Press - under pressure!

Among the main culprits of the tragedy in the "Winter Cherry" named journalists

And again wonderful news is heard from the building in Okhotny Ryad - the deputies of the State Duma have once again become preoccupied with the state of domestic journalism.

All previously accumulated experience suggested that the Kemerovo tragedy would inevitably give rise to a mass of legislative assumptions of varying degrees of harmlessness and feasibility. And that, of course, the exacting gaze of the legislator will first of all fall on the press.

Actually, there are people in the Duma who specialize in such a case. And now one of these, United Russia deputy Yevgeny Fedorov, immediately stated that the tragedy in Kemerovo "showed the existence of problems not only in matters of technical and fire safety, but also in the area of ​​responsibility of journalists and bloggers." At the same time, Fedorov, as expected, used the formula “dance on the bones”, which his like-minded people, who strictly guard the people's morality, always pronounce when something happens that caused human casualties and questions that are inconvenient for the authorities about these victims.

In each of these cases, they leave all the problems related to “technical and fire safety” for later, take them out of the brackets, but immediately raise the “sphere of responsibility” of journalists and bloggers to an unattainable height.

At the same time, shaky and arbitrarily interpreted concepts are used - moral foundations, folk traditions. This is a technique that has already been worked out to automatism, which has long been mastered by hordes of liars and demagogues. As an all-Russian celebrity, the Kemerovo vice-governor Tsivilev, casually accusing the father of the children who died in the "Winter Cherry" in an attempt at self-promotion, and then picturesquely knelt down in front of people with the words: "It is in our traditions to keep silent and forgive EACH OTHER."

And he did not say at the same time whom and for what he was going to forgive - he.

In an environment of habitual and well-deserved distrust of everything that the government says and does, it turned out to be quite natural that rumors and “eyewitness testimonies” were born, including about the number of deaths during the Kemerovo fire. Some of them were, unfortunately, replicated in some media and the Internet. And, of course, it is necessary to make sure that journalists make mistakes as rarely as possible (for which, by the way, it would be good to make it easier for them to access sources and newsmakers, and not fence themselves off from them with an increasingly impenetrable cordon of press secretaries and National Guardsmen). But even more, you will agree, it is important that those who express the official point of view and are obliged to give accurate information tell less lies, no less than a newspaper reporter. If we talk only about numbers, then this also applies to the number of hostages in the Beslan school, and the number of dead fighters of the "Wagner group" in Syria, and much, much more.

And, of course, I would welcome the deputies of the State Duma to focus their attention on this, since they are so worried about errors in reports from the scene.

But in order to prevent this from happening in the future, the deputies, according to Fedorov, plan to "strictly regulate the standards for presenting information in large-scale emergencies." And the bill “for inappropriate behavior” of journalists, which is already being prepared, proposes to deprive the media of a license.

And this is not enough!

Fedorov believes that "the existing code of professional ethics for journalists needs to be updated," and reports that the draft law, which is already being prepared, "proposes the adoption of an all-Russian code of media ethics." Some journalists have forgotten about professional ethics in the modern world, Fedorov is sure. “Many did it not out of malice. On the Internet, in a panic or for the sake of hype, false information is spread, including the media. But here it is simply unacceptable,” the parliamentarian specified.

Let's make an amendment to the fact that Fedorov is widely known as a person who is fond of. But still.

Neither Fedorov nor his colleagues should bother to develop any "codes" of professional ethics in any sphere of human activity, with a single exception. I am talking about ethical norms that should be observed by the respected parliamentarians themselves, and the most recent example here is the story of deputy Slutsky, which dishonored not only himself, but also too many who spoke out on this issue. This is where deputy Fedorov and his colleagues have the broadest prospects for all sorts of regulations and restrictions. But none of them, according to my observations, has so far risen above the proposals to ban journalists from appearing in the Duma building in frivolous, in the opinion of the deputies, outfits. Which can shake the unshakable moral foundations of even deputy Slutsky.

I was among those who, in the immemorial 1994, developed and adopted the "Code of Professional Ethics for a Russian Journalist", the recognition and adherence to which seems to be a statutory duty of every member of the Union of Journalists. And no one else. Yes, it may be objected that this code is violated right and left, but care about this is in no way included in the circle of concerns of either deputy Fedorov, or his faction, or the parliament as a whole. And if the deputies are so worried about the observance by journalists of their own obligations, then I will give you one hint. Already many years ago, thanks mainly to Mikhail Fedotov, the so-called “Public Collegium for Press Complaints” was created, to which public organizations and even parties of all colors of the political spectrum delegated their representatives. The board adopted dozens of decisions on a variety of media conflicts. And you know, the lion's share of whose violations was recorded by the board? Alas, the state media and especially the federal TV channels.

And not once have these decisions of the board been supported by those who, according to them, are so concerned about the state of the moral level of the Russian press.

Because they only want to determine what is ethical and what is not.