Who exercises oversight of the media. Why is the media called the fourth estate in society? Media as a manipulator of human consciousness

The provisions of Art. 16 of the Law on Mass Media, which regulates the procedure for terminating the activities of mass media, provides that the grounds for the termination of the activities of a mass media by a court are repeated violations by the edition of the requirements of Article 4 of this Law within twelve months, about which the registering authority issued written warnings to the founder and (or) the editorial office ( editor-in-chief), as well as failure to comply with a court order to suspend the activities of the media.

These violations must be committed within twelve months preceding the appeal to the court (paragraph 35 in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation of June 15, 2010 N 16 "On the practice of application by the courts of the Law of the Russian Federation" On the Mass Media ").

Of particular interest is the issue of determining the legal nature of the institution of warning issued by the registering authority - Roskomnadzor. In the same Plenum No. 16, in paragraph 27, the Supreme Court indicated that warnings issued by a public authority or an official contain an imperative expression of will, which generates legal consequences for the founder (co-founders) of the mass media and (or) its editorial office (editor-in-chief) , cases on challenging such warnings are subject to consideration in the manner prescribed by Chapters 23 and 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation (at the moment, in the manner prescribed by the CAS RF).

This clause appeared due to the fact that for a long time Roskomnadzor adhered to the position that a warning does not create any consequences for the media, negative consequences occur only after a second warning is issued, and if the media does not agree with the warnings, then it can raise its objections within the framework of the case on the termination of the activities of the media.

But the Supreme Court did not agree with this approach, giving the media the opportunity to challenge the warning with an independent claim, but the Supreme Court did not clarify what exactly is a warning, punishment or preventive measure.

Recognizing the warning as a measure of responsibility, you can refer to Art. 3.4. Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, which says that a warning is a measure of administrative punishment, expressed in the official censure of an individual or legal entity. The warning is issued in writing. Given that the Law on Mass Media also contains a number of provisions of an administrative-legal nature, it can be argued that a warning is a measure of responsibility.

In addition, if you look at what a typical Roskomnadzor warning looks like, for example, a warning issued to the Znak agency (https://rkn.gov.ru/docs/preduprezhdenie12102015.pdf), you can see that Roskomandzor practically asserts in such a document that that the editorial board has committed a crime under Art. 329 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (it is curious that the Supreme Court in the Resolution of the Plenum No. 16 noted that since justice in a criminal case in the Russian Federation is carried out only by the court (part 1 of Article 8 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), the question of whether there was information for the commission of criminal offenses should be decided taking into account a final sentence or other judgment in a criminal case, but in this case Roskomnadzor found corpus delicti without any verdict), therefore it is difficult to imagine that after such statements such a warning can be called a preventive measure. This is a full-fledged measure of responsibility. A preventive measure in administrative legal relations is an oral remark, which is provided for in Art. 2.9 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.

At the same time, if the warning is recognized as a measure of responsibility, then the media can use Art. 57 of the Law on Mass Media, establishing reasonable and objective grounds for exempting the editorial board from liability. So the editorial office is not responsible for the dissemination of information that constitutes an abuse of freedom of the media and (or) the rights of a journalist:

1. if they are received from news agencies;
2. if they are contained in response to a request for information or in the materials of the press services of state bodies, organizations, institutions, enterprises, bodies public associations;
3. if they are a verbatim reproduction of fragments of speeches of people's deputies at congresses and sessions of Soviets of People's Deputies, delegates to congresses, conferences, plenary sessions of public associations, as well as official speeches of officials of state bodies, organizations and public associations;
4. if they are contained in works of authorship broadcasted without prior recording, or in texts that are not subject to editing in accordance with this Law;
5. if they are verbatim reproduction of messages and materials or their fragments distributed by another mass media

However, Roskomnadzor believes that the warning is a preventive measure, respectively, the media, disputing the warning, cannot refer to Art. 57 of the Law on Mass Media.

At the same time, the courts support the position of Roskomnadzor, although it is not entirely appropriate to use the word courts here, rather it is the Tagansky District Court of Moscow represented by judges Podmarkova and Smolina, which considers claims against Roskomnadzor. It is curious that Roskomnadzor in the Tagansky court did not lose a single trial.

Nevertheless, we have what we have, there is not much material, but it is very indicative (I apologize for, perhaps, an unnecessary overview of the essence of the matter, but without them the picture is not so interesting).

Delo Grani.Ru and Media Consult

In this case, the media disputed the warning issued by Roskomnadzor for disseminating information on the Echo of Moscow radio channel in the “With My Own Eyes” program justifying the practice of committing war crimes. In this regard, the controversial program was broadcast live, it was the author's, and in accordance with paragraph 5 of Art. 57 of the Law "On the Mass Media", the editors are not responsible for the dissemination of information contained in works of authorship that are broadcast without prior recording, the editors asked to declare the warning of Roskomnadzor illegal. The court refused to the Editorial Board, stating that the issued warning informs about the inadmissibility of the actions taken and the need to eliminate the consequences of violations and, accordingly, is a preventive and suppressive measure.

It's mine! Online ("MY! Direct line!")

The editorial board was warned for posting on the Internet on the website of the electronic periodical “MOE! Online ("MY! Direct line), in the section" News in Russia and the world "of the material" Dill in hysterics! At the Okean Elzy concert in Minsk, Ukrainian symbols were banned, equating it to the fascist! " be held liable by Roskomnadzor, since the material was posted on the website of the editorial board by a third party (part 5 of article 57 of the Law on Mass Media), without the consent of the editorial board, the applicant asks to declare it illegal and cancel the Warning.

The court refused to satisfy the claims, indicating that the warning issued informs about the inadmissibility of the actions committed and the need to eliminate the consequences of violations and, accordingly, is a preventive and suppressive measure, a measure to prevent the commission of a wrongful act in the future. By its legal nature, such a warning does not coincide with a warning as an appropriate type of punishment.

Radio Record Case (2-3709 / 2015)

On June 24, 2015, Roskomnadzor issued a written warning regarding the inadmissibility of violating the legislation of the Russian Federation with reference to Art. 4, 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation of December 27, 1991 No. 2124-1 "On the Mass Media". Issuing a warning Roskomnadzor saw propaganda of pornography on the air of the radio channel.

The editors pointed out that since the program was broadcast live, by virtue of Part 5 of Art. 57 of the Law on Mass Media, which provides for the release of the Editorial Board from liability for copyright programs broadcast without prior recording, a warning cannot be issued.

The Tagansky court did not agree with this position, indicating that the warning issued informs about the inadmissibility of the actions taken and the need to eliminate the consequences of violations and, accordingly, is a preventive and splashing measure, a measure to prevent the commission of a wrongful act in the future. By its legal nature, such a warning does not coincide with a warning as an appropriate type of punishment.

Although it should be noted that a spoonful of honey was also found in this barrel of ointment, in one of the cases examined by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ruled unlawful the warning of Roskomnadzor, since when it was issued, Roskomnadzor did not draw up a memorandum. This procedure, the RF Armed Forces noted, as well as its violations, although they are definitely of a formal nature, however, are aimed at ensuring a uniform production of verification measures, the same approach of the body exercising control (supervision) to all media without exception in order to minimize the occurrence of the latter reasons to consider the attitude of the state control body to be biased and biased, and the results obtained during the inspections are unreliable (Definition of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 03.19.2014 N 5-APG13-57).

This rare approach is simply a revolution against clichéd arguments like "the right decision cannot be reversed on formal grounds."

These examples are quite enough to make an unambiguous conclusion that today a dominant position has been formed that defines prevention as a preventive measure.

Meanwhile, even if such logic is adopted, ignoring the provisions of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, then an absurd situation will turn out, Roskomanadzor takes preventive measures in relation to those offenses for which the editorial office could not and should not be responsible if it was brought administratively liable and imposed an indisputable punishment. , for example, in the form of a fine.

A warning is issued for abuse of freedom of the media (Art. 4 of the Law on the Media), while Art. 13.15 Administrative Code is provided administrative responsibility for abuse of freedom of the media.

So if a guest of the program, who is not a staff member of the program, on the air, in an offensive form, speaks of the day military glory, then the edition, taking into account the provisions of Art. 57 of the Law on Mass Media, will not be responsible for the actions of this guest and for his statements, but the editorial board, following the position of Roskomnadzor, may be issued a warning so that it does not allow such violations. In my opinion, this situation looks like, at least, it is impossible to prevent something for which you cannot in principle be responsible.

Therefore, there are no legal and elementary logical grounds to consider the written warning of Roskomnazor as a preventive measure, this warning is a full-fledged measure of responsibility that should be applied taking into account the provisions of Art. 57 of the Law on Mass Media.

In addition, the recently adopted Federal Law of 23.06.2016 N 182-FZ "On the Basics of the System for the Prevention of Offenses in the Russian Federation", which establishes the legal and organizational foundations of the system for the prevention of offenses, in Art. 17 indicates that preventive action can take the following forms:
1) legal education and legal information; 2) preventive conversation; 3) the announcement of an official warning (warning) about the inadmissibility of actions that create conditions for the commission of offenses, or the inadmissibility of the continuation of antisocial behavior; 4) preventive accounting; 5) introduction of a submission to eliminate the causes and conditions conducive to the commission of an offense; 6) preventive supervision; 7) social adaptation; 8) resocialization; 9) social rehabilitation; 10) assistance to persons who have suffered from offenses or are at risk of becoming such.

As you can see, a written warning among such measures is not, therefore, this is another argument in favor of the fact that a written warning from Roskomnazor is a full-fledged measure of responsibility.

Fred Smith born August 11, 1944 in Marx, a suburb of Memphis, Mississippi. Fred's father died when the boy was four years old. Fred Smith's father was like Horatio Alger in that he made a fortune by hard work, had a unique gift and fortitude. He was the founder of the Dixie Greyhound bus lines and a restaurant chain called Toddle House (Home for Tramps). Fred Smith knew that at 21 he would inherit millions, but money never hindered his pursuit of personal success.

Fred Smith suffered from a congenital disease called Calv-Pertis disease. This disease constrained the movement of his hips. He was forced to wear braces and walk on crutches for most of his youth. His mother, with the utmost delicacy, protected him from feelings of inferiority. She fostered in him a sense of self-esteem, constantly conducted therapy and encouraged him to play sports. therefore Fred Smithavoided the psychological trauma that such a disease can cause in childhood. He played football and basketball in prep school and was voted "Best in All Subjects" at University School of Memphis. During these years, Fred Smith was fond of the history of the Civil War and his heroes were the great military generals and leaders of the South. This early infatuation strongly resembles that of Ted Turner, who at the same time was growing up at a private academy in Tennessee.

One of the biggest, lifelong influences on Fred Smith was a letter written by his father shortly before his death. In this letter, the father expressed a wish that Fred Smith sent his fortune to work, and did not become one of the idle rich. Following his father's advice, Fred Smith turned his money into seed money and continued to take risks in the future. The first messengers of his future super-achievements appeared at an early age. At the age of fifteen, he learned to fly an airplane and his hobby began to pollinate crops from an airplane. At the age of sixteen, he and two schoolmates organized a recording studio "Ardent Record Company", which is still working. The business was profitable, and during this period the studio released many hits, including "Big Satin Mom" \u200b\u200band "House of Rock". These early tests of their strengths in business are common to all innovators studied in this paper. In their youth, each of them had hard work or successful business.

Fred Smith left the studio to attend Yale. Here he became known as a sociable guy. He delivered many of them on his twin-engined plane to women's colleges located in the district. Fred Smith could lead a "wealthy student" lifestyle. However, his charisma and passion for work manifested itself in his youth. He worked as a disc jockey at local events, helped organize the Yale Flying Club, and became a member of the prestigious Secret Honor Society known as the Skull and Bones.

Business and personal survival

In 1966 Fred Smith graduated from the university and, having received a degree in economics, immediately enlisted in the Naval Forces. He served two mandatory terms as a reconnaissance pilot, during which he flew two hundred missions, leading a flight team. David Silver, who interviewed him for Millionaire Entrepreneurs, concluded that it was the war years that sparked Smith's extraordinary drive for innovation. "Experience in Vietnam taught Smith how to cope with losses and overcome despair." The Vietnam school helped him drive out most of the ghosts of the past and fostered a spirit of risk in him.

Federal Express owes its existence only to Smith's tenacity and charisma. He spent years researching the market and invested $ 150,000. in professional research - in order to convince the financial community that its idea has good potential. Fred Smith has spent years convincing aspiring businessmen to get involved in a 24/7 delivery project. Herculean efforts to overcome technical, administrative and financial difficulties are unimaginable. This is evidenced by the following figures.

Federal Express connects its customers with suppliers through 395 aircraft, 29,000 platforms and transporters, 25,000 shipping and receiving points. Every day she fulfills 297,000 orders, accompanied by an enormous amount of negotiations with buyers, suppliers and carriers. This system deals daily with more than a million contractors in 119 countries.

Such a large-scale enterprise was to be taken over by the well-financed major airlines, leading cargo companies or the United States Postal Service. Major airlines were strategically positioned to embody a new marketable service, but fearful of the risk of financial loss. They received good income from air cargo transportation, because they controlled the transport (aircraft) through which the delivery was carried out. Emery, Airborn and Flying Tiger, the main shipping firms, should have taken an interest in the idea of \u200b\u200b24/7 delivery. Yet they were too afraid of the unknown, and Fred Smith put his entire fortune on this idea. He also risked his reputation. He spoke about the terrible upheavals of these years in 1976, in Memphis:

No one on earth knows what I went through that year (1973), and I am happy that I myself vaguely remember the details you are asking me about. As for the wound that this year inflicted on me, I can say that I was under tremendous pressure, various events were constantly happening, I traveled a lot, held a huge number of meetings with bankers - investors, representatives of General Dynamics, many different peoplewho came to Memphis, and that I can't even remember the details of a single event that happened during that period, besides, at that time I was absorbed in organizing the company (Saigafus, 1983).

Fred Smith is a true adventurer who survived thanks to his magnetic charm and charisma. His extraordinary style of action is confirmed by an incident that occurred at the dawn of his career, when he paid off creditors with money won at Black Jack. It was one of those dark days in the early 1970s when Fred fought for a cash injection from any source. Jessica Switch of NBC News reported the story on July 19, 1973, after meeting him at the airport. He said he had just been turned down by General Dynamics and was depressed. He looked at the plane going to Memphis and then at the plane going to Las Vegas and suddenly jumped on a flight to Las Vegas. According to Savage, Smith said:

I was in Chicago when I was once again denied the source of funds I had hoped for. I went to the airport to return to Memphis and saw a flight to Las Vegas on the schedule. I won $ 27,000 starting with a couple hundred and sent that money to Memphis. The amount of $ 27,000 did not solve anything, but it was an omen that things would go better (Saigafus, 1983).

Fred Smith was a gambler, whether he played tennis, drove the Federal Express, or flew an airplane. Once, on one of the first flights between Memphis and Little Rock, Fred had to make an emergency landing in a jet plane. It could have ended tragically, but the accident did not discourage him from flying. Fred's employees regarded him as their idol, as is evident from press reviews and stories from Federal Express drivers. Jay Conger researched charisma as a character trait and chose Fred Smith as his main subject. scientific work "Charismatic leader".

In February 1989, the Bizneswik newspaper published an article containing a quote from Federal Express director Roger Frock about Fred Smith's leadership ability: "We need his charisma, his leadership." Other employees described Smith as the main inspirer who treats his employees with feeling. He was almost like a father to his people. One example of his loyal, patronizing, almost Japanese attitude towards employees is the fact that Federal Express has not had a single case of dismissal in twenty years of work. This success was largely determined by Fred's corporate philosophy, whose motto was: "People - Service - Benefit." It is no coincidence that "people" are in the first place - this is the credo of charismatic leaders.

Characterization of personal behavior

Fred Smith loves privacy and reading. He reads philosophical, political, economic works for four hours a day. Fred Smith is energized from the outside, and therefore belongs to the extraverted type on the Meyer-Brigg personality scale. He strongly believes in the power of intuition. This philosophy can be clearly seen in his interview with Ink magazine: "If you want to create something innovative, you must use intuitive judgment" and "when talking about large-scale innovation, you must rely more on your foresight, your intuition."

Fred Smith is a rational or “thinking” type of decision-maker and prefers a planned, organized life. In other words, he prefers a rational and structured or closed approach to business. According to the Meyer-Brigg Personality Identifier, Fred Smith is ENMO. Thanks to the intuitive thinking and temperament of Prometheus, he sees the opening opportunities and does not miss the opportunity. His mind is more concerned with the future than the past, and the qualitative side of life as opposed to the quantitative one. Fred Smith has a scholastic, macro-perspective-oriented mindset and uses right-sided thinking in planning. This characterization is supported by the description of Smith by Robert Seigaphuss (1983):

Fred Smith is endowed with flair, strong intellectual curiosity, leadership abilities, and seemingly limitless energy. Fred Smith may not have had the great dream that he carried through Yale, Vietnam, Little Rock to Memphis ... Fred Smith aspired to power and achievement, like any great corporate leader. And he saw himself at the forefront of new high technologies ... Fred Smith has earned a reputation for being able to work tirelessly, a determined leader who knows what he wants and is ready to pay for his dream, regardless of the price.

Risk appetite

Fred Smith is a passionate gambler. He risked his entire fortune for the implementation of a hitherto unheard-of idea, when everyone argued that it was stupid and he went crazy. Fred Smith did not listen to anyone even later, when the long-term struggle for the Federal Express was barely over and in the 80s he started a risky game again. The Federal Express eventually became a powerful organization and gave no cause for concern for its well-being. But Fred Smith did not calm down. He conceived another major innovation - Zap-Mail - which cost the Federal $ 350 million in the mid-1980s. Then, in 1989, Fred Smith shook the world again with a $ 880 million acquisition. airline "Flying Tiger", which had a debt of $ 1.4 billion.

The pioneering and entrepreneurial talent of Fred Smith is undeniable, but as he himself notes, the price paid for the exorbitant risk and tremendous innovative success was very high. In an interview with Ink magazine in October 1986, he said: “If you want to build a large and successfully operating organization, you personally must be willing to pay a hefty price. But more importantly, you will pay the price over and over again on the road to success - that is, you better stock up on will. "

Fred Smith's resourceful and restless mind led him to acquire Flying Tiger Airlines in the late 1980s. This was perhaps his biggest risk. Fred Smith believed that this latest innovation would make Federal Express the world's largest shipping company, which meant it was a legitimate risk. On February 13, 1989, Bizneswik described his latest acquisition as "the biggest scam." Wall Street skeptics had a busy day as the $ 880 million deal capped the Federal Express's $ 1.4 billion debt. Industry analysts have wondered about the sanity of Fred Smith, who risked everything he had for a new, difficult and controversial endeavor.

One of the arguments to which they appealed was that Tiger International was a highly structured traditional organization, while the Federal Express, thanks to Fred Smith, still had an entrepreneurial spirit. They said the Federal's entrepreneurial spirit and “freedom” atmosphere were in complete conflict with Tiger's conservative adapter staff. They argued that the merger would not be able to work because of the differences in the mentality of the staff and the working style of the two firms. Most of his opponents said that he "hung the Tiger around his neck." But Fred Smith firmly believed that the international lines that Tiger had built over the past forty years would help Federal Express become the largest trucking company in the world. Smith kind of went back in time when everyone said he was crazy. This global innovation will bear fruit sometime by the end of the millennium.

Characteristic success

Fred Smith's personality and charisma are fundamental to the success of Federal Express. Seigaphus, in Absolutely Positive 24/7, used the phrase "Fred Smith's Federal Express" when describing Fred Smith's role in Federal Express. In his understanding, the founder, the leader and the organization became "one whole". This is not surprising, because all great world leaders are usually identified with their empires built on personal charisma. Napoleon, Hitler and Gandhi embodied their countries. The charismatic style of leadership turns into the creation of empires that are a semblance of a leader's personality and its sublimation. Saigafus has devoted an entire chapter to describing this process as applied to the Federal Express:

Fred Smith is the only, most recent example of the reincarnation of the "King in Two Persons" characteristic of ancient cultures. Fred Smith was both a man and a company at the same time, like the ancient European kings, who were both individuals and officialdom (power), just people and at the same time a country.

The Federal Express ranks among the largest high-risk capital investments in American business history, making it an entrepreneurial phenomenon. In December 1979, Fortune named it "one of the ten greatest business triumphs of the seventies."

Dunn's named it among the five companies that showed the most effective management in 1981. Federal Express has been named one of the "Top 100 American Companies of 1985." In 1990 she won the prestigious Malcolm Baldridge Product Quality Award. Federal Express received this award as the first company in the service sector.

Fred Smith's 24/7 Freight Delivery Service has changed the way we do business around the world. Its impact on the business world is comparable to the impact of Ted Turner's innovation on the world of communications. The expansion of the European Common Market has opened up many business opportunities that were previously isolated due to the costs required to enter the market. New businesses can now operate in remote areas, free from the need to invest in countless warehouses and inventory. It was not possible just a few years ago. These pervasive changes and new opportunities came only through new thinking spawned by Fred Smith's “totally positive 24/7” that swept the world. These new global changes and opportunities have undoubtedly changed the business world and the balance of power in the global economic space. Charismatic leader Fred Smith became key figure in these global changes. He will remain in history as the person who improved the world of business.

Based on the book "13 Men Who Changed the World" by Gene Landrum

Post navigation

Chapter 13.11 "Mass Communication" from the 5th volume of the "National Idea of \u200b\u200bRussia".

In Russia, there is a situation where, in the absence of a clearly fixed framework for freedom of speech and mass information related to the need for education, protection of morality, mental health and psychological state of the population, including minors, as well as in the absence of a mechanism to protect these rights and proper control over On the part of society and the state, the activities of the media, publishing houses, persons who post mass information on the Internet, as well as information provided by them, do not meet the interests of preserving and strengthening the viability of the country. Moreover, there is an abuse of the freedom assigned to these subjects, both in the form of a violation of laws and due to the simple use of gaps in Russian legislation. The danger lies in the fact that the formation of mass consciousness and opinion becomes exclusively the prerogative of the mass media. In fact, they exercise control over the spiritual and intellectual life of society. At the same time, the state voluntarily removes itself from the formation of information policy, from the protection of the highest values \u200b\u200bof the Russian state in terms of ensuring human morality and health. Thus, it is necessary to impose restrictions on freedom of the media in order to protect the morality, mental health and psychological state of the population.

The state should take responsibility for this area and carry out the function of censoring information that has such a harmful effect.

In this regard, a clearer norm of the Constitution of the Russian Federation is needed, indicating the possibility and even the obligation of the introduction of appropriate restrictions by federal law.

It should be noted that 70% of Russians surveyed (according to a 2009 VTsIOM poll) support the idea of \u200b\u200bmoral censorship in the media. In 2009, the absolute majority (89%) also admitted that programs are being broadcast that are harmful or immoral.

It is proposed to create a special body that carries out the appropriate expertise and has the authority to protect consumers of media products, the Internet and publishing activities under the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media - the Commission for the Protection of Public Morality.

Along with self-regulatory organizations, it is advisable to create independent public associations (including youth organizations, etc.) that will be able to exercise independent control and send appropriate appeals and proposals to government bodies authorities.

All of us are not satisfied with the informational chaos of the media. Everyone understands that sowing what is sensible, good and eternal is not at all the priority of the day. Moreover, all this nonsense seems to be of no interest to the media.
"Freedom of speech" turned into freedom from morality and responsibility ...
We somehow do not realize that the modern media are fundamentally different from the Soviet ones: if in the USSR they served the official ideology and, at the very least, the interests of society, today these are primarily business structures, the main goal of which is to make a profit. At any cost ... Only business, nothing personal ...
Only in the light of this can one understand the pronounced antisocial color of our TV and all our other media: Russian TV is a place where daddies attach their girls (with their specific subculture), who have almost completely replaced professionals, and therefore about professionalism, art and others It is difficult to say atavisms here ... And the place where they make money on advertising and serving the interests of those who paid ...
We bring to your attention investigation by journalist Denis Tukmakov

The current status of the Russian media as a host to influential "sugar daddies", like many other features of modern Russia, is due to the dramatic events of the late 80s - early 90s of the XX century. Without a brief analysis of what happened then to the domestic mass media, we will not understand their current state.
At the end of the USSR, the domestic press was an amazing phenomenon. With incredible popularity among the Soviet people thirsting for change (the circulation of "Arguments and Facts" amounted to an unthinkable 33 million copies in 1990!), It was the media that were the sledgehammer that the authorities hammered into the bonds of their own state: from its "outdated" ideals to its "criminal" stories.
Influential media - take at least the Ogonyok magazine, even the Moskovskiye Novosti newspaper, even the Vzglyad TV show - received their editor-in-chief directly from the hands of the "architect of perestroika" Politburo member Alexander Yakovlev and, at the same time, not hesitating to offend benefactors, sprang from everyone with inspiration. weapons by party and country. This was called "glasnost"; it was then that the destructive fervor that has not dried up today was embedded in the "liberation" media.
In return, the authorities paid their accusers with tender love. In the perestroika USSR, the editorial boards of publications received complete independence from the organizations that once established them. At the same time, total freedom of speech was declared. The fear of being known as a retrograde among officials was so great that it was worth the publication to cry out: “Censorship is back! The reaction raises its head! " - and it immediately got rid of any outside interference.
In the end, the USSR collapsed - and with it flew to hell and the welfare of the overwhelming number of citizens. And a new amazing thing happened. People stopped subscribing to the press. First, the money was gone: there would have been something to buy bread, what kind of newspapers were there. Secondly, the desire to read the "scribblers" who had promised the people of gold mountains five years earlier has disappeared, as soon as the "evil empire" falls.

SOLD FOR LOVE

To the surprise of other scribblers, the new economic realities had to deal not only with the people, but also with the journalistic workshop itself. In addition to a sharp drop in circulation and the demise of the institution of subscription, the editorial offices were faced with a wild rise in prices for paper, rental of premises, transportation needs and similar "prose of life." A year after its "golden age", the Russian media found themselves literally on the brink of survival.
It was then that “young russian business"- the emerging oligarchy. Having offered their services to the “lucky ones” from among the media, the suddenly enriched “new masters of life” pursued purely practical interests. The fact is that they themselves and their deeds were so unpopular among the people that they absolutely could not do without a well-organized PR. The population was required to explain that everything that happens in the country is done for the collective benefit and with common consent. Who could cope with this better than “unique creative teams” from liberal TV channels and newspapers?
TV channels formed the basis of the emerging information holdings. Rather quickly saturated with advertising, they could quickly recoup the costs of new owners. But what is much more important: in comparison with other media, the "zomboy" in the 90s was still that attractive source of information, which the people completely trusted. Lined with new technologies, TV, like the Internet later, created a narcotic effect for the dumbfounded population and for a long time was a "magic box" near which it was so pleasant to while away the evening after a lousy day.
Of course, the media might not be sold to the moneybags, trying to survive on their own. But why such feats, if the liberal press fully shared the ideological attitudes of its new masters? As for the then power, here too an understanding of the ongoing process was revealed: it was not for Zyuganov that the media fed by the oligarchs were going to agitate. The authorities dismissed almost the entire state press - in full accordance with the then prevailing directive "As little state as possible!"
This is how the first private media empires appeared in Russia. Among them, the two most powerful players stood out - the information structures of "LogoVAZ" Boris Berezovsky and the holding "Media-Most" of Vladimir Gusinsky. Against their background, other "market participants" - Yuri Luzhkov's media group and AFK Sistema, the ProfMedia group subordinate to Potanin's Interros and the structure of Gazprom-Media - looked more modest, but also showed a general tendency in the development of the domestic press.

"GOSE" "BEREZA" IS NOT A COMMAND?

Often hostile to each other, with different stylistics and principles of work, all these media empires were united by the main property. Through its own media, large oligarchic business, in the broadest sense of the word, ruled the country. The propaganda tools of these media empires were directed at two objects of influence at once - the government and the population.
In the first case, the press allowed its owners to feel confident in big politics. In the second case, the press carried out multi-layered "PR support" of the activities and aspirations of its owners - as it happened, for example, throughout the entire second term of the presidency of the deeply ailing Yeltsin, which proceeded under the banner of loans-for-shares auctions and economic default. That was the time when the main principles of today's liberal journalism were fully formed: "Propaganda instead of truth" and "Big money always wins."
Outwardly, Berezovsky's media empire (main assets: TV channels ORT and TV-6, print media Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Novye Izvestia and Ogonyok, radio station Nashe Radio) and Gusinsky (main assets: TV channels NTV and TNT, newspaper Today ”, magazines“ Itogi ”and“ 7 days ”, radio station“ Echo of Moscow ”) were as if created for mutual enmity. Possessing approximately equal informational potential, their owners, as it was believed, professed fundamentally different approaches to their media. Anyway, they behaved like spiders in a bank, trying to devour each other.
It was argued that for Berezovsky, his scattered information assets, like his business as a whole, were just a means for political survival and promotion to the very top of the “family” hierarchy. Gusinsky, on the contrary, allegedly put at the forefront the achievement of profit of his media empire, concentrated in a single holding, and considered any political multiple moves only from the point of view of the business interests of Media-Most.
It was even said that, in defiance of Berezovsky, who was “loyal” to the Family, Gusinsky was deliberately playing the card of “opposition to the regime,” which could also be very profitable. For example, the unequivocal support of the "Ichkerian rebels" in the First Chechen war on the part of NTV, some analysts prosaically explained the large volumes of payments from Maskhadov and Basayev, which went through Most-Bank.
However, for many years, billions of completely state money passed through the same bank, and the NTV channel used the state satellite for broadcasting, and even at preferential rates, so there was no need to seriously talk about any real opposition to the "Goose" empire.

SCARY FAR FROM THE PEOPLE

And yet the main thing was that the “pro-government” empire of Berezovsky, the “opposition” holding of Gusinsky, and any of the other media groups, such as Potanin's media or the regionalist structure of the Moscow mayor Luzhkov, had no substantive reasons for enmity throughout the 90s. ... All of them constituted a completely homogeneous environment of the ruling class, which was a link between power and capital - that is, what is called the capacious word "oligarchy".
National interests were not taken into account, the state fell into desolation, power was divided between the "Semibankirshchina" and regional barons. Whichever channel you turned on, you could find only one "grin of radical liberalism" everywhere. The “Berezovskaya” program “Vremya” is no worse than the “Gusin’s” program “Itogi” was engaged in what the people already called “chernukha”.
In the 90s of the last century, the same methods of suppressing will and destruction of consciousness were used against the people, which are usually recommended for use on enemy territory for the final pacification of the enslaved population. Well, the "free press", which in the 90s completely fell under the "owners of factories, newspapers, ships", surprisingly easily allowed them to fish in troubled waters.
It seemed that this would go on forever - until Vladimir Putin appeared on the horizon of Russian politics ...
Since the coming to power of Vladimir Putin, a new page has opened in the history of the press in Russia, and with it the Russian media empires. In the 2000s, the latter actually lost their "imperial" essence, which consists in indisputable sovereignty, complete independence from everything external. The former "states within a state", capable of dictating the will of the Kremlin in the 90s and waging information war against their own country, became impossible. And first of all, the two main information bosses of the Yeltsin era - Boris Berezovsky and Vladimir Gusinsky - were out of work.
Berezovsky, who only in 1999 bought the Kommersant newspaper for no account, sold his 49% stake in the main diamond of his media crown, the ORT TV channel, in September 2000, and emigrated from Russia a month later. His second television channel, TV-6, bought by him in June 1999, was closed by a court decision in January 2002.
Gusinsky's favorite brainchild, NTV, suffered a similar fate. After the brief arrest of the oligarch in June 2000 on suspicion of embezzlement and fraud, the TV channel existed in the same format only until the fall, when, in the course of the "dispute between economic entities", the assets of Media-Most began to pass into the hands of Gazprom-Media one by one. ...

"THREE PARTS" MEDIA TWO-THOUSAND

The loss of the influence of the once powerful inform-clans has its own explanation, and it does not boil down to some personal forms of hatred on the part of the country's new leadership, as some commentators like to prove. Throughout the 2000s, the domestic press existed in the conditions of action three new factors that predetermined their fate and the entire current configuration of the media in Russia.
Factor 1... The Russian state, “thinned out” in the 90s and approached the fatal line at the turn of the century, beyond which physical decay and death loomed, in the face of the Kremlin, finally realized that it had no opportunity to further abandon its role in the fate of the country.
With the arrival of Putin in the presidential office, a "reconquista" began, in which the state gradually returned to all spheres of our life - including, of course, the media. As a rule, this happened very unobtrusively: here and there the state just started real management of those assets that it already formally had. However, the matter was almost exclusively limited to television: the state was clearly reluctant to enter other media.
Factor 2... In the early 2000s, after amendments to the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, the domestic press was deprived of its last economic indulgences in the form of various benefits and subsidies. The wild situation, when the anti-state TV channel NTV wipes the country, broadcasting at preferential rates via a state satellite, became impossible due to purely "monetization" reasons: it became necessary to pay for everything.
Of course, the Kremlin did not buy newspaper after newspaper - it was replaced by new entrepreneurial structures that replaced the oligarchs of the 90s. The main thing is that the rules of the game have fundamentally changed: not so much between the authorities and the mass media, but between the authorities and the new owners of these media in the face of big business. The latter very quickly explained to his newly acquired media that you should not throw stones while living in a glass house, and that every time you need to, as they say, follow the language and not confuse the coast. Many saw this as a new strategy of "soft influence" of the state on the press through its new owners, in which the most rabid media simply hung a beautiful collar around their necks, but were not at all prohibited from barking.
There were, however, and atypical cases of complete informational isolation. These include, for example, the Ekho Moskvy radio station, which in the early 2000s became part of Gazprom's media structures. Even then, many saw the meaning of the "Echomoskovsk" existence primarily in showing the world: complete order with freedom of speech in Russia. And this irrefutable argument still works properly.
And finally, factor 3. In the past decade, fundamentally new, in comparison with newspapers and TV, technical means of transmitting information have rapidly developed - first of all, the Internet with its blogosphere. They not only reformatted the Russian media sphere, but also largely changed the very concept of the media as an “elite publication”. Today, any advanced blogger can inform readers about important or unimportant aspects of our beautiful reality - “unique creative teams” are not very needed for this. Alas, they themselves realized this almost the last.

CHANGE OF WORLD VIEW

The Internet, as a hard-to-censor information environment, has made a “reassessment of values” within the media world in terms of the financial and organizational costs of media projects and the risks associated with them. In the 2000s, opposition sites of all kinds, above all liberal, began to grow in Runet like mushrooms after rain. It seemed to them much more interesting to rent hosting in Germany and communicate within the editorial office via Skype, rather than sort out relations with some printing house that unexpectedly refused to print them, or a distribution service that stopped taking on their media for sale.
Ultimately, this led to the emergence of new, this time "virtual" media empires, in which large Russian capital increasingly prefers to invest. Of course, they do not have the colossal influence that television had in the early 90s; on the other hand, the rapid development of the opposition network press under Putin completely disavowed accusations of "totalitarianism" that were now and then heard against the highest Russian authorities.
One of the active players in the Russian media market in the 2000s was the metallurgical king Alisher Usmanov - today the richest man in Russia, according to forbes versions... Usmanov laid the foundation for his media structure in August 2006, having bought the Kommersant publishing house from Berezovsky. A little later, he bought the 7TV and Muz-TV TV channels, and then a step into the virtual space followed: since 2008, Usmanov has been a member of the Mail.ru Group capital (Mail.ru mail server, Odnoklassniki social network, ICQ messenger, etc.).
Things were going well for the "old" players - for example, the recent oligarch, and in the 2000s, simply the "big businessman" Vladimir Potanin and his media holding "ProfMedia". Having owned the Expert magazine until 2004, and until 2007 - Komsomolskaya Pravda, this holding bought the Izvestia newspaper in 2005, and in 2006 the Afisha publishing house. At the same time, the TV channels 2x2, TV3, MTV Russia and several radio stations were in the hands of Potanin. Having completely bought out the Internet company Rambler Media in 2010, ProfMedia became the owner of such an influential Internet news portal as lenta.ru.
An example of a somewhat less successful entry of a new business into the media sphere in the 2000s is the Ananyev brothers and their company Media 3. Today she controls such publications as "Argumenty i Fakty", "Extra-M" and "Center-Plus"; until recently she also owned the Trud newspaper. However, "AiF" and "Trud", which thundered in the late 80s (the total circulation of these two publications in 1990 was a fantastic 55 million copies!), Today cannot boast of the same mass character and, most importantly, influence. Their sites, turned into a semblance of Internet portals, cannot compete with Rambler, and even more so with Mail.ru.

WHO IS YOUR OWNER, JOURNALIST?

So what happened to the Russian press in the 2000s? Has it been “strangled”, which the “strangled” opposition press does not get tired of talking about at all corners? Or was the "sabbath of freedom" of the 90s simply transferred to a new organizational and technological level - the Internet? Neither one nor the other. Liberal journalism has survived - however, it has been largely pushed to the periphery of public interest. "Liberation" newspapers are published - in scanty circulation. The "handshake" sites are breaking down, with a steadily falling attendance. But no serious "rampant of primitive elements" capable of "capturing the minds of the broad masses" is observed.
In the 2000s, it became finally clear that absolute, unrestrained freedom of speech is fraught with high costs for society and, ultimately, for the owners of the media. One of the "markers" here was the tragedy of "Nord-Ost" - after it, the behavior of the media was discussed for a long time in the country, which managed to broadcast the beginning of the operation to free the hostages, which the terrorists who watched TV could take advantage of.
The main thing is that in the 2000s, the population of the country did not have any questions about the “freedom of speech” in relation to the mass media bought up by the business. Today everyone understands perfectly well that being free and at the same time belonging to a billionaire is impossible. The society has finally matured to the point where before reading this or that publication in the press to ask the question: who is the owner of this media, how he is doing now and what he actually wants to achieve in the foreseeable future. And only after that, start a fascinating reading.

The ownership of the media by one or another owner does not mean that it is he who determines the information policy of his own media. The ideological orientation of a particular publication also depends on the complex relationship between the capital behind the media and the government - an amendment to this must always be done. And yet, knowing which press belongs to whom is key in trying to figure out why a given newspaper, TV show or website interprets reality for us in this way and not otherwise.

MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS

Just the other day, on May 20 of this year, a truly important event took place in the information segment of the Runet: the popular news and socio-political resource lenta.ru (average daily traffic is about 900 thousand people, the second most cited place among Internet resources, according to the site "Medialogia.ru"), owned by the holding "ProfMedia" (it is owned by "Interros" Vladimir Potanin), passed, as officially announced, "under the control" of another Russian multimillionaire, Alexander Mamut.
"Lenta.ru"- only a small part of the new united media empire called "Afisha-Rambler-SUP" (Cyprus), with a total audience of 37.2 million people. Besides "Tapes", "Rambler" and "Posters", it includes, for example, the 1st most cited among online media gazeta.ru, and livejournal.com. Despite the change in management, it has already been announced that strategic decisions in the Potanin-Mamut company will be made by both parties jointly.
The example of the merger of two "oligarchic" media empires clearly shows that it is too early to talk about the end of the media market redistribution. This segment breathes and develops, sometimes shaking the feeds of its own news agencies with messages about "mergers and acquisitions".
Since we started with Potanin's "ProfMedia", we will add that it owns channels on the TV market TV3, "MTV Russia" and "2x2", and in the radio segment - "Autoradio", Energy, "Humor FM" and "Radio Romance"... These assets, albeit very far from politics, nevertheless, quite strongly influence a number of social strata, along with many other entertainment media participating in the formation of the information "agenda" in the country.

AROUND ONE OFFSHORE?

Direct competitors of the Afisha-Rambler-SUP Internet holding are Yandex (Holland) and Mail.ru Group (Holland). In contrast to the first, the assets of these two Internet portals are dispersed among many owners.
More than a half ( 53.9%) shares of "Yandex" traded on the American market NASDAQ, the rest are divided between the English investment fund Baring Vostok Capital Partners (one of the beneficiaries of whose shares until recently was called Elena Ivascheeva from the board of directors of "Yandex"), top managers of "Yandex" Arkady Volozh and Ilya Segalovich, and Sberbank, which owns 1 "golden" share, which gives the right to block the sale of more than 25% of the company's shares.
In turn, the largest shareholders of the Mail.ru Group holding are the South African media group Naspers (31.7%) and New Media Technologies (17.9%), which is controlled by the richest businessman in Russia, Alisher Usmanov. NMT owns more than half of the voting shares of Mail.ru Group, which makes Usmanov the actual owner of this media holding.
Besides mail.ru, Usmanov today the publishing house belongs "Kommersant"(British Virgin Islands), which publishes the newspaper of the same name, supplements to it, and magazines "Money", "Power", "Fire", "Weekend"and etc.
Another business publication, "Vedomosti", managed by the European media holding Sanoma Independent Media (Holland, owner Derk Sauer; other media in Russia - magazines Cosmopolitan, Men "s Health, Esquire, Yes !, Harper" s Bazaar, National Geographic, The Moscow Times, Popular Mechanics and others), which publishes the newspaper jointly with the English Financial Times and the American The Wall Street Journal.

NEAR THE STATE

Above "Vedomosti" (3rd place) and "Kommersant" (2nd place) in the April media citation rating (according to Medialogia.ru) is another popular newspaper - "News"... It is 73.2% owned by the National Media Group media holding, which is controlled by structures Yuri Kovalchuk.
It is believed that the chairman of the board of directors of Izvestia, Aram Gabrelyanov, controls, through Sofya Mirzoeva, the News Media publishing house, which owns the popular network resource lifenews.ru (3rd place among Internet portals), as well as the newspapers Life and "Your day".
To other information assets "National Media Group" include the TV and radio company Petersburg (72.4%), REN-TV media holding (68%), RSN radio station (100%) and STS Media holding (25%, USA)... The latter owns TV channels STS, Domashny and Peretz; this holding NMH owns jointly with a Swedish group Modern Times Group(37.9%), whose assets in Russia are also represented by TV channels of the Viasat system. In addition, the National Media Group owns 25% of the First Channel.
In whose hands are the remaining shares of the country's main TV button? 51% of the shares of Channel One are controlled by the state, another quarter - from the Cypriot company ORT-KB (associated with Roman Abramovich).
Well, the "second button", the TV channel "Russia 1"? He, like TV channels "Russia-2", "Culture", "Russia-24" and several others are in 100% property of the state VGTRK... The latter also belong to "Radio Russia", "Mayak" and "Orpheus" and Internet resources: vesti.ru (5th most cited among online media) and sportbox.ru.
To others state media relate "Russian newspaper" (4th place in the media citation rating), agencies RIA Newsand ITAR-TASSas well as international broadcasting radio "Voice of Russia".
Two more popular TV channels, NTV and TNTare included in "Gazprom-Media Holding" - together with radio stations Echo Moskvy, City FM, Relax FM, Detskoe Radio, satellite channel NTV +, magazines Itogi, 7 Days - TV Program, Karavan Istoriy, Tribuna newspaper and video hosting rutube.ru. The holding itself belongs to Gazprombank, whose assets, in turn, are divided between Gazprom (35.54%), Vnesheconombank (10.2%) and the Gazfond pension fund (47.4%; this share of assets almost completely transferred to the management of the company under the control of the structures of Yuri Kovalchuk).

SOMETHING IN THE TOP TEN

Without going beyond the limits of the near-political media, let us note a few more media structures. Ranked 5th in the citation rating "Moskovsky Komsomolets" owns her chief Editor Pavel Gusev... 6th place is given to no less scandalous "Komsomolskaya Pravda" - she, along with the newspaper "Metro", belongs, according to Forbes, a group of companies ESN ( Grigory Berezkin).
Mentioned above Derk Sauer is the chairman of the board of directors of the media holding RBK, which includes the news agency and TV channel of the same name, the RBC Daily newspaper (7th place in the Medialogii.ru rating), the Ytro.ru electronic newspaper, the rbc.ru Internet portal and, among other things, the largest domain name registrar in Russian RU-CENTER. RBC is owned by a billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov (51,1%).
On the 8th place is another opposition media - "New Newspaper"... Its shares are believed to be distributed among the journalistic collective, a multimillionaire Alexander Lebedev(39%) and the last leader of the USSR Mikhail Gorbachev (10%).
Let's take a closer look at the opposition media. Owners magazine The New Times , which is one of the "strongholds" of the "swamp" protest, are Dmitry and Irena Lesnevsky... TV channel "Rain"as well as edition "Big city", Internet portal slon.ru and radio station "Silver Rain"belong to Natalya Sindeeva, the wife of the "investor" of these projects, a member of Opposition Coordination Council Alexander Vinokurov.
"Independent newspaper" (9th place), long associated with the name of Boris Berezovsky, was sold to the family of its current editor-in-chief in 2005 Konstantin Remchukov, at that time - assistant to the head of the Ministry of Economic Development German Gref. The top ten most cited federal newspapers are rounded out by the weekly "Argument and Facts", part of the holding "Media 3" brothers Alexei and Dmitry Ananyev ( "Promsvyazbank").

HAVE THEM NUMBERS

51% shares JSC "AZHUR-Media"who owns the popular St. Petersburg network portal fontanka.ru (4th place of the most popular Internet resources), in April-2013 were bought by a Swedish media group Bonnier Business Pressalready publishing in the city on the Neva the newspaper "Business Petersburg"... At the same time, property relations with the heirs of the so-called "security oligarch" Roman Tsepov, who was directly involved in financing the information products of AZHUR, have not been finally settled. It is possible that the ownership structure may change in the near future.
Controlling stake in the news agency "Interfax" until recently it was owned by its general director, Mikhail Komissar; in 2007, Interfax bought 90% of the shares of another agency, Finmarket.
Business weekly "Profile" belongs to the former to the President of Bank Imperial Sergey Rodionov, whose name is named after his own publishing house. Its competitor, the Expert magazine, is a part of the holding of the same name (along with the Russian Reporter magazine), whose shares are distributed between the magazine's editor-in-chief Valery Fadeev, editor-in-chief Tatyana Gurova and scientific editor Alexander Privalov, as well as Globex bank and " VEB Capital "(owned by the state-owned Vnesheconombank); of other influential owners, Oleg Deripaska was called for a long time.
And again, briefly about radio stations - very far from politics, but from time to time they do not hesitate to give an assessment of what is happening in the country through the lips of their unrestrained presenters. The European Media Group (Europe Plus, Keks FM, Retro FM, Radio 7, Radio Record, Radio Sport) is part of the Siberian Business Union holding (Mikhail Fedyaev, Vladimir Gridin) ... The radio holding "Russian Media Group" ("Russian Radio", "HIT FM", "Radio MAXIMUM", DFM, Radio Monte Carlo) is owned by the key top managers of "Lukoil". "Multimedia holding" (controlled by a member of the Federation Council Vitaly Bogdanov) unites "Nashe Radio", Best FM, Rock FM, as well as the news agency "National News Service". Finally, the stations Business FM and Radio Chocolate are owned by the Rumedia holding, which is associated with the name of Vladimir Lisin (NLMK).

Denis Tukmakov

The role of the media in the political process in Russia is very important. Therefore, they are the object of constant struggle of various political forces. Controlling the media means controlling the creation of myths that are implanted in the mass consciousness. And myths govern the thoughts and actions of people. Therefore, the struggle for power in Russia is accompanied by a fierce struggle for control over the media.

One of the first to notice the mythological potential of the media was the Canadian sociologist Marshall McLuhan. McLuhan studied the impact of television on the mass consciousness. He believed that television mythologizes human communication. The constant change of pictures inherent in television leads to the fact that the only way to unite the disparate parts of the information mosaic is through myth. According to McLuhan, the era of the "new tribal man" is coming along with television.

Television is one of the tools for exercising political domination, since it allows you to control the thoughts and actions of millions of people. The media are totalitarian in nature, because strive to take control of the will of people, their thoughts and feelings, thereby limiting the freedom of the individual, enslaving her.

The purpose of informational influence is to change the behavior of the object of influence by transforming the "picture of the world" existing in its mind. When carrying out informational influence on people, workarounds, loopholes in consciousness are used, which allow finding a justification for actions that do not agree with the "picture of the world" existing in the object of manipulation. Thus, the media, and television in particular, are an effective means of manipulating the mass consciousness.

In Russia, in the first half of the 90s, oligarchs actively used television as an instrument of political domination. The most powerful media empires belonged to B. Berezovsky and V. Gusinsky. The first controlled ORT, the second owned NTV. With the help of television, the oligarchs managed to solve their political and commercial problems. However, after Vladimir Putin came to power, the situation changed. The state used its power resources and, as a result, the oligarchs lost control over the TV channels.

The conflict between Russian media oligarchs and the state is not accidental. In this sense, Russia is moving in line with world trends. More and more media global, go beyond national states and strive to gain a foothold as an independent force.

This tendency was clearly seen in the defense tactics that V. Gusinsky chose in the fight against the state. He tried to rely on international public opinion, i.e. sought support outside the Russian state. Since NTV is not broadcast all over the world, like CNN or BBC, NTV journalists could not directly contact the "global village". This task was solved with the help of a political scandal that erupted in the world due to the oppression of "freedom of speech" in Russia. NTV carried out the "global coverage" of the world indirectly. But the trend, as they say, is obvious.

But there is also a counter tendency. The state is trying to resist globalization and autonomization of the media, using the levers of influence available to it. Even in the United States, which is so proud of the First Amendment to the Constitution, after the 9/11 attacks, the state has laid claim to control over information. So, CNN "recommended" not to show interviews with Bin Laden, allegedly due to the fact that a terrorist can give his accomplices some secret signs that will serve as a signal for new terrorist attacks. The politically correct CNN didn't argue.

In Russia, the state's "retaliatory move" was less diplomatic. The oligarchic media were "drenched" by unleashing the full might of the state machine on them. The struggle between Media Bridge and the authorities was very dramatic. Ultimately, the state managed to break the resistance of the Most mass media, but the problem of relations between the state and the media in Russia remained unresolved.

The state will continue to attack the media simply by its nature. American futurist Alvin Toffler believes: "The state - any state - is busy with being in power. Whatever the economy costs for the rest of the people, it will look for ways to harness the latest revolutionary changes in the field of communications, wanting to use them for its own purposes, and it will create barriers to the free flow of information "(Toffler E. Metamorphoses of Power. M. 2001. S. 448.). Toffler means a global trend (Toffler's book was published in 1990). In Russia, this trend has resulted in a tough confrontation between the oligarchic media and the state machine.

Toffler believes that "the state invented new forms of control over mental activity when the industrial revolution led to the creation of the media, and it will look for new tools and techniques that would help it maintain at least some control over images, ideas, symbols and ideologies that reach to ordinary people through the new electronic infrastructure "(Ibid.).

These ideas turned out to be consonant with the developers of the "Doctrine of Information Security of Russia": "The information sphere, being a system-forming factor in the life of society, actively influences the state of the political, economic, defense and other components of the security of the Russian Federation. National security The Russian Federation essentially depends on ensuring information security, and in the course of technical progress it will increase "(Drozdov Y., Fartyshev V. Yuri Andropov and Vladimir Putin. M. 2001, p. 269.). In other words, the further technical progress goes , the more actively the state should be engaged in "ensuring information security" of itself.

A conflict between the media and the state is inevitable, since the interests of these institutions are often opposed. “The goals of the media are different from those of government officials. Officials need stories that reflect their work accurately and in a way that is favorable to them. They also want to dominate the news production process so that the information they publish reflects their understanding of what matters and what matters. On the other hand, journalists want newsworthy stories that are selected according to accepted criteria and believe that their audiences are more interested in exciting facts and human stories than in academic discussions of public policy issues, their background and their perceived impact. expressed in statistics "(Graber D. Mass Media and American Politics. 4th ed. P. 321-322.).

The difference in the understanding of what the news should be from the point of view of an official and a journalist was quite clearly manifested after winning the competition for broadcasting on the "sixth button" of the "Media Society". One of the leaders of "Media-Society" A. Volsky announced in his TV interview that, possibly, he and E. Primakov will conduct round tables on the "sixth channel" on topical topics. When Volsky was asked about these plans by Kiselev, the latter replied that it was probably a joke and that no round tables were expected on Channel Six.

This was no joke, of course. It is difficult for a person with the mentality of an official to understand the laws of the functioning of television. Officials, especially the "old school" ones, still think according to the laws of the "Gutenberg galaxy", while television lives according to the laws of the "McLuhan galaxy". The official believes that reasoning, "round tables", symposia, "wise thoughts" can influence people. However, television requires shows, emotions, myths, not rational arguments. That is why the talk show "Freedom of Speech" attracts the attention of viewers, while boring "round tables", on the contrary, scare away. Indeed, in the show, it is not what is said that is important, but how it is said and by whom. The main thing is the presence of a conflict. No conflict - no show. Therefore, such political show specialists as V. Zhirinovsky and V. Novodvorskaya and others are invariably invited to programs such as "Freedom of Speech".

The point of view of officials on the role of the media in society is reflected in the Doctrine of Information Security, which we have already quoted: "The current conditions of the political and socio-economic development of the country exacerbate the contradictions between the needs of society to expand the free exchange of information and the need to preserve certain regulated restrictions on its dissemination." (Quoted from Drozdov Y., Fartyshev V. Yuri Andropov and Vladimir Putin. M. 2001. S. 281.). The authors of the document refer to the sources of threats to information security in Russia as "the underdevelopment of civil society institutions and insufficient state control over the development of the information market in Russia" (Ibid. P. 280). Apparently, the liquidation of oligarchic media holdings pursued the goal of establishing "sufficient" control over the media.

But journalists, as they say, have their own pride. Journalists form a kind of professional caste, which has an idea of \u200b\u200bits role in society, its own mythology of the profession. Journalists “feel a special mission, like Mark Antony Shakespeare:“ To bury Caesar, not pray for him. ”And, like Brutus, they are convinced that their criticism does not mean disloyalty to the government. They love the government no less, they only love more your people "(Graber D. Mass Media and American Politics. 4th ed. P. 322.). This does not only apply to American journalists. This is the nature of modern mass media and the psychology of the people who work in them.

Since the nature of the state is the same everywhere and the difference is only in the forms of its manifestation, the contradiction between officials and journalists will always persist. The state uses a fairly wide range of means to control the media. Let's consider this issue in more detail.