisseurs of bodybuilding bodies gives pleasure to observe these creations of fitness and biological additives in action ...

But those “wrestling shows”, into which the efforts of the Solovyev-Kiselovs turned the political programs of Russian television, are deprived of not only the slightest signs of reason and morality, they are incredibly disgusting purely outwardly, from an aesthetic point of view. It’s right to talk about some new “aesthetics of ugly”, like the one that attracts us in the creations of Bosch ...

Here is an example of such an action in the Sunday evening program with Vladimir Solovyov on 11/27/16. The topic is the death of Fidel Castro. From the first minutes, in the studio, Prokhanov and Zh. screaming for a long time, managing to increase the tonality and volume of the ora for a long time. The throats are puddled, enough for five to seven minutes of continuous scream. You can disassemble separate screams. J.: “Who are you at all? Who can you imagine here? ” Prokhanov: “I am a Russian writer. And who are you? "

After Soloviev manages to calm the screaming old men at the cost of enormous efforts, the word assistant to the President of Gorbachev-Fund Boris Slavin, who begins to carry nonsense on the move. For example, Castro merits that Hemingway settled in Cuba. The fact is that the writer settled in Cuba in 1949 at Ramon Grau, lived there with a batist, and when Castro came to power, Hemingway immediately left.

However, for a long time, Gorbachev was not allowed to carry to the nonsense, since no one in Solovyov wanted anyone to listen to Solovyov. J. immediately called Slavin the “Gorbachev Treasury” and said that “Gorbachev had to lie in the grave.” After this strange statement, J. began to tell jokes. There were two of them. In the first, it was a question of Merkel, whose grandmother, according to the leader of the LDPR, had three toilets, but when the Russians occupied Berlin, she went out in the corridor.

Having told this story, J. sat down a little and laughed deafeningly, making rather unnatural croaking sounds. At first, no one understood that this was laughter, so J. made these sounds alone for a long time. Then, through the croaking, viciously asked why no one was laughing, and only then everyone realized that the joke took place and you could laugh.

For some reason, the second joke was about Obama, who was reported about two news: good and bad, and both of them about Ukraine. For some reason, Obama asked: “And the Maidan?” - "And the Maidan will be with you - cook Alaska!" I must say that from the second time the inhabitants of the studio began to get used to the humor of J. and giggled almost immediately after the narrator did it.

Another star of the Solovievsky “Sunday evening” was the writer Weller, who explained why socialism in Cuba was unsuccessful (as if somewhere he was successful). Attention! Anthropology from the writer Weller: “Latin America is different. Here are hardworking, sorry, white people live in Chile. And in Cuba, there is a mixture of blood: there are Indians, and blacks. Negroes in the conditions of equalizing will not work. ” The end of the quote.

It is necessary to try very hard in order to say so much stupidity and nasty things at the same time in such a small period of time. In addition to the obvious racism, which, despite the crafty “sorry”, anyway, the muck, Weller also spoke a bunch of stupid things, since “under the conditions of the Event” not only blacks, but also representatives of all other races and peoples inhabiting the planet, which history convincingly proved. Popures of this writer can say: “Weller is different. On Echo, he sometimes says quite normal things. And getting into Solovyov’s programs, anyone begins to carry a nonsense. ”

Observing for several years the inhabitants of the studios of Russian television, you can personally trace their moral and intellectual degradation. Until recently, Norkin was not such a boor, Soloviev did not grimace, J. did not tell jokes at the level of the kindergarten. The Russian TV turned into a powerful car to stun, vulneice and render all who inhabit and watches it. Those who are inside are not sorry, this is their choice. Those who, however, are also free to choose.



Photo: Newsone.ua site screenshot