Russia is split in half: the number of people who trust television and the Internet has become equal

Russia is split in half: the number of people who trust television and the Internet has become equal

5 October , 17:08Society
At the same time the citizens of the country trust the army and the president more than television, the media and social networks.

As you know, a study by the sociological center of Yuri Levada showed that already only less than half of Russian citizens - 48% - trust television as a source of information about events in the country and in the world. Since 2009, this figure has almost halved - then there were as many as 79% who trusted! But the trust in social networks and websites on the Internet has increased more than fourfold from 11% to 47%. In addition, 10% of Russians trust friends, relatives and neighbors, almost the same number of newspapers, magazines, radio and telegram channels, and 16% of our compatriots do not trust anyone at all. But with all this, still 69% learn about events in the world and the country from the TV.

Experts commented on the results of the study to Radio Liberty. So the deputy director Levada Center Denis Volkov noted that b olshe just enjoy TV and trust him 70% of the elderly, but rapidly growing internet, and this is primarily due to the youngest, of which only 25% trust television. True, in general, trust in information sources is not absolute; people believe that the truth is not being told anywhere anyway. It is curious that the army in Russia is trusted more than television - 60%, and the president - about 60%, that is, he has already lost his former leadership, and mainly after the pension reform. They trust the courts, the State Duma, banks, trade unions and big business less than television and the media. They hardly trust political parties.

The expert noted that people are now divided according to the principle of TV and the Internet, especially in the past two years.

The first place in popularity among all citizens is occupied by Belarus, and then the picture starts to differ. Internet users then go to Khabarovsk, Navalny's poisoning, and only then the coronavirus. And TV fans - first the coronavirus and the vaccine against it, then Khabarovsk, and there is no Navalny at all. There is only one agenda on television, an official one, largely set by the authorities, and the Internet is more of a personal interest, this is what people could find, perhaps even first hearing about it on TV.

“It is as if there are two different Russia: one is a young, Internet Russia, and the other is television, of an older generation. These are two completely different agendas, two different ideas about what is happening in the country, which is important. Those who are on the Internet, who not only watch TV, but also read blogs, today have a more critical attitude towards the authorities than the older generation and the TV audience ... But these two Russia more and more diverge from each other, they are less and less at each other similar..."

Media analyst Vasily Gatov confirmed the trend towards a decrease in the influence of television and an increase in the influence of social networks and Internet publications:

“The fact that the Russian state manages to completely control the media agenda in the mainstream media and poorly manages to control the same agenda on the Internet is also a trend that we have been observing since the beginning of the 2000s. And despite the creation of a specialized body, Roskomnadzor, which literally has the authority to censor the Internet, we see that topics that are unpleasant and uncomfortable for the Kremlin continue to find their way to consumers.

The fact is that television reached 100% coverage of the population back in the early 2000s, and it simply has nowhere to go further, it cannot compensate for the decline in trust or interest in itself by objective growth of the audience. And the Internet as a whole continues to grow, including at the expense of those who previously exclusively consumed television. It is obvious that the attitude towards him is deteriorating, also because people do not see enough diversity, what is called pluralism of opinions, an alternative agenda that they can easily find, even turning to the controlled Russian Internet. Accordingly, the decline in interest, attention and trust in television is objective.

Television reached its peak at the end of Putin's second term, somewhere in 2007-2008, when a model was finally formed in which, on the one hand, the Kremlin exercises media control, and on the other, it does not explicitly prohibit the presence of any then alternative sources of information, including on television, and this multichannel and mainly cable or digital television is available to the majority of significant groups from the point of view of public opinion. It is no coincidence that the Levada Center shows a close to 100% level of trust in 2009, which is determined by the fact that at that moment the level of the Kremlin's interference in the television agenda was not as high as it became later. And on the other hand, then television is already genre, in terms of the composition of channels, presenters, authorities, and so on, it has fully formed in order to get a sufficiently high trust rating from its audience, which begins to fall as people mainly see news from the screen of most channels. about Putin.

W hen we wonder whether a good TV news, we can not consider the content of which is evident in the majority of cases is manageable, or limits dictated from a single source - in fact from the study Alexei Gromov. And that makes them bad news, because it is no longer news of interest to the citizens of Russia, but news of interest to the Kremlin, which seeks to keep citizens in the dark about many things that would be useful for them to know. In this sense, no matter how glossy they are, this is very bad news, very poor quality of journalism, more precisely, it is simply not journalism, but is the sounding of press releases and propaganda materials. We see that Russian TV channels, even leading ones, can very poorly cover crises and critical situations, as well as the discussion taking place in society, because they are waiting for a command from the Kremlin: is it possible to do this and how to do it, what can be said, and what it is impossible.

As for the Internet and social networks, this medium continues to grow in terms of coverage: anyway, every year a certain group of the population becomes a member of social networks, a group begins to use computers or mobile phones in the news viewing mode, and accordingly, in addition to the fact that the number of people using the Internet is just growing, there is an interest in the alternative agenda presented on the Internet ...

Finally, psychologist Boris Novobozhkin commented on the situation as follows :

It is not surprising that trust in Internet sources is growing: the Internet is developing, technically becoming more and more accessible. The age factor also plays a role here: the old leave, the young come. Now they are small children, and those with tablets. This is not something that a person sits and thinks: who should I trust more, television or the Internet - it's just that people began to spend more time on the Internet.

If we talk about this in the spirit of some stupefaction, then it is clear: the more a particular source of information is monopolized, the less they trust it. And monopolization occurs due to the concentration of finances. In this sense, the Internet is a much freer and more competitive space than newspapers, magazines, and even more so television. Everyone can start a blog, and if it is interesting, they will read it; making your own website is not a big problem either. But in order to publish your own newspaper, let alone create your own radio or television channel, you need huge financial resources.

The first places of the army and the president, indicate that people trust in power and centralization. In Russia, there is a patriarchal society, not accustomed to either democracy or liberalism. The psychological reasons are very simple. The situation of multi-vector, different opinions is a situation of uncertainty, always associated with fear for a person. Why are all these conspiracy theories so popular now? A person wants to believe that there is someone who controls all this. And to imagine that some processes are going on by themselves, without any control, this is such a finger pointing at the sky, and this is very scary. Russian society is quite infantile. People want them to have some kind of "dad", even if not kind, but evil, but he, at least, understands what and how it works, and in extreme cases can protect. In authoritarian and totalitarian states, violence against the people is understood in a special way. Is that why Stalinism was so popular? "Yes, he puts someone in prison, but I am good, I am with him, and for this he will protect me, he is strong." Putin also demonstrates strength, looks in the eyes of the people as strong, capable of protecting. Erich Fromm has a book Escape from Freedom. Freedom, uncertainty, personal responsibility - this is all very scary, and a patriarchal, infantile society runs away from freedom.

“The tsar is good, the boyars are bad” - this has always been the case in Russia. You have to choose parties and deputies, and this is difficult. At the same time, it is clear that all the negativity that occurs cannot be correlated with the "dad", and, accordingly, is projected there. Probably, not all deputies are so bad, but one of the protective mechanisms of the human psyche is generalization, and this is how such a generalized image of good is strong, and bad is weak, because the strong can protect, and the weak cannot. Therefore, I will attach myself to the strong and, in retrospect, see the good in him.

In order for an infantile person to trust or not trust someone, he always needs a “dad” or “mom” who will say: this one can be trusted, but this one cannot. But "dad" and "mom" will always say only one thing: you can only trust us. And such a person has a tendency - to choose a certain authority, an opinion leader, a certain “dad”, and then trust him, regardless of what he says, even monstrous things. If some stormy events take place, and there is no such obvious "dad", then conspiracy theories begins, and a similar image is invented: there is someone who controls everything. And in this situation, people begin to simply fail, invent some secret forces, a behind-the-scenes world government.

Here, by the way, the problem of the Internet also arises, because there is a lot of different information, and which one to trust? People thought that the Internet would provide an opportunity to get a certain reliable picture, but faced with the fact that it is up to them to decide anyway..."

Found a typo in the text? Select it and press ctrl + enter