The central Russian media (it would be more correct to call them the Moscow comprador media) is a separate huge topic that claims to be a bestseller. Evgeny Fedorov walked through it thesis. It is also not handy for me to deploy it on a wide canvas (especially since I don’t know so much), but I’ll still undertake to tell you something.
Let's start, of course, with funding. Fedorov is not right about everything when he says that all media are focused on making money and, they say, hence their lack of principle. Yes, this is a beautiful cover for the information poison that they pour out in tons every day: they say, we make money, people eat it and pay it themselves, but bribes are smooth from us. More than once I had to make sure that the moral and the good are in demand by people no less, and people are ready to pay the same money for this. However, the lucrative myth that the dirty attracts more than the clean is imposed on the entire journalistic community and instilled in any newcomer to the profession.
Dirty, mocking, angry, frankly - yes. Pure, light, high - no. One of the favorite phrases of the editors - "little texture" - means that the text contains too much light and "banal" and few "real" dirty facts from life: the texture in their understanding is dirt or outright everyday life (food, clothes, entertainment) … I'm not talking about political publications now, but about everyone else; in the political mud is multiplied by the outspoken preaching of liberal extremism.
So, it has been suggested that the market is focused on chernukha and prostitution. The invisible hand of the market is perceived as an advertiser. The lion's share of the income of any media is the money of the main sponsor (owner) and advertising. The publication does not (!) Depend on the reader. That is, nothing at all. Income from circulations, which, moreover, are officially overstated by 2-3 times from real ones, is a penny. The publisher doesn't really care who reads his edition. Another thing is important for him - to please the owner and adapt to the advertiser. And the advertiser and the owners of shipbuilding plants in Russia are (until recently) (viruses - they say, the Russian Federation is getting out of the control of the "liberal wing" - in fact, "moneybags" are always compradors by definition) exclusively comprador elite. What the elite advertiser says to publish is what they publish. If, of course,the owner does not mind - the same bloke with a hairy paw. Everything is fair, everything is market-oriented.
The next level is the editing and formation of the editorial team, which creates the content of the publication. Many people do not understand how this happens in the absence of censorship, that journalists serve capital and customers, as if they are completely free and protected by law. They cannot be imprisoned for disobedience or kicked out because of the wrong text. Yes, of course, censorship in modern media is outwardly less strict, officially it does not exist at all, but in fact it is a hundred times harsher than in Soviet times (the comparison is not mine, but experienced editors who have seen both systems). Liberal censorship beats with a ruble and an unspoken ban. You may well break it, especially if you already have a status (it is almost impossible for young people). But for the first time they will warn you, after the second they will deprive you of the bonus or the black part of the salary, which, by the way, ranges from 30 to 70%,and if you still do not calm down, then first they block the publication of such materials through a number of mechanisms, and then they will be fired from work for some conditional violation of the contract (of which there are more than enough in stock). Plus, they will put on you the stigma of not shaking hands, and the road will be ordered to you in a "decent edition".
Here it is necessary to stipulate the following point. Unlike, again, the Soviet system, which tried to totally control the entire information field, the liberal system is not total and relies only on control of the central part of the field, the most massive (in fact, the system always strives to control the so-called oppositional-parttiotic spectrum, broken in Central Asia and having their own "rebels" in each direction)). She is not at all opposed to the existence of separate nooks and even quite demanded niches of opposition publications, in which people who do not agree with liberal extremism accumulate. And there is a very tricky calculation in this. Such information ghettos (and they are quite tightly controlled, do not allow them to increase funding, put pressure on the best authors, compromise the publications themselves, etc.)) largely kill the entire potential of dissenting anti-liberal authors and publications.
They kill by making them marginal, useless to anyone. They make fun of them, display them in a caricature. If some of their representatives are given admission to a large audience, then it is necessary in the form of a sort of spit-splashing Anpilov. What, of course, kill any interest in anti-liberal ideas on the part of the bulk of sober people. Marginalization is generally a very terrible condition for creative artisans. Lots of people go crazy. I speak firsthand, several times I had a chance to observe this with my own eyes and again I never wanted not only to work in an opposition publication, but also to rotate in this get-together. A professional marginal patriot is no better than a professional liberal.
Thus, those who 1) sincerely believe in liberalism and are its conductors with varying degrees of dedication remain in the editorial office of the Moscow comprador mass media; 2) wants to make money and is indifferent to the product he publishes (opportunistic careerists); 3) wants to make money and does it with clenched teeth and despite his own aversion to the ugliness that goes out under his name. The third category is the most vague and most incomprehensible, since it is very difficult to know how sincerely a person serves the liberal propaganda machine. Such people have to disguise themselves seriously and thoroughly, imitating liberal journalists down to their habits and interests ("house doctor", Gelman, the TV channel rain, etc.). In addition, some of them sooner or later do not stand up, break down and leave. Most drink too much (drunkenness, by the way,the most common phenomenon in this environment).
Promotional video:
Returning to advertisers, let's remember the ratings. Media ratings are just as ephemeral and deceitful as financial ratings. For example, in television, they are measured by Gallup polls and special transmitters that are installed in Moscow apartments for a ridiculous remuneration to the owners, who, in turn, together with channel switching, must manually (!) Press the remote control of this transmitter so that this channel is recorded in ratings. The transmitters are so few and so complex to use that their data can be safely ignored. Gallup polls are conducted during the daytime as a typical poll by telephone: he himself repeatedly answered and said a lot of nonsense. That is, again, faith in this data - 0.1%. However, it is from them that PR managers and advertisers build solid schedules,develop tireless activities in the style of Soviet institutions from the novel by Ilf and Petrov and saw huge amounts of money. Only on the basis of this disinformation alone. Obviously, all this is just a decoration designed to hide the true mechanism of information selection and its presentation in the media.
And the selection is made at the level of consciousness of a young journalist who has just begun parasitic labor. Not directly, but quite obviously, he is given to know that it is necessary to work according to the patterns of liberal journalism: that is, to scold a lot of people, try to talk about what you don’t know, to write easily and with banter, to be creative, to bore some generalizations, to engage all topics at once and - most importantly! - is constantly in hectic movement in search of a sensation. (viral - today the will of the State Department is carried out mainly not by scolding Rashek, but by praising "Russia unlike the West" in every possible way) Yasen Zasursky to his pupils (as well as many editors of publications) constantly repeated one phrase: the journalist is fed by his feet. Not a head, not a heart, not a feather, but legs. It is not surprising that from the earliest writing age, the impudentcheeky, quick, punchy and thinking in the right party way. It soon turns out that even legs are not needed if you only know how to think liberally and even a little creatively. The true servants of the System - Parfyonov, Venediktov, Kashin - are chosen as icons and role models for young journalists. Thus, they make it clear: be a handshake, and you will at least have a chance to break into people. However, there are many who wish, and there are few correct connections even among the handshake. And only the elite or the most capable go to Kommersant. Kashin. Thus, they make it clear: be a handshake, and you will at least have a chance to break into people. However, there are many who wish, and there are few correct connections even among the handshake. And only the elite or the most capable go to Kommersant. Kashin. Thus, they make it clear: be a handshake, and you will at least have a chance to break into people. However, there are many who wish, and there are few correct connections even among the handshake. And only the elite or the most capable go to Kommersant.
The financial dependence on the Western liberal-fascist System in the Moscow media can be seen not so much by real facts (there were always few of them), but by the content itself. The editors have never hidden and constantly emphasize at every planning meeting that one should learn from the Western media. Look how it was done there, learn how he writes, compare your photo and theirs - this is the master class of our editors. Kashin is for the local level. And if we are talking about world gurus, then this is necessarily the New York Times, BBC, etc. Before journalists directly, bluntly, they point to the Western media as an example and beat you in the hands if you try to do something of your own. But the journalists have even disaccustomed to trying. 99% of our media are tracing copies from Western publications, only of much lower quality, nothing more.
But there were also examples of open financial dependence of the Moscow media on the West. For example, the Russian Newsvik magazine did not hide the fact that it is, as they would say now, a foreign agent of the West, as it belonged to the world publishing house AxelSpringer. Its chief editor was Parfyonov, then Fishman, who had previously been a political editor. I can argue with anyone that not only a non-handshake person, but not every handshake person, could not become a political editor, and even more so a chief editor in such a publication. Selection there, mom, do not cry. And the political texts published by Newsweek were far beyond even liberal propaganda. The magazine was closed, but such magazines and publications are in the majority on the political spectrum - take a look at the counter. And if you are a journalistif you want to earn decent money and not be a marginal, then you have no way out.