Should the government control the flow of information? If not, what could it lead to? And if so, how exactly? Talks about it political scientist Sergei Markov:
If we recall the recent history of the country, the same Brezhnev times, then there was not just a ban on the publication of this or that information. The media were part of the country's political governance system. Before being published in the media, the materials were repeatedly checked, passed through a sieve of various controllers and censors. Freedom of speech was severely limited. Many understood this, so the truthful word had much more weight.
From free speech to revolution
"Glasnost" in Gorbachev's times was primarily ensured by the opportunity to discuss historical topics - that is, the past. And through these topics, political interests were also manifested. Freedom of speech was ensured for all points of view - both for the pro-Western, democratic, and for the left, conservative, Russian-nationalist, imperial-statist. But very soon freedom of speech began to turn into lawlessness. After the mechanisms of financial state support for the media were curtailed, many of them lost their freedom, falling under the control of oligarchic groups. In 1996, the master oligarchs used the controlled media for, in fact, a coup d'état. In 1996, victory was announced in the presidential elections Boris Yeltsin, although many are sure that he de facto conceded G. -Zyuganov.
In many positions, the oligarchs fought with the help of the media, and this was called pluralism. But in the topics in which they were unanimous, another point of view could not appear. For example, social democratic ideas, ideas of state participation in the economy, social responsibility of business were hardly discussed, it was not said that the loans-for-shares auctions were, in fact, theft of state property (as a result of these auctions, most oligarchs and became oligarchs). It was impossible to talk about these topics. There is an opinion that now the authorities are tightening the screws (by the way, I like the president's statement: they say, "we don't turn the screws back and forth"). After all, in fact, the state exercises political control over the main information resources, which have a large audience. Media with a small audience are given to the will of the market. What should be the degree of this control? In my opinion, it all depends on the situation. If she is calm, more opportunities should be given to discuss problems from different points of view. But if the country is in danger of a coup d'état to bring a gang of criminals to power according to the Ukrainian version, it is necessary to isolate the media from this group of people.
Personal life is taboo
It cannot be said that today the Russian government is closed from the people. President Vladimir Putin communicates with the people and journalists during the annual press conferences, direct lines, which could not be imagined in Soviet times. Yes, Putin does not like to talk about his personal life and his family. But also about the personal life and family of oppositionists ( Kasyanov, Ponomarev, Navalny) has little to say. This is a taboo topic.
Why is there almost no information about "hot" anti-corruption investigations on federal channels? I think the authorities proceed from logic: if there are any suspicions, go to court. The same is true for elections. Our court is not ideal, but in principle, if you wish, you can achieve justice. And there is nothing to wag unverified rumors. Because if you give complete freedom to talk to everyone and everything, everything will start with a small lie, and end with a big lie. As it was, for example, when the media threw out "compromising evidence" on Defense Minister Shoigu, which was not continued.
So where is this line of permissibility and who should draw it? World practice shows that there is a journalistic ethic when it is considered indecent to show dismemberment, to give broadcasts to various sorcerers, obvious crooks, or to drive criminal scum. Alas, we often neglect this ethics, it does not work. Another way to control the media is through public councils. We don't have them either. Since there is neither one nor the other, the state is obliged to take on a function that society is not yet able to perform.
Opinion
Valery Meladze, musician:
The media today have greatly advanced beyond the boundaries of what is permitted, shocking. And already the times when the paparazzi chased the artists, trying to shoot them from a disadvantageous angle, seem like childish pranks, which I now remember with a smile. It's all harmless compared to what they say and show today. On the one hand, of course, I am for freedom of speech in the media, because this is the key to a healthy society. If you start to severely restrict, then you can not find important information. On the other hand, I would limit the criminal chronicle and leave it for official use, as it was in Soviet times. We now have alcohol bottles retouched even in old films, but they don’t warn that there will be scenes of violence with blood in the news. During the day, when children can be at the TV screens, our TV channels can show footage of the execution of journalists by ISIS, and the organizers of my concerts write 12+ on their posters. There are some double standards. What is happening at my performances to draw pluses on my posters?!
Cruelty is not the main thing?
Limiting the dominance of violence on television is actually not difficult. But it hardly has anything to do with the restriction of freedom of speech. There are things much more serious. Will they be limited?
“The question is not whether or not some boundaries are needed in the transmission of cruelty, the naturalistic reflection of life on the screen,” believes journalist Alexander Nevzorov. - The question is who will decide what to show us. Where are these arbitrators, who have at least three Nobel Prizes, unique, impeccable, perfect people?! There is none of them.
It would be highly undesirable to see moral censorship performed by the existing "experts". Someone will say that the questions of filtering certain things on the screen could be entrusted to the church. But I am convinced that the priests in these matters should generally be silent due to the fact that they are worse than anyone else in distinguishing between the concepts of good and evil.
If we talk more broadly and talk about the admissibility of demonstrating to the public all kinds of dubious, criminal acts of high-ranking officials and their relatives, then, of course, regulation is indispensable. It all depends on how tight the state can tighten the noose around the neck of the press. Naturally, the authorities are not interested in making dubious things concerning them public.
And if the state, whether by bloody means or in some other way, is able to ensure the silence of journalists, well, the flag is in its hands. And if it is not able to tear out all the tongues, break all the feathers and intimidate all the media, it remains to accept the fact that the facts that are unpleasant for it will come out.
And this is a very important question - much more important than the violence on the screen.
these days, a serious business person, in addition to good manners, must have an idea of the rules of conduct and norms. the established norms of morality are the result of a long process of establishing relationships between people. without observing these norms, political and cultural relations are impossible, because it is impossible to exist without respecting each other, without imposing certain restrictions on oneself. in addition, our life is changing dynamically, especially in recent times, the rules of etiquette are also changing. modern life, giving birth to new situations of communication, introduces new etiquette requirements. and remembering them all is almost impossible. life is more complicated than rules, and there are situations in it that cannot be provided for even by the most complete set of rules of etiquette. it means that today it is more important not just to memorize the rules themselves, but to understand the “spirit”, the essence and meaning of etiquette, i.e. eventually learn the basic principles. and there are several such principles. First of all, this is the principle of humanism, humanity, which is embodied in a number of moral requirements addressed directly to the culture of relationships. it is politeness, tact, modesty and accuracy. The second most important principle of modern etiquette is the principle of the expediency of actions. Thus, knowledge, skill and habits are the three “steps of etiquette” that must be overcome in order to become an educated person who is different “ natural cultural behavior.
answer: yes, I agree. because modern people determine the quality of goods by price. It should be added that the better the product in terms of quality, the higher it is in price. we can take an example with phones, let's compare a push-button phone and an iPhone.
Personally, I'm not in the media freedom of speech. this is a chimera, and it is not only unrealizable in practice, but ideally it (freedom of speech) is also difficult to imagine.
I'll try to explain.
mass media, more precisely "propaganda" (there is such a definition), initially, at the time of its creation, are already dependent, biased and not free. from what they are not free - does not change the essence of non-freedom. subsequent possible logical conclusions become quite obvious.
as soon as there is more freedom somewhere, it immediately becomes less in another place.
therefore, the most preferable is the search for information in different, preferably opposite sources, its analysis, synthesis and, as a result, the opinion of the individual on a particular issue. own opinion. otherwise, there is nothing left but to admit that you are a brainless "people", and continue to "eat" the hay that a caring shepherd puts in your manger.
But what about morality, morality and other regulators? no way. one cannot become moral and ethical by command, coercion, or following the laws. these categories are brought up and acquired gradually, in the family, communicating with carriers, reading smart and good books, and are formed in the form of life experience.
I won’t say about myself that I’m just so “moral and moral”, but for me it makes no difference whose feelings are offended, believers or atheists. at such moments I am more interested in the question "and who benefits from this?", and not "where did the border of freedom of speech go, because yesterday it passed exactly here? Have they canceled it completely?"
but if you answer in a nutshell, then: "no, it shouldn't. because there is no freedom of speech! And in the media, in particular."
The situation with the Russian media, despite numerous and very fiery discussions on this matter, is quite simple and definite. Emotions aside, the situation of the media in Russia is quite consistent with the general state of the Russian economy, politics and public opinion, being along with them in a drift from the anarchist-romantic past of the last years of perestroika and the first years of democracy through the current intermediate phase, which will be discussed specifically, to the future, the scenario of which in relation to the media is no less predetermined than the scenario of the development of Russia itself.
First of all, let's clarify one of the key concepts - in this text we are talking about freedom of the press (freedom to present various facts and opinions in the media), and not about freedom of speech. These are different concepts (freedom of speech is obviously and certainly wider than freedom of the press), including the subject of possession of one and the other freedom. Freedom of speech applies to all citizens and non-citizens of the country, freedom of the press - primarily journalists (professional and, as a rule, hired media workers) and a rather narrow stratum of public and famous people.
It should also be noted that many, if not all, problems related to freedom of the press throughout the world, but especially in Russia, are extremely mythologized. In this regard, I am compelled to preface a concrete description of the state and prospects of freedom of the press in Russia with some theoretical and semi-theoretical considerations, which are categorically necessary in this topic.
Myths and reality
"I do not agree with your opinion, but I am ready to give my life so that you can express it freely" - this aphorism of Voltaire, which they like to refer to in place and out of place, of course, is maximalist, that is, it proclaims an ideal, not the norm, and certainly not reality.
History does not know a single example of when someone went to death for their own freedom of speech, especially for someone else's. Nor did Voltaire himself. People consciously go to death for their family, their homeland, their religion or ideology, and finally - for their freedom or for their honor. By itself, freedom of speech does not belong to such absolute and all-encompassing values as the five listed.
Calling a friend, an editor-in-chief or a well-known journalist, and asking him for something is the norm in Russia. To refuse such a request is indecent: to refuse a friendly request to a friend. So far, out of habit, the Russian political class is functioning.
"Freedom of the press in a bourgeois society is the dependence of a writer (journalist) on a bag of money," - and this is the statement of Vladimir Lenin. It is also to a certain extent, but not to the same extent as Voltaire's, is maximalist. For at a certain stage of their development, freedom of speech and freedom of the press, of course, are included in the system of basic values of market democracy (the system that, in general, exists today in Russia).
“Freedom of speech is the conscious need for money,” this somewhat cynical apocryphal aphorism is attributed to the Soviet writer Yuri Nagibin, who was distinguished by a fair love of freedom and free thinking, but who was quite successful in his work, and, by the way, in earning this very money. Nagibinsky's aphorism is not dogmatic, but, of course, is for many writers (and now filming) a real guide to action.
In the life of modern Russian society and modern Russian journalism, freedom of speech, on the one hand, certainly exists, and on the other hand, as a reality (and not a myth) can be most accurately described only by summing up Voltaire's, Lenin's and Nagibin's definitions.
Freedom of speech (both in ideal declaration and in real functioning) is one of the cornerstones of the modern market democratic political system, but not the highest value of either this system itself (its highest values are survival, or self-preservation, and expansion), much less life at all. Freedom of speech, neither as an ideal nor as a reality, is higher than even, for example, freedom of property or freedom of competition.
Meanwhile, as is well known, restrictions on freedom of speech in Western democracies are found everywhere, although most often these restrictions are carried out either by politically correct, or behind the scenes, or psychological methods, and in any case never directly on behalf of the state (authority), with the exception of such its organs, such as the secret services, and except for periods such as participation in hostilities.
The pragmatism of market democracy (and its high competitiveness resulting from this pragmatism) leads to the fact that human instincts within the framework of this democracy are not suppressed, but used for the benefit of preserving democracy itself as a form of existence of society and the state.
It just can't be banned. But you can forbid expressing certain thoughts in public. Religious states, as well as totalitarian states, introduce a direct system of prohibitions. Democratic - indirect. For example, as is customary in any society, by a system of moral prohibitions, certain social and political taboos, as well as by cultivating social conformism.
Violation of these prohibitions is not a crime, but it can create and creates many serious, sometimes downright tragic problems for the violator. The law, however, is pure, the authorities have nothing to do with it, the "sacred cow" of freedom of speech remains inviolable.
In democratic societies, freedom of speech exists not because it is the highest value, but because without it it is impossible to ensure the survival and expansion of this society. A freely expressed thought is easier for the state to control than an unspoken thought.
Finally, and in a practical sense, this is perhaps the most important thing, Western political democracy is built on the principle of limiting some power institutions by others. The interaction of the legislative, executive and judicial authorities turned out to be insufficient to maintain the balance of power in this system.
Bureaucracy, money, and social vices cannot be controlled either by the democratic system itself, or by its judicial branch, or by religion, which is clearly dying out as a universal moral institution. This can be done either by the total power of the state (which would destroy democracy itself), or the total power of society, that is, citizens.
Freedom of speech is the institution of the total power of society over the state itself, bureaucracy, money and social vices. The Russian authorities still do not understand this, exposing themselves to the blow of Western public opinion.
It is worth noting that political, public and state loyalty is brought up in Western journalists to such an extent that only a few of them - and even then extremely rarely - seek to tell the world about the genuine, really significant secrets of their own country.
In Russia, in some journalistic, political (which is generally strange) and human rights circles, there is an opinion that the exceptionally evil will and undemocratic nature of the Russian authorities, the military and special services lead to the constant violation of the principles of freedom of speech and the press during military operations, counter-terrorist operations (including and on the release of hostages), in general emergencies. It would be ridiculous to say that our government is the most democratic, and the military and special services are the most open.
But it is also foolish not to understand that any military action is always and everywhere (not only in Russia) accompanied and cannot but be accompanied by the violation of entire groups of rights and freedoms, which in a normal situation are worse or better, but are observed in this or that country.
The laws of war (and similar events) in principle do not provide for the existence of many freedoms and rights common to peaceful life. This is the main and most fundamental reason for the collapse of the institution of freedom of speech and freedom of the press during the war.
The second reason: freedom of speech and freedom of the press (and some other freedoms) interfere with the achievement of the main goal of the war, that is, victory over the enemy, the enemy. War involves deception (to attack where the enemy does not expect), disinformation (to inspire the enemy with the exact opposite of what you are going to do), the widest intelligence activity (that is, stealing other people's secrets), and finally - killing other people and hiding the truth about your own losses for the sake of maintaining the morale and ability to resist among their army and their population.
How can freedom of speech and the press fit into all this? Only as a crime against one's own army and one's own country!
Finally, the third reason. Wars (as well as all sorts of special operations) are conducted by forces of specially (by law) organized groups of people (army, police, special services), for whom, by law, democratic forms of organization are replaced by hierarchical-authoritarian ones. Non-democratic structures cannot act democratically.
In general, it should be noted that both the authorities and society in Russia are extremely sensitive to what is the reverse (some consider it to be the shadow) side of freedom of the press, but they have little faith in the front side of this freedom (and many other freedoms). And it must be admitted that the persecutors and detractors of the freedom of the press in Russia have something to rely on both theoretically and practically (both in the West and in their own experience).
Democracy is built in such a way that the people elect the government, but it is controlled by it within the time frame determined by the date of the next election. To a large extent, precisely so that coups d'etat are not carried out every day with the help of the press, or, at least, so that the rulers elected by the people do not lose their freedom of action, in a natural way (which does not exclude perversions and abuses in this area) the political system and civil society reached an unspoken consensus on two things:
1) the authorities can ignore the opinion of the press;
2) the authorities can (within the framework of the so-called democratic procedures, political correctness, common sense and respect for the highest national interests) influence the press and even control society through the media (including through the so-called free media).
Freedom of speech and press, pluralism of opinions and publicized points of view lead to the fact that, due to a number of circumstances (including fashion), often very artificial, exotic, marginal, extreme and disintegrating opinions sound the loudest. Public attention is focused around them, which greatly enhances the impact of such opinions on current politics and the life of society as a whole. Freedom of the press, pluralism of opinions in this way can lead to the collapse of society or the state, which, by the way, we clearly observed in the history of the collapse of the USSR from 1987 to 1991. The Russian government learned this lesson very well. And I tried to gradually, very imperceptibly, but nevertheless clearly strengthen the integration function of the media. Moreover, in its extreme manifestations, this even led to the stateization (direct or indirect) of a number of key media (primarily television) or the introduction of elements of censorship - for example, during the conduct of hostilities by the state in Chechnya.
In 1996, the Russian authorities and (to this point, special attention should be paid to) the largest business groups, later called oligarchs, jointly used the media, primarily television, to deliberately manipulate the behavior of voters - and achieved tangible success. Since then, neither the authorities nor the oligarchs have let these weapons out of their hands.
I draw special attention to the fact that both the authorities of that period and the oligarchs called themselves adherents of democracy and liberalism, considered themselves to be such, and under this brand were supported by the governments of all democratic states of the West.
The blow to full-fledged freedom of the press in Russia was dealt precisely then - not by the communists, not by the Chekists, not by the security forces, but by Western and Russian liberals. This is a historical fact.
The split in the Russian elites, who fought among themselves not for democracy, but for property and power, which caused the information wars of 1997-1999, finally turned the Russian media, again primarily television, into a political weapon, and not into an instrument of freedom of speech and freedom print.
After the life-and-death war of the two main political parties in Russia in 1999 - the ORT party and the NTV party, it became absolutely clear to those who came to power (in the Kremlin) as a result of this war that nationwide television channels in Russia are a political nuclear weapons. Completely undemocratic, just as undemocratically the five great powers - permanent members of the UN Security Council - retained a monopoly on the possession of physical nuclear weapons, the central government of Russia decided to retain control over political nuclear weapons.
This is not an excuse. This is the explanation.
Gusinsky and Berezovsky, who did not want to give up their political nuclear potentials, were declared rogue oligarchs, and therefore disarmed and expelled from the country. Just a little later, the great democratic United States of America began to do exactly the same with rogue states that have claims to possess nuclear weapons. It's just that the sphere of action of the Washington White House extended to the whole world, and the Moscow Kremlin - only to Russia.
Freedom of the press: for society or for journalists?
The society recognizes the right of journalists to speak on behalf of the society, including criticizing the authorities. This, by the way, is the only fundamental right given by society to journalists, because the people themselves can directly and realistically criticize the authorities only during elections (voting for some and not voting for others), that is, once every few years. This right is given to journalists for everyday use.
But if citizens elect members of parliament (and even then they abuse their mandate), then people come to journalism on their own. No one can say, even formally: 1) to what extent the interests of different strata of society are represented in the media, especially national ones; 2) to what extent the opinions of journalists are a reflection of the opinions present in society, and not the opinions of the journalistic (just one of many) corporations; 3) how strongly and often journalists abuse the right granted to them, in fact, for life, to speak on behalf of society. Indeed, in journalism there is not even a mandatory, as in the highest echelons of power, turnover, rotation of personnel. In this, by the way, it most of all resembles another powerful professional corporation associated with the authorities - the bureaucracy.
First, freedom of the press is essentially the freedom of speech of journalists, and not of all citizens of a given society; secondly, freedom of the press in a certain sense is a restriction of the freedom of speech of all other citizens of a given society; and therefore, thirdly, even where, as, for example, in the United States, thanks to the first amendment to the Constitution, freedom of the press is protected by law to the maximum extent possible, and mechanisms are legally and illegally preserved to counteract the use of freedom of the press by journalists to the detriment of the interests of society, its individual citizens or even the government itself.
Is the American press free? Free. Moreover, in the United States, there are virtually no state-owned media, as in Russia. Nevertheless, in the months leading up to the start of the US military attack on Iraq (2003), most American newspapers, weeklies, and TV channels reported daily about the horrors (real and imaginary) of Saddam Hussein's regime. It was a well-organized campaign on a national and global scale, which had two goals. First, the psychological preparation of the US population for the start of hostilities and the creation of conditions for the approval of these actions. Secondly, the moral and psychological suppression of the enemy's will to resist. The second can be directly characterized as the first part of the military operation, that is, the actual military activity.
But is the US media subordinate to the Pentagon or the CIA? Were US journalists drafted into the armed forces of this country? Are most of them secretly collaborating with US intelligence agencies? There can be only one answer to all these questions: no.
Nevertheless, the pluralistic, free, owned not by the state, but by numerous private owners, American press acted as a single detachment of the US armed forces. It is a fact.
In all modern democratic societies, there are effective mechanisms for mobilizing a free press to fulfill the tasks that the official authorities set for the country (nation), including the tasks of the military.
Volumes of freedom of the press in Russia
Freedom of speech today in Russia not only exists. As in all societies that are at the stage of anarcho-democracy, it is essentially absolute. This does not mean that there are no problems with freedom of speech and threats to it in Russia.
These problems and threats are related to three factors:
1) the inability and unwillingness of the state, which has proclaimed its democracy, to act in accordance with democratic norms and rules in this area;
2) irresponsible use of freedom of speech by journalists, which causes a response, often inadequate response from the state;
3) the ongoing cold civil war within Russian society, its instability, when the task of political and sometimes physical survival of individuals, groups and the government itself or even the country forces them to violate any laws, including laws protecting freedom of speech.
Once again I will return to the common term - "freedom of speech". For a serious, and not superficial or opportunistic analysis of this problem, it is necessary to distinguish at least five terms and, accordingly, five social values and social institutions built on the basis of them: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, censorship, freedom of specific media, freedom of the media.
Freedom of speech in Russia today is real and absolute. And even with less responsibility for their words than in the West.
Freedom of the press is enshrined in law, but is embodied for society as a whole as a set of texts and images in all Russian media, and not in each separately. In principle, this is an acceptable standard.
Censorship is prohibited by law, in fact, it is absent in the practice of all media, except for corporate censorship, which, however, also does not exist legally. Separately, I would point out such factors as significant today in Russia: self-censorship of journalists themselves, associated with their political preferences (this is especially evident along the line of the “communists-anti-communists” watershed, and on both sides), and, as I call it, censorship of friends - very efficient. Calling a friend, an editor-in-chief or a well-known journalist, and asking him for something is the norm in Russia. It is very difficult to refuse such a request. But not because it's scary, but because it's indecent: it's indecent to refuse a friend's friendly request. So far, out of habit, the Russian political class is functioning.
The freedom of particular media is different, as it always is. It is limited both in too many state media (including media owned or controlled by regional and local authorities), and, naturally, in private ones - at least by the interests of their owners, often dependent on the state, as well as by the interests of top management and self-censorship ( voluntarily or mercenarily) editors-in-chief or the journalists themselves.
Freedom of the media in Russia is not fully available - primarily because of the numerous taboos tacitly imposed on certain topics by both the state and private media owners and groups close to them in business or political interests.
Describing the situation as a whole, I can say with full responsibility that individual restrictions on all these freedoms and, on the contrary, individual elements of unofficial censorship are more than covered by the features of the functioning of the already free, but not yet fully responsible Russian press in a society with weak power, warring with each other by elites (information wars, in which a lot of lies are used, and give huge emissions of the most transcendent truth) and general anarchy.
Finally, the "problem of money".
A poor society, being always better than a rich one in some ways, also suffers from many additional vices, which are minimized in rich countries.
90 percent of Russian journalists (especially outside of Moscow) earn very little officially. Quite small amounts can provide both the appearance of information, which expands the field of freedom of the press, and, on the contrary, the concealment of information, which naturally narrows this field.
And the second in the same direction. The poor audience is less demanding on the work of journalists, is not able to financially support the necessary tone of competition. The Soviet times, when one family subscribed to five or six newspapers and two or three more magazines, are long gone.
Freedom of the press in Russia exists for those journalists who are able and able to work within its framework, and freedom of the media exists for those who have the opportunity to follow the broadcasts of all major television channels and regularly read six to seven newspapers and two to three weeklies of various political directions.
Russia is not an exception, but a newcomer
Now it is useful to enumerate the numerous legal exceptions to the principle of freedom of the press that actually exist in almost all democratic countries (in a more or less rigid legal form).
1) As a rule, in constitutions or laws specifically dedicated to the media, it is prohibited (that is, censored): calls for the overthrow of the existing system; calls for war (meanwhile, wars are being waged, and with what, if not with the call of the corresponding statesman, do they begin?); calls for inciting ethnic, racial and religious hatred;
2) In addition, everywhere in the legislation there is the concept of state and / or military secrets, under the sauce of which entire layers of information are censored;
3) The activities of some special services in all major democratic states are in fact (in some of their aspects) generally legally removed from the control of the media;
4) Libel is almost universally punishable in court, which often falls under the definition of simply not documented truth;
5) In many countries, various types of public insults of individuals are also punishable by law;
6) Corporate secrets are protected by law;
7) The secret of personal life is protected by law.
How much information important to society is thus removed from the control of freedom of the press (control of the media)? Nobody can say for sure. But it is clear that this is not 1-2 percent.
Finally, not statutory, but real restrictions on the freedom of the press on the principle of so-called political correctness have become especially widespread recently - restrictions, often quite absurd. In Russia, for example, this manifested itself in senseless arguments that it is shameful to use the expression "a person of Caucasian nationality." Moreover, none of the fighters against this expression explained how, for example, to indicate in the same police reports the main features of the detainees, if they do not have documents with them and they do not give their names? And the fighters for "political correctness" themselves are unlikely to always immediately determine which of the five people of different nationalities they represent is an Azerbaijani, an Armenian, a Georgian, a Chechen or an Avar.
In the West, an even more extensive range of topics, problems, conflicts and words has arisen that are actually forbidden, that is, censored, for reasons of political correctness. These incidents show that it is not only the authorities who periodically test the strength of the institution of freedom of the press. Society itself does this, including the freest and most liberal.
Trends and prospects
Despite the fact that a limited presence of the state in the media market in Russia is objectively necessary, and subjectively, the authorities will never completely abandon it, the following scenario for the further development of the Russian media can be considered optimal (and this scenario will be implemented with some deviations):
1. The state, the central government, does not need to have more than one TV channel controlled by it (the first or second, covering the territory and population of the country as much as possible).
2. One or two central TV channels should be transformed into public television.
3. The rest of the central channels should be re-privatized.
4. The same - in the field of radio broadcasting.
5. The categorical imperative is the gradual withdrawal of all regional and local TV and radio broadcasters from the direct or indirect control of regional and local authorities through a direct ban established by law.
6. There is no political need for any print media, both central (with the exception of the official publisher), and regional and local (except for purely official bulletins, the army press), to be owned (directly or indirectly) any authorities. The ban on such possession should be established by law and simultaneously.
7. All printing houses of the country should be privatized and corporatized without any participation of state structures.
8. The Ministry of Press Affairs should be abolished and replaced by bodies registering print media (this could be done by the Ministry of Justice) and issuing licenses for television and radio broadcasting (the Ministry of Communications).
There is no doubt that as the modern political system of Russia continues to develop, the development of the media will go in this direction.
Will there ever be full-fledged freedom of speech (press) in Russia? Directly answering this question, I can say the following:
firstly, freedom of the press (freedom of the media) in Russia already exists today and, on the whole, while not being absolute and full-blooded, it still overtakes the level of democratic development of the political regime itself in the country; secondly, if the trend of neo-authoritarianism does not prevail in the world as a whole (which is not excluded), then the level of freedom of the press in Russia will steadily increase; thirdly, until the regional authorities in Russia are deprived of the right to own the media, the central government will not be able to refuse the same, therefore the first step towards further denationalization (in other words, liberation) of the media seems quite obvious.
Today we hear a lot about the so-called information war. The Ukrainian crisis has exacerbated smoldering divisions. Conventionally, according to the nature of behavior, the parties can be divided into objective and irrational. Both sides have their own point of view and their own media, which convey this very point of view to the masses. At the same time, both sides accuse each other of lying, deliberate misinformation (see propaganda), juggling facts, corruption, and other unworthy behavior. And there is some logic here - if the parties have embarked on the path of conflict and one of the parties begins to lie, then there is no turning back and there is no point in waiting for one of the parties to admit it by committing crimes or deliberate acts of aggression. But how far can one go in this process, what can be expected from this and what is the role of the press in all this?
Over the past six months, we have seen more than once how unfounded accusations came from the pages of leading publications, full of emotional coloring and completely devoid of any facts. Attempts were made to hush up the facts, instead of describing the facts, suspicions were fanned. Sophisticated techniques for manipulating the reader's emotions were used. Blame-shifting, attempts to call whites black, one-sided attitudes, double standards, insults and attempts to rewrite history. And all this happened and is happening in the mainstream format - when, it would seem, free and independent publications "work" in the same way, creating a distorted and illusory picture of reality. And in the event that there was no alternative source, then in the absence of another point of view, this reality could very likely be perceived as the only one existing. And even if there were those who doubt this irrationality, they would quickly be dubbed heretics and burned in this information fire. But how can a "free and independent press" sing in one chorus? After all, "freedom" is a prerequisite for multidirectionality, isn't it?
What is really going on in the media world today? Influence of special services, venality or something else? Is there at least one independent newspaper in the world that you can trust? And what is a free press in our understanding?
To answer these questions, we must first define for ourselves: what do we mean by the term "free press"? Free from what? From the interested opinion that they are trying to impose on the rest of society with the help of this social tool? Or is it free from total control and "dictatorship" by the state apparatus? Or maybe this freedom lies in the ability to type text without regard to some boring spelling rules? Or maybe freedom lies in the ability to offend the feelings of others? What is this freedom expressed in? In general, the definitions of "free" and "freedom" in themselves are not self-sufficient and do not describe any picture completely, clarifications are always and everywhere necessary for them: free from what, free what to do, etc. We can say that freedom is the absence of something, the absence of some kind of convention or restriction described in the context. So, for example, freedom of expression means the absence of restrictions for this very expression of will, freedom of movement - the absence of restrictions on movement, and so on. By freedom, we mean the absence of any specific restrictions, which are usually indicated in the context. Absolute freedom, in this case, will be the complete absence of restrictions, any conventions, rules and any order. In other words, absolute freedom is chaos and anarchy. And outstanding thinkers have already touched on this topic in their works.
But what, then, is meant by the term "free press"? What is the context for this freedom? What do we mean when we say these words? What should this press be free from, and can it be free in principle?
It is extremely important to correctly understand the essence of this issue. It is not in vain that the item "on a free press" is recognized as one of the fundamental in the process of establishing a democratic society. An independent press is a guarantee that no one will be able to manipulate us . This thesis is based on the premise that all decisions, whether at the domestic or political level, we make on the basis of just two things - the experience that we have and the information that comes to us from the outside. And if experience is an acquired thing, then information is a completely different matter.
Permissions are made on the basis of incoming information, then the control and modeling of information flows is a way of influencing decision-making, that is, a way of deliberate manipulation for one's own purposes. This simple formula of “dictatorial happiness” has been around for a long time, ever since the first media appeared. Actually, using these opportunities to influence minds, such personalities appeared in history as Mussolini (beginning as a newspaper editor) and Hitler actively used the political know-how of his time - radio messages to the whole people. The Soviet Union during its period of stagnation also used the mechanism of creating an alternative reality, creating barriers to the penetration of any information from the outside that could shake this reality.
Modeling information flows in the right way can predetermine the "free and independent" policy of entire states. No wonder the press is called the fourth estate, as it has a huge impact on our lives and can predetermine many social processes that arise in society. That is why the press has received so much attention since the first printing press appeared. The possibility of manipulating public opinion and, as a result, the actions of the broad masses of people - this is what predetermines the importance of the issue of a free press, and that is why this item is fundamental in the process of establishing true democracy.
But what does this paragraph mean? What is its meaning?
Obviously, when forming this paragraph, the experience of the past was taken into account and a state of affairs was required in which the central media were not subject to influence from those in power, so as not to make this power excessive, thus protecting society from permissiveness, protecting from the forcible imposition of someone else's will - dictate. Thus, the media were guaranteed the opportunity to criticize the current government, to express free points of view, free, first of all, from the dictates of the authorities.
And this statement was justified in the period of the dominance of bureaucratic power, the power of the state apparatus. But those days are gone. We live in an era of dominant capitalism. And what determines power in such a society? Power in our society determines capital, or rather the concentration of capital. And, as the already sensational assessment shows Oxfam , today this concentration has reached unprecedented proportions. And this only says that the power of such capital is no less, but rather even many times greater than the totalitarian power. The “face of power” has changed, but its immanent aspirations have remained. But then what to do with the "free press"? In the current situation, the press is not only not protected from the influence of this type of power, but is completely placed at its disposal.
Here is the definition that can be found on Wikipedia. Freedom of the media - constitutional guarantees for the independent functioning of the media in a particular country. It is interpreted as the political right of citizens to freely establish mass media and distribute any printed matter.
Looking at what is happening in the media today, I want to ask myself - maybe it is worth reconsidering the interpretation? After all, there are different interpretations. Especially in such a matter as freedom.
With the existing interpretation - yes, everyone can create their own broadcast channel. But who will prevail and have a monopoly if desired? That's right - capital, meaning concentrated capital. Such capital, which has the ability to "gobble up" or throw out those who do not like it from the market. Whether there is a desire for this force to achieve this - definitely there is. Capital, as you know, protects its interests. And what better way to "justify" the madness of capital than the "correct point of view"? And quite a few fears have already been expressed about the monopolization of the information market by the empires of Murdoch and others. But these fears have not yet been taken seriously. We can see the result today. Lies and coverage of events from the "right angle" have become the norm, and everyone who does not agree is already beginning to be persecuted and accused of all kinds of sins. Is this the freedom of speech we wanted?
Many people in the world who have not yet gone crazy and lost in the labyrinths of fictional reality openly admit that "RUSSIA_TODAY" is perhaps one of the most objective channels in existence. We can say one of the most free. And why? Maybe because this is the only channel that is protected from the influence of capital, from its pressure?
If at one time people defended freedom of speech from the influence of the totalitarian state power, introducing the clause "on a free press" as a mandatory one, now it's time to defend the same freedom of speech from the influence of capitalist power. Against the power of the Murdochs, Soros and all who stand behind them. We must re-examine the interpretation of the "free press" clause. If all other freedoms are dear to us, then this matter should not be delayed - the longer they fool our heads, push their foreheads together and distort the picture of reality, the less freedom we have left. We must fight for purity and transparency in the information field. We need Freedom of Speech 2.0
