Press in the era of repression

Journalist Ilya Klishin and the editor -in -chief of The Insider Roman Dobrokhotov: Is independent journalism possible in Russia?

• Journalism in Russia has undergone cruel tests: the state killed an independent media business, actually introduced censorship and filled the channels of information with propaganda.
• The pressure on owners and advertisers, the blocking of Roskomnadzor and the suppression of independent media are the realities of the current Russian media business.
• High -quality and independent media is one of the most important institutions of modern society.
• Rumors about the death of Russian journalism are greatly exaggerated: in the new network reality, new media formats arise, not controlled by the state.

Sergey Medvedev: “The life of a simple journalist is difficult and non -casist,” as we said at the journalism faculty many years ago. And in fact, the fate of independent journalism in Putin’s Russia is unenviable, and the fact that she is Putin’s, after yesterday’s announcements about the reckless of the presidential terms, there is no longer any doubt. Over the past 20 years, the state has in every possible way pressed independent journalism, and this industry has undergone very tough tests. An independent media business was actually killed, foreign financing sources were expelled, censorship was introduced and state propaganda was planted. Is a journalist possible in today's Russia as a search for truth, as an attempt to convey it? Is it possible in general in the era of post -truths?

Video version of the program

Correspondent: Today is the profession of a journalist, and all the media business in Russia is in a crisis. The state has managed to crush the Russian media business over the past two decades, creating huge information agencies, pocket media with a bloated state and huge financing from the state budget, actually influencing the content of materials. Private media under pressure from the state, again, are resold the pro -Kremlin businessmen, which, in fact, also means regulation by the state through the owner. The amendments adopted in 2014 to restrict the share of foreign capital in the Russian media were very much hit by the profitable publications that had a solid reputation at that time.

High -quality and independent media is one of the most important institutions of modern society. In words, many politicians declare the need for investigations, they talk about the transparency of the authorities, but in reality they slowly destroy this institution. The pressure on owners, advertisers, blocking Roskomnadzor and the suppression of independent media are the realities of the current Russian media business.

Sergey Medvedev: We are discussing these problems with guests - this is a journalist, media consultant Ilya Klishin , and the editor -in -chief of The Insider Roman Dobrokhotov .

The fate of independent journalism in Putin's Russia is unenviable

Is journalism possible as a business model in modern Russia? Is it possible to make a media project quite successful without sponsorship, without state support?

Ilya Klishin: I go a lot around the country and communicate with students of local journalisms who are far from our capital's worries. I spend the same training in the form of a game - how to build my media. There is a stereotype that some hellish millions are needed to create its media. And if you are just a student of the journalism factory from Khanty-Mansiysk, Vladivostok or Stavropol, then you must either go to the local VGTRK, or go to Moscow and settled down on "Russia Today", or nothing. The guys come up with very interesting projects. For example, they came up with "urban media in Syktyvkar." It really earned on VKontakte or through podcast. The guys create their YouTube channel using the phone.

An interesting point in the question about a business model: now there is this niche, in a sense, the projection of the old Soviet Samizdat. Somehow, the “bony hand of the regime” has not reached out to her yet, and there you can self-sufficient. Three to five years ago, it would sound wild: "Where are you working?" - "In YouTube Alexei Pivovarov" (two of my friends work there: editor and manager), or "I work in the studio of podcasts with Lika Kremer." And it seems that they don’t touch it yet.

Sergey Medvedev: Roman, and if you take big media? I, say, are very interested in the last scandal with Medusa : a rather respected media unexpectedly publishes such obvious plums, thereby raising traffic. Is there any business motivation? Whatever the media, no matter what sources of financing use, should they chase click?

Roman Dobrokhotov: Here you just need to divide all the media into two different waves. If we are talking, for example, about the field of investigative journalism in the context of the Medusa text, then back in 2013, when The Insider began, all the conversations were that there would be no investigative journalism, because all these large medias closed their investigative departments, reduced financing, because it is very difficult to pay off such expensive areas of journalism. Those who were engaged in investigations in Russia are just large publications: "Vedomosti", "Forbes", "Kommersant" and so on. And suddenly exactly this moment caused the heyday of journalistic media.

It's just that these are completely different media - a new wave media. The first here, probably, just “The Insider” arose, but then a huge number of others appeared: this is the Bell project and a certain separate small edition of Khodorkovsky. Actually, Medusa is somewhere in the middle between large and small publications, but this is also a new wave publication, where a new generation of journalists already works. In a sense, this is also a media made on the knee, although a little more professional journalists, but still these are relatively young people who are just learning to be journalists. There is simply a growth disease.

It is clear that we all have a problem in order to hone the standards of the investigation and understand what is possible, what is impossible, when to publish. And just a scandal with Medusa shows that we still came to the time of responsible journalism: look at the reaction to this text! I'm not sure that if such a text came out ten years ago, it would have caused such a reaction: I think it would be more or less swallowed. And now we see a total reaction of rejection of this level of standards: “No, guys, first check and explain to us what happened there and then publish. Do not publish something that will then be investigated by law enforcement agencies. These are not the standards of investigative journalism.” Everyone said this-both readers and media, not afraid to quarrel with other liberal media, that is, still professional standards have become the most important thing.

Sergey Medvedev: The Institute of Reputation has grown. In the case of Medusa, this is important enough: for quite some time she kept a certain very good line.

Ilya Klishin: In Russia and in the world, traffic is more less than traffic. The media business monetization scheme is what is called media advertising. We went to the Medusa sites, RBC, anything, and there is a banner of some brand that has a lot of money on top. Now most Russian media traffic is 100%undergoing. And this media advertising is becoming cheaper and cheaper, so it goes into subscription, in donations. The traffic continues to chase inertia, because it is considered cool.

70% of the Medusa traffic give games and tests (15% accounts for news and socio-political content). And on this they collect millions of views.

Sergey Medvedev: At the same time, people go to socio-political materials.

Roman Dobrokhotov: But this is not necessarily for everyone.

Sergey Medvedev: Is it possible to sell high -quality content in the world in general? Does it work, say, the New York Times?

Roman Dobrokhotov: We are now witnesses of historical events in the media business, since not only how the content is formed and delivered, but the financial model is completely changed, and how the money comes to these publications. This is exactly the same evolves, because still the division of the media into more niche, first of all, in the subject of sections, and, say, an excellent example of such a Russian media is a “mediazon” , which now collects more on crowdfunding than the entire budget of “The Insider”.

Ilya Klishin: Almost two million rubles a month.

Roman Dobrokhotov: This is only a subscription. At the same time, they have no cats, very few entertaining content. This is purely about social significance. In a strange way, the more social significance, the more money is given. And it turns out that suddenly another motivation arises - to prove their social significance. This is a very good incentive. And we at The Insider are also very happy with these trends, because we already have more than half of the traffic - these are large investigations. And we understand that our audience is just what is coming from us.

Now there is a very interesting discussion around the Air Force - about whether it is necessary or not to pay this tax. The new government wants to abandon it, the debate is coming. In my opinion, we must just recognize that the social significance in media is about the same as social utility, say, in the construction of bridges or roads. There is nothing shameful in the fact that through budget, tax money we finance this social significance, controlling this not with the help of the state, officials, but with the help of society, some public council. In the case of the Air Force, it just works fine! And this is also one of the models specifically for large corporations that are difficult to exist simply on crowdfunding.

Ilya Klishin

Ilya Klishin: People never invest in media only with the aim of making money. There are many other areas of business where you can earn more. Yes, there are examples when media go into a good plus, but in most cases either minus, or it is people who buy their reputation influence. The ideal history of media business now, when the media work to zero, that is, they feed themselves. "Navar" is intangible. Suppose the largest news site in Ryazan or the largest publication in Russia about a healthy lifestyle earn half a million rubles a month, and for them this is normal. But the same "BuzzFeed" , the flagship of new journalism, has not even reached zero, it is in a deep minus.

Sergey Medvedev: That is, for the oligarchs, this is always, one way or another, image investments: either to force the state, or to maintain an image.

Roman Dobrokhotov: This is a big problem, because if we understand that this is not a business for them, then what is it? So, after all, this is not only journalism. Why on earth suddenly, say, the "The Insider" publication will be pleasant to some oligarch? The question will immediately arise: he gets something from this, or is they not writing about him for it?

Sergey Medvedev: This is Russian logic. By world standards, a person creates a public good. Why, say, a person finances the park?

Roman Dobrokhotov: But, there is a very large incentive for corruption.

Sergey Medvedev: To influence.

Roman Dobrokhotov: The only model in which we do not see a big problem is if these are not just readers, but a large audience in which there are a lot of different groups of interests. Ideally, these are taxpayers, that is, everyone we have. And then we can do what even most of our readers will not like.

Republican type of thinking: the media as a republic, as a common good, which awardly sponsored the whole society

Sergey Medvedev: This is such a republican type of thinking: the media as a republic, as a common good that sponsored the whole society.

Sergey Medvedev: And what do the media sell - facts, opinions, truth, entertainment?

Ilya Klishin: The core of any successful product sells emotion. Suppose the Magazine "Poster", which appeared in 1999, sold the emotion that guys, let's stop drinking tea in our kitchen and begin, like in the West, to drink cappuccino in coffee houses. Here is emotion: we are also part of the Western world!

Sergey Medvedev: But emotion still carries some kind of bytes of meaning. What are these facts? Roman, does it “The Insider” sells emotion?

Roman Dobrokhotov: Emotion is rather an instrument, and the task is completely different. We conduct this conversation at a very important moment for the country, when the final usurpation of power Putin occurs. We see how the legislative power is a tool for usurpation, and the judiciary, apparently, will also turn out to be such a tool. There are only two organized forces that can try to somehow resist this: activists and journalists. And they turn out to be such a common niche that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish one from the other. Say, Alexei Navalny, who began as a pure activist, is now making journalistic investigations sometimes better than large media. And Ilya Azar, who began as a pure journalist, is now holding a series of single pickets much more actively than many activists. And if we have any hope to return to the legal state, then it is connected with the fact that these two organized forces will somehow help society accumulate this energy and direct this machine in the opposite direction.

"The Insider" also sees the task of its texts just to maximize social significance. Our task is to determine what exactly we must convey to our reader and in general for the country, in order to give people some power, to make them in a sense more powerful with this information. After all, information, especially in the 21st century, is also power. How is Putin control? He simply deprives people of information, providing it with short parts in the form in which he wants. Accordingly, we as journalists and as activists who have a similar task try to resist this, providing more objective and accurate information.

Sergey Medvedev: A few years ago there was such a well -known meeting of Alexei Volina with students of the journalism factory, and from there went the meme to “work for uncle”: whoever you are, wherever you work, you will still work for uncle. Ilya, does the young generation have such cynicism?

Ilya Klishin: Perhaps the opposite. When I spend media seminars, we usually create four to five training publications. Of these, one or two is sharply independent, opposition local authorities, with elements of investigation. Hot disputes flare up, other guys say: "How will you do it?" - "On your money, for crowdfunding." There are moods "no matter what happened," but there is a group of such radicals who say that they will reveal the inconvenient truth.

The guys come up with projects at the junction of activism and media. For example, they say: "We will do media about the wooden architecture of the Russian North, we will repulse large businesses and local authorities, which are burned at night to build on this place." These are desperate guys! After all, journalists who challenge developers are most often found with broken heads and burned cars. The guys say: "We are not waiting for either grants or large investors." They believe in their own strengths.

Sergey Medvedev: It is obvious that we live in the space of a total straightforward justice. How much should a journalist move a sense of straightforward justice?

Roman Dobrokhotov

Roman Dobrokhotov: The main question for us is not even a search for justice. If we are talking about the truth, the fact, if we strive for this, then this is the incentive that can allow us to protect ourselves from engagement and the problem of turning media into political players.

Sergey Medvedev: Still, in the world of post-truths, postfact is a desire for a fact.

The word to the chief editor "Mediazons" to Sergey Smirnov .

Sergey Smirnov: Journalism in Russia is, first of all, journalists themselves, and not brands, specific journalists who make small brands. Some, unfortunately, have left journalism, but journalism itself exists.

The fact is that instead of journalism, other formats appear. For example, Alexei Navalny has never been a journalist, but, of course, he does what journalists in classic media should do. If there were normal media, he would probably not have been involved in such investigations. And Dudia films are also partially journalism. In this regard, everything is fine with journalism itself, just classic forms of journalism under the blow. In this sense, it is especially difficult for those who have a large audience, because all the media either bought some kind of oligarchs, or blows are struck on them. Foreign media is constantly under threat, if not locks, then different sanctions.

I think classic media with the news will not go anywhere. If some are crushed, people will try to make others.

Sergey Medvedev: The phenomenon of Dudia and the phenomenon of Navalny - will this continue to grow: such media created around a large personality?

Ilya Klishin: Apparently, yes. In the past five to ten years, the situation in large media resembled a children's game, where chairs are set around, children run and in each round they remove one chair. In each round you have minus one media. There were "rain", "Medusa", Air Force, RBC, "Kommersant": OP! - "Kommersant" did not, - OP! - RBC was gone. There are very few options. And at some point you suddenly think: "And I can generally create my own media consulting agency and sell my media manager's skill to other people."

Роман Доброхотов: Просто прийти со своим стулом.

Илья Клишин: И вот эта история немножко обнадеживает. Ведь Дудь и Навальный – это такие мегапримеры. Но сейчас самая богатая девочка в YouTube, ей четыре года, и она просто записывает себя – в прошлом году она заработала 15 миллионов долларов. Сейчас любой человек берет телефон и начинает записывать себя в инстаграме, YouTube, и если он делает это интересно, то может обеспечить себе пропитание. Ему не нужен ни Сечин, ни Усманов, ни какие-то однокурсники или спаринг-партнеры Путина. Он берет и начинает это делать.

Да, мы все, люди в медиа, внутри РФ все равно живем в некоторой тревожности, депрессии, подавленности, состоянии экзистенциальной тревоги. Мы живем и не понимаем: могут они завтра начать новый 37-й год, арестовать пять тысяч журналистов или заблокировать их банковские счета, как они сделали с активистами Навального?

Сергей Медведев: Эрдоган же делает такие вещи.

Смерти журналистики нет. В этой игре в стульчик мы начали собирать какие-то свои табуретки из веток, палок и подручных материалов

Илья Клишин: Да, не в духе Сталина, а что-нибудь а-ля Эрдоган. Другие члены НАТО, честно говоря, утерлись и ничего особенно не сделали. А если они ничего не сделали с Турцией, что они сделают с Россией?! Смерти журналистики нет. В этой игре в стульчик мы начали собирать какие-то свои табуретки из веток, палок и подручных материалов. У всех получается в разной степени – кто-то Дудь, кто-то поменьше, а кто-то в Сыктывкаре делает паблик "ВКонтакте". Но самое ужасное в этой ситуации – то, что мы действительно не до конца можем прогнозировать. Завтра утром могут постучать в двери и свезти всех на стадион в "Лужники" в духе Пиночета. Я надеюсь, что этого не произойдет, но никто из нас не может гарантировать, что так не случится.

Роман Доброхотов: Но у этого же есть обратная сторона: все, что пока еще нас не убивает, делает нас сильнее.

Илья Клишин: Но мы должны быть все время собраны.

Роман Доброхотов: Мы уже очень собраны. Когда в 2013 году формировался "The Insider", все эти тенденции уже были. Мы уже знали, что наша бухгалтерия будет за пределами России, что у нас не будет офиса, а люди будут работать с лэптопами, кто где, чтобы нельзя было прийти в одно место и забрать эти лэптопы, что у нас будет заранее подготовлена защита от DD-атак. У нас уже был набор защиты, которого нет у многих западных СМИ.

Мы изначально так выстраивали финансовую стратегию, чтобы она была не под инвестора, а подразумевала бы много разных источников, чтобы не было одного коммерческого вентиля, который можно было бы прикрутить. И это не только мы, а все новые медиа: они возникают уже в супертоксичной среде, и за счет этого они более устойчивы. Это просто закон эволюции.

Илья Клишин: Это как цветок, который пробивается через асфальт.

Роман Доброхотов: Но цветок – это какая-то одна штука, которую можно задавить, а тут новая экосистема.

Илья Клишин: Такая постапокалиптическая грибница. Ее может уничтожить только бульдозер.

Сергей Медведев: Или ковровая бомбардировка.

Илья Клишин: Но не точечные иезуитские репрессии, как сейчас. Вот если решат проводить массовые репрессии, тогда наступит временная смерть журналистики. Но все равно люди вернутся к анекдотам, частушкам, какому-то самиздату.

Роман Доброхотов: Наступит ли эта смерть? Мы сейчас активно к этому готовимся. У нас уже часть журналистов работает за границей. Мы уже активно думаем о том, как можно все-таки пробиваться в нынешнюю эпоху цензурирования интернета. Сейчас, например, появляются сервисы, которые позволяют даже в условиях блокировки получать доступ к ресурсу без VPN. У Навального есть определенные ресурсы, которые хостятся на Google: для того чтобы запретить этот ресурс, нужно запретить весь Google.

Государство встанет перед вопросом: не просто арестовать журналистов, но и закрыть, например, весь интернет. Конечно, теоретически можно превратить Россию в Северную Корею, но это тяжелый выбор. Власти придется либо выбирать совсем Туркменистан и Северную Корею, либо иметь дело с журналистами, которые будут в какой-то мере доносить эту информацию. Здесь невозможна промежуточная ситуация.

Сергей Медведев: Да, новая сетевая журналистика сможет заместить большие структурированные СМИ прошлой эпохи, которые мы унаследовали из ХХ века, – тот же "Коммерсантъ", "Ведомости", РБК. Видимо, будет нарастать вал репрессий, касающихся, в том числе, СМИ. Значит ли это, что фактически вся общественно-политическая журналистика может уйти в подпол, в сеть?

Илья Клишин: Я думаю, не вся. Эта грибница будет развиваться, укрепляться. Этот недоступный никому в силу финансовой независимости слой окрепнет, сформирует новую модель потребления информации. И когда мы окажемся в прекрасной России будущего, какие-то из этих проектов "выстрелят" в бизнесовом плане, но это уже будут новые модели потребления. Сейчас ребята, сидящие где-нибудь в Рязани или Пензе, делают что-то силами 50 тысяч человек с бюджетом 50 тысяч рублей. А когда их перестанут давить, если это гениальные ребята, то в каком-нибудь 2040 году они сделают какой-нибудь русский Нетфликс. Они придумают доставку новостей, и мы перестанем вообще делить медиапространство на газеты, сервисы с сериалами или паблики "ВКонтакте" и сервисы в YouTube. Это будет вообще другая медийная реальность.

Роман Доброхотов: Я думаю, что само противопоставление малых медиа и больших форматов не совсем корректно, поскольку одно не может заместить другого. У них совершенно разные достоинства и недостатки. Новая среда намного круче, поскольку она может гораздо лучше трагетироваться на какие-то группы, быть очень пластичной, мгновенно реагировать. Но у больших корпораций типа РБК, "Ведомости", "Коммерсанта" были свои потрясающие преимущества, которых мы сейчас лишены. Это, прежде всего, их гигантская экспертиза: у них на каждый чих есть свой классный журналист-эксперт, у которого 20 классных комментаторов на мобильной связи. Вот такой профессиональной журналистики мы сейчас, к сожалению, лишены, и я боюсь, что пока Путин у власти, она к нам не вернется.

Сергей Медведев: Итак, слухи о смерти журналистики оказались преувеличены! Существует огромная сетевая реальность, во многом неподконтрольная государству, в которой продолжается поиск то, ради чего, собственного, все это и существует, – правды.