Recently, our television propagandists gathered and celebrated their professional holiday. Which one? It was not immediately clear, but after a brief search, this holiday was defined as World Press Freedom Day, proclaimed in late in the night, recalled 1993, and dedicated to the difficulties of such freedom in Africa.
So there really seems to be some actual parallel.
So, the conversation that Vl. Soloviev, Vitaly Tretyakov, Vl. Kornilov, Nick. Zlobin, Petr Lidov (director of communications of the Rossiya Segodnya MIA), and even Boris Nadezhdin, turned out to be almost a feast. Who were the first journalists in the world? Of course, they named Guy Julius Caesar - for his notes on the Gallic war. Like like Marshal Zhukov. And finally, the apostles who followed Christ and actually reported on all his adventures. Which, as an analogy, in my opinion, is not entirely true. Because the historical apostles clearly did not write down anything, since they were apparently illiterate poor people, as, in fact, Christ himself - for some reason, too, he did not leave anything written behind him (and he could!). But others, anonymous evangelists, yes, they were real reporters, this is true. An analogue with them, it seems, is Andrei Kolesnikov, who almost daily describes the life path of Vladimir Putin.
One way or another, but the topic turned out to be rich. And allowed to discuss the spiritual poverty of the Western press. It is argued that now the formerly prestigious Pulitzer Prizes are now being given for nothing, and this is degradation. Even Trump was indignant , return, grit, them, these bonuses, back. Not to mention those present. The story is that the above-mentioned prize was given to The New York Times reporters for materials about Russian interference in the affairs of other countries, and this is undoubted Russophobia, and here, of course, skeptical questions may arise.
Did they prove such interference? And what is considered “intervention” - didn’t they enter the tanks? How much does such “interference”, as they understood in the West, correlate with freedom of the press in general and freedom of expression, in particular?
On the other hand, the accusations of Russian masters of journalism against the democratic press of the West of Russophobia (“democratic” - in the sense of the Democratic Party, and not the people in general) - are clearly aimed at domestic consumption. Since inside the Russian propaganda system such an “intervention”, in fact, was never refuted by anyone, on the contrary it was presented as valor, as a feat. Like, we turn them, Americans and Europeans, as we want.
Prigogine, whom The New York Times regularly writes about, really exists, and his activity is given to us in sensations. How real is his "troll factory". As the propagandist Vl.Soloviev himself really exists - here he stands in front of everyone - with his virtually daily program.
In other words, the fact that the Russian political class hated Obama to the point of colic and welcomed the election of Trump as president by standing in the Duma and drinking champagne, and trumpeted this in all his state media outlets, is a historical fact. Like the fact that Trump in every possible way defended his “friend Volodya” from his “democrats,” and the “friend Volodya” recently lately called Trump for advice, and they sent planes with anti-virus assistance to each other “from our table to yours”.
Either Russia is going to send a plane to America, or America another plane to Russia, although, it seems, in total this would give zero. It is also probably not accidental that Trump and Putin have jointly and severally dropped out of the pan-European anti-crisis program.
“Notable was missing on the videotone of the United States and Russia. Both countries believe that they can cope with the virus on their own, without international cooperation ”( Euronews ).
Nevertheless, I say sincerely: it is apparently the fault of America, not Russia, that the state mass media of the Kremlin work more purposefully and extensively in the United States - either as bots on social networks, or as the media presence of Simonyan and the agency “ Sputnik ”, rather than the media of the American White House in Russia. Yes, and right, do the USA have such?
However (and, apparently, one will have to agree with Solovyov and the whole honest company), the Kremlin never forced the Americans to somehow vote, as it is beneficial to the Kremlin, and read the Kremlin crap, moreover, believe it more than we believe in it. Americans really do all this themselves, of their own free will. So who do you blame, gentlemen?
And here we come to another important issue.
What is a state-owned media and what is generally considered “smyami”?
Indeed, in theory, such a state media should not be, in any case, as ideological shock groups operating in the interests of a corrupt bureaucracy. In the United States, there are definitely none; basically, the invisible hands of the market operate there. In Russia, state ideology is also prohibited under the old Constitution, although reality does not quite correspond to what is written. For his part, Vl. Solovyov claims that he is an absolutely independent journalist, and that the Kremlin’s foes, the West and Ukraine, are allegedly stigmatized by conviction and commandment of the soul. Although not free.
However, unlike, say, from MBX media, which exist at the expense of the fugitive oligarch M. Khodorkovsky ... (Uss: it is not clear where he ran from? Did he climb over the fence? Actually, he cut off his term in the camp from bell to bell) ... Solovyov pays for himself, and takes the money exclusively from advertising. (Again, it’s silent that TV ads are driving the Kremlin, and Solovyov’s agreement is not with women's pads, but with the Directorate). And who pays, he orders the music. If Soloviev pays for himself, then he is honest. And the criminal Khodorkovsky (about the crimes of Khodorkovsky is somehow not very well-founded) and the criminal Navalny order criminal reports and criminal analytics, that’s the logic, and their journalists are dishonest. Moreover, in this regard, the accusation of following certain "manuals" is the worst.
Maria Zakharova and the problem of training manuals
Although, it is obvious that very often “following the manuals” is sometimes mistakenly understood as sincerely following large paradigms. As, for example, such: “Crimea is ours” or “Crimea is not ours”. Or: "The imperative of limitless freedom" or "The imperative of reasonable patriotic Administration." Many people really believe that Crimea is ours, and there is no alternative to Stalin's planning. Undoubtedly, the aforementioned masters from Soloviev’s studio never followed the manuals, so they obviously didn’t accidentally recall the apostles who were once told: “You will be fishers of men.” That is, they themselves are manuals and catchers of people.
Rather, there is another problem regarding the latter, sometimes they too openly expound the secret views of the elite, which is why they have to be somewhat limited in this activity, just like Nikita Mikhalkov.
But, obviously, somewhere the training manuals nevertheless descend to the rank and file and somewhere the freedom of speech of Russia is put on a solid footing. As recently revealed in the case, the herald of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova.
The story of this story is as follows. Maria Zakharova said something not very correctly. Navalny and his structures clung to incorrectness. And since M. Zakharova is on the front flank of the struggle with the West and the liberals, pro-Western liberal media such as Medusa joyfully joined in the discussion, aiming at Zakharova and, as always, entering Russia. In response, M. Zakharova resolutely raised her glove and agreed to a full-time polemic with Navalny, which, apparently, her superiors did not like too much. The glove was recalled. But how to retreat without losing face?
And then the state mass media jointly issued a clip of publications. In which it was alleged that, having invited Zakharova to meet, Navalny showed cowardice and hypocrisy, and, refusing to meet with Navalny, M. Zakharova showed courage and integrity. In the program for Solovyov, this was expressed by the columnist of the MIA “Russia Today” V. Kornilov, and everything would be very good - no one bothers him to think so, but practically a word for word the same position was for some reason set forth by a completely different person - someone E. Chesnakov in Komsomolskaya Pravda. So I consider the actions of ordinary soldiers of the state media in line with ideological manuals to be proven.