Transcript of an online conference with TV journalist Igor Vittel. Part 1.
During the online conference, Igor Vittel amazed me with the irony of his statements and the peremptory nature of his views. In the first half hour of the meeting, we managed to talk with the famous TV journalist and interview master about the “fate of Russia”, and about patriotism, and about bloggers who were previously not allowed to clean toilets, and about the Internet in a madhouse, and about Boris Berezovsky, and about Alexander Bashlachev, and fleeing to become janitors and stokers.
- Igor Vittel- TV journalist, RBC journalist
- Albert Bikbov- moderator, analyst of the online newspaper " Real time»
“The cashier in the GUM toilet says to me: “I used to be on your air often, but now here I am.”
Hello dear audience of Realnoe Vremya. Today we have a rare case: usually people come to Vittel, but now Vittel came to us on Realnoe Vremya. The famous Vittel is a master of journalism...
Still, a meter is 63 cm.
Master of television. Meter 63, but what kind? My friends, I am pleased to introduce you to our interlocutor. You've probably all seen for 12 years now that Igor Stanislavovich has been leading...
Why did he lead? I'm still talking, sorry for interrupting. I'm still on the air.
- But there were...
There were, but you can't wait.
Igor Stanislavovich hosted, hosts and will host this absolutely gorgeous program “Vittel Observer”. I want to ask you this question: for so many years, so many people - what are the brightest people who came to your show?
You know, the program, of course, changed, it was not always called “Vittel-Observer”, and before it went on RBC, it was called “Branch”, then it was called “In Focus”, then I don’t remember. Now it is simply called "Vittel". I won’t say who is the brightest, not because I can’t remember them, but because there were a lot of bright ones. I can remember some bright moments, some funny, tragic, but I can say that the brightest people... They are all special to me.
Of course, there are anecdotal situations, you’ll forgive me for talking about this on air, but in GUM I had to run into a paid toilet, and the cashier who was sitting there said: “Igor Stanislavovich, don’t you remember me?” I say: “No, I don’t remember.” She: “I used to be on your air often, but now here I am.” Therefore, I now say that when you are on my programs, remember where everything can end. But in fact, I remember some tragic moments, bright moments, but bright people- they are all bright.
Propaganda is, in fact, not when they broadcast to you from behind the Kremlin wall what to say and what not to say, it is when you begin to broadcast your own beliefs, passing them off as the ultimate truth, or you start there as a pro-government journalist to sincerely believe in what you do not believe outside the frame
- So there were so many of them? They're all equal...
I can’t say that they are equivalent, but, for mercy’s sake, you say 12, in fact, almost 14 years, several times a day, every day, now once a week. And people came, and I remember not because the person was bright, but because the moment was either funny or particularly touching. The President did not come, and neither did the Prime Minister.
- I thought you would call Stepan Demura.
Stepan is my co-host, my comrade. This is one of the most scandalous, but I can’t say the brightest. It's far from the brightest.
“People who previously would not have been allowed to clean toilets now believe that they are outstanding bloggers”
We're looking at journalism now, and I've seen a lot of your articles talking about the crisis in journalism. They say that the crisis is in journalism, and the prosperity is in propaganda. It's like this eternal theme and eternal confrontation.
For me, propaganda is not state propaganda. Many people who don’t know what television is, what journalism is, believe that in the morning, instructions are somehow immediately broadcast into our brains directly from the presidential administration. To be honest, I'm tired of making excuses. Propaganda is, in fact, not when they broadcast to you from behind the Kremlin wall what to say and what not to say, it is when you begin to broadcast your own beliefs, passing them off as the ultimate truth, or you start there as a pro-government journalist to sincerely believe in what you do not believe outside the frame. This is propaganda.
As for journalism, its flourishing or decline, this is connected not only with ideologization, it is connected with the general decline in the quality of education in the country and the world, with the general level of intelligence. Social networks have brought a lot of decline to the profession, because people who previously would not have been allowed to clean toilets now believe that they are outstanding bloggers and at the same time gather a certain audience precisely by promoting accessibility, broadcasting accessible ideas.
“When the BBC releases a film about Putin, I rub my eyes - is that really the BBC logo?”
- You correctly said that erosion occurs not only in journalism...
This erosion... Nowadays people turn on TV, the Internet, magazines, newspapers, not to learn something new, but to hear an opinion that coincides with your personal opinion or, on the contrary, the opposite, to say: “I told you so, that they are like this.” Unfortunately, analysis and intelligence are replaced by such simple chewing gum. This is, in fact, not a Russian problem. This is a problem in the world, but there it is a long-passed stage: in the evening they flick through channels, jumping from one mindless show to another. In our country, unfortunately, they don’t jump from some everyday shows (I have a very good attitude towards Andrei Malakhov, he is my friend, he does his profession well), but all these shows ala Malakhov. It would be nice if there were 20 of them on television, but instead of them there are socio-political programs. When people discuss someone else's bed, it is certainly unpleasant, but it is not fatal. When people discuss politics in the same way and think that they are experts: here we all understand politics and football... This light chewing gum, when you think: here are your own, here are strangers, you chew it endlessly, it’s a disaster.
When the BBC releases a film about Putin, I rub my eyes - is that really the BBC logo? And the next day I see a film about Obama, which is being produced by the Rossiya TV channel, I understand that both channels and, in general, both Western and Russian journalism are now competing not in who is better and more professional, but in the decline in the standards of the profession
It's horrible. And it’s hard for a person to navigate when there is such a multipolar... Even now television cannot be called narrowly focused propaganda: if you want to watch Channel One, if you want - Dozhd...
And again, you compare: “Channel One” is “Channel One”, “Rain” is a channel that can only be seen by searching and paying, and not on television. I’m not a big supporter of Dozhd, but let’s at least compare... If you want, compare “First” with RBC, but these are different things, and comparing the audience of RBC with “First” is difficult, but possible. But “Rain” has nothing to do with it at all. And then, all the same, there are not only no different opinions left, but there are fewer and fewer of them. Yes, this is not what scares me: if there were only opinions, but with a good level of journalism, I would still be ready to put up with it, but analysis is being replaced by cheap journalism. This is scary, this is scary.
- Is it different abroad? You are for a long time lived there...
No. How it was... This is my third interview today in my beloved city of Kazan, and I can repeat what I have already said: abroad I have encountered and worked with many foreign media, but understand, the BBC has always had such a brand book: what is possible and what is not. There is a standard, there is a level of profession. And when the BBC releases a film about Putin, I rub my eyes - is that really the BBC logo? And the next day I see a film about Obama, which is being produced by the Rossiya TV channel, I understand that both channels and, in general, both Western and Russian journalism are now competing not in who is better and more professional (and there are many challenges: new technologies , new media, with the advent of the Internet everything has changed and continues to change daily), and in the fall of the standards of the profession, not in the rise, but in the fall, they are simply deepening the bottom. And I don’t know which is worse today: the Rossiya channel or the BBC.
If earlier it was possible to say: we have a free press, in the West - not very free, now everywhere is free - now everything is worse. As Comrade Stalin said when they brought him the Moscow Hotel with two versions of the facade: “Both are worse.” What can you do?
- I don’t have any other writers for you.
This is another story, but no, yes, you have to live with these.
“The Internet has now been taken to a madhouse”
The Internet has made information accessible; it has revolutionized all work in journalism. What challenges are you seeing now in relation to what is crazy? a large number of new media emerges based on the Internet?
Where do new media appear?
- The Huffington Post, for example.
Sorry, but The Huffington Post is not about Russia and not about now. He certainly definitely changed the world. And I believe that Russia should have its own The Huffington Post and The Huffington live television, but it is not appearing. And now come to the investor and say: “I want a new The Huffington Post. He: “What is this? Crazy?". Who will open media outlets in Russia now?
For The Huffington Post, formats have long since changed, and 115 new ones have already appeared. And we are all sitting, as in the 17th century: “The Internet has appeared”... The fact is that with the advent of the Internet... My good friend Dima and I, from such a great Soviet, now Russian group “Blue Bird”, were discussing the deeds of our youth long ago: many ran away from the army, lay in a madhouse. And we came to the conclusion that the Internet has now been taken to a madhouse, because with the advent of the Internet people appeared who should not have been allowed to do anything at all, but now any person who can press the button to go online... Previously, at least I had to press the modem, think of it, but now high speed internet taken to a madhouse. And everyone has an opinion, everyone sits, clicks their fingers, writes all sorts of garbage and thinks that they are expressing an opinion. What is professional journalism? Professional journalism with the advent of the Internet did not raise its standards, but fell to the standard of people who consider themselves bloggers. Do you know a lot of bloggers who actually broadcast something interesting?
I come to meet with students or teach them, my eyes burn, and my mouth begins to open - I feel scared. At least go read some books at school
- On the fingers of one hand.
How many journalists are there left? More on the fingers of one hand.
- They are dying out.
Where are the youth? So I come to meet with students or teach them, my eyes burn, and my mouth begins to open - I feel scared. At least we could read some books at school. Previously, under Soviet rule, there was no Internet, what did people do? They went to the library. Basic set Everyone had intellectual concepts; Now everyone has arrived.
“People who are serious analysts sit deep underground and work for secret structures”
And there was a desire to study. And there are even jokes that now the quality of analytics has sharply decreased, since the new school year has begun, now schoolchildren have gone to school, and, accordingly, there is no time: there are fewer experts on geopolitics and economics. You worked face to face with real analysts and experts; Now the level of analytics, I mean mature, advanced analytics, is the level of analytics falling?
What kind of face to face are you talking about with real analysts? Real analysts don't go on TV. And the fact that people are running, you understand that they come to show off: “This guy came and said something, but we need someone like him, let’s pay him.” Yes, even media capital, so that another official would say: “Listen, we need to create an institute for studying the geopolitics of Tatarstan and deepening oil refining. I saw Vasya on Vittel’s air, he’s probably a normal dude, since he was with Vittel. Let's take it. And people who are truly serious analysts, with rare exceptions (I don’t want to offend all my guests), sit deep underground and work for deeply secret structures, and do not go on TV channels.
I’m like that too, I watch all the TV channels. I, too, in addition to television, have my own politics and security, I firmly know what people who know more than me give, they do not go on television. This is not the point, because serious analysts cannot even utter two words on air. In most cases, they are tongue-tied, downtrodden people. And there are media people, the TV needs a picture. They need Zhirinovsky: he’ll cause a scandal, throw a mug - that’s all, he’s already a good media character. They also need to collect ratings. And the fact that they sit at Malakhov’s place and swear, let it be about geopolitics in the same way as at Malakhov’s. So much for the level of gears.
“What interests me most is the fork in the road where I think we went wrong.”
It's hard to add anything here. There has been information that you are currently preparing a book about recent economic history.
Now - this is said loudly, I haven’t been able to finish writing it for 10 years. When I started working on it, it seemed to me that it would take two months. When I take on a documentary, they tell me: “You can’t make it in a year.” I say: “Come on, stop it. Let’s bet that I’ll take it off by April?” And it can be a shame: now it’s yours last film I still can’t finish the installation, because I promised by April, but two years have passed and it still doesn’t work out. And it’s exactly the same with the book, because it turned out not so much material as a general awareness of what was happening. It turned out that it was much deeper, and first I myself had to realize how it would all end. That is, there were a lot of questions, and I naively tried to ask them to my friends, with whom we started together in the late 80s, and I thought that in a month or two, there would be a book. But then I decided that it wouldn’t be fair to make unfinished material.
Have you concluded that I am fascinated by him? I wrote several of them, and you are apparently talking about the obituary. No, I was never fascinated by this character. But you know, against the backdrop of today's ghouls, Berezovsky looks no worse, and even better
- What is the book about, about the 90s?
No, about the 80s and 90s. But what interests me most is the fork where, it seems to me, we went the wrong way. It’s hard to say where it is: 87th...
- 93rd they usually say: the shooting of parliament, everything went wrong...
No no no. For me it's much earlier. The shooting of parliament is rather political for me, but I am more interested in economics. It's somewhere there: from 87 to 92. In 1993, this was no longer a fork in the road, but a bold point, just as in 1991 there was a bold political point, in 1992 - an economic one. Then everything went from there.
“Against the background of today’s ghouls, Berezovsky looks no worse, but even better”
- I saw your brilliant article about Berezovsky. Are you fascinated by this character?
I? No. Have you concluded that I am fascinated by him? I wrote several of them, and you are apparently talking about the obituary. No, I was never fascinated by this character. But you know, against the backdrop of today's ghouls, Berezovsky looks no worse, and even better.
- Brilliant scientist.
Which scientist?
- So how? Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences.
You know, there is such a thing as a “trickster” - a jack-in-the-box who knows how to perform tricks and does it brilliantly. Of course, I’m not a mathematician, but those people who understood... I don’t want to speak badly about Boris Abramovich: about the deceased, either nothing, or on the air, as I once said on the air. I won't say bad things, but I've never been fascinated in my life. It’s women who can be fascinated by such shiny little devils, but I’m not a woman to be fascinated by such things. Yes, it seems to me that we are burying him early, he must be alive somewhere. I still don't believe in his death.
- Yes, he’s probably lying in the Bahamas, watching our program and giggling.
If he has nothing else to do in the Bahamas except watch our program, then I should only feel sorry for him, then it’s better to go to hell.
“Sasha (Bashlachev) was a genius, Sasha was, forgive the blasphemy, Sasha was God”
- And in the 90s, you still... You have such a hypostasis, quite unexpected: you were a producer and director...
More like the 80s than the 90s.
- Yes, this is the 80s turning into the 90s. You were...
Why unexpected? Now, looking back, this is unexpected, but then it was quite natural.
Such a hypostasis, I still want to tell our viewers: you were the producer, the director of such extraordinary bright figures who left a significant mark on Russian rock, Alexander Bashlachov alone is worth it. You worked close. How would Bashlachov live now?
I wouldn't live. It became surprising for me, I Lately They do a lot of interviews, and often the first question they ask is how Bashlachov would live now. I cannot answer for Sasha and cannot imagine now that he would somehow live in our time, just as I cannot imagine Vysotsky in our time. Sasha was probably the last Russian genius. A person who is so incompatible with all carrion that it is, no, impossible to imagine Sasha now. And to imagine him in general with the whole era, which just ended in February of that year, when Sasha jumped out of the window, because real life and what began after are incompatible.
This generation of young people, who (Bashlachev says little to them) grew up in such fat years, they cannot withdraw into themselves. They are already accustomed to living, as it seems to them, in an amicable way. They won’t go back to the basements, but it’s easy for us: stew and a machine gun, as Stepan Demura says
- Is it now or was it the time of the bells?
I don't know what he meant then. You see, I don’t remember who, in my opinion, Tema Troitsky, when they asked him a question in an interview, said: “Leave me alone, I saw a living Bashlachov, I saw a living genius, I don’t need anything else in this life.” Sasha was a genius, Sasha was, forgive the blasphemy, Sasha was God. What he meant by talking about the time of the bells is not for me to judge. Unfortunately, I spent very little time with this man, but lately I have been trying to be close, and I consider myself to blame for his death. I don’t know what he meant by the time of the bells, but it certainly isn’t now.
- Now...
Now we are calling completely different people, I can’t say this on the air. It's ringing time.
People now hear this ringing, and many go into internal emigration. There is a rejection of politics, economics, a kind of apathy, many simply, excuse the expression, simply give up on everything. They withdraw into themselves and live by culture.
What's wrong with withdrawing into yourself and living in culture? You know, I feel sorry for those... I’m just from that generation, from stokers, from janitors, like there was a generation of janitors and watchmen - it’s easy for us to go back. I have a bad attitude towards Alexander Abramovich Kabakov, but once he wrote, as it seemed to us then, a stupid and artificial dystopian book, and when we read it, it seemed to us that the USSR could not collapse like that. And then everything went according to this book. It’s easy for us: we always manage, as it is written in this book, to hug the ground, and we managed to catch little good. And this generation of young people, who (Bashlachev says little to them) grew up in such fat years, they cannot withdraw into themselves. They are already accustomed to living, as it seems to them, in an amicable way. They won’t go back to the basements, but it’s easy for us: stew and a machine gun, as Stepan Demura says.
“If those people who brought the country to the brink of economic disaster remain in charge, then things will really be bad.”
And here’s the question: returning to the topic of today’s economic situation, we see that the reserve fund is being depleted, very difficult situation in the budget (1.5 trillion rubles deficit), privatization is delayed with the same Bashneft. It's time to truly accept difficult decisions, and now they are openly saying that they will raise taxes. Your vision - everything will be bad?
If you don't change anything, everything will be bad. Our government, at the very least, could not perform its duties very well in an economy that was growing. But when the economy experiences such disruptions as are happening now... I don’t know why Bashneft was mentioned here, this is not the worst thing that’s happening to our country, it’s not the worst. a big problem. It is obvious that the country is on the brink of economic disaster and has been for a long time. If those people who brought it to the brink of economic catastrophe remain to govern the country, understanding that this economic catastrophe must be solved by some other people, if these cannot cope (I’m talking about the government, without touching the supreme power, there is another sad story), then everything will really be bad. But we always go to basements, and we can work as janitors.
- But not everyone agrees with this.
- Work as janitors.
But that's their problem. If you are not ready to work as janitors, then you don’t have to work at all.
“But I want to live like a human being, like they live in good countries.”
Why aren't janitors people? In good countries, then? People should go to good country, as it seems to them. I prefer to live in my homeland and make the country more and more livable. In principle, I’m still happy with it now. In the end, we have vast Siberia, I have a lot of friends there, we’ll hide there. We'll live in the taiga.
I somehow don’t want to believe that my country will fall into a hole again. To be honest, I hoped that perestroika and the subsequent years were the worst thing we experienced
- You have your optimism in assessing the situation.
Do you call this optimism? I have no optimism in assessing the situation. I have some hope that we... You know, we have a very lucky president, he, as they say in the cards, is lucky, and if he gets lucky again, it means that we will slip by a short distance. If he doesn’t get lucky, and the country comes to its senses (both the government and he), then we will live well for a long time, we will somehow get out. I somehow don’t want to believe that my country will fall into a hole again. To be honest, I hoped that perestroika and the subsequent years were the worst thing we experienced (1992 - 1998). It seemed to me that we had gotten out, if we fell into this hole again, it means that this was not what we were experiencing in the end, but I wouldn’t want to.
“This is not patriotism, this is faith in the country”
- Should I take up Glazyev or Kudrin?
I always say, probably repeating this phrase for the hundredth time lately, and I think all the people who listen to my interviews are already tired of this phrase: the saying that the devil has two hands, and if one hand is Kudrin, and the other - Glazyev, then please give me another devil. I have a very good, friendly, warm, human attitude towards Kudrin, and I have a good attitude towards Sergei Yuryevich, but please, I don’t want to choose an economic program between Glazyev and Kudrin and a political one, by the way. Both are worse. Comrade Stalin simply said: “Let’s have another devil then.”
- What kind of angel should you have?
Listen, there can be no angels in politics or economics. There may be some consensus. 30 years. How many years have we had since perestroika? From the April plenum, it was in 1985. If in 31 years we have not developed a new concept for the development of the country, we have not sat down and thought: that’s it - there is no USSR, let’s build a different world. What should it be like? Not this world of robbery, when: “Oh, cool, the USSR collapsed - this plant was left unattended, we’ll take it away, there’s a factory left, but here we’ll make a road, but here we’d rather steal the road.” This was the concept of our development. Nobody said: “Guys, there is no USSR, but let’s think about where we are now in the global division of labor? What we can? What can't we do? How we can? Why can we? Was it? Did not have.
No one has yet realized where we are. And when McCain says that we are a gas station country, on the one hand I want to punch him in the face, but on the other hand I realize the correctness of his words: yes, we have done a lot, but we still remain a gas station country. I don't want McCain to make fun of our country. I don't want to be a gas station country. I want to be a supplying country high technology, we have an amazing human resource in the country, that’s enough already.
- Well, where did he go?
This means we need to return it... He hasn’t gone anywhere, listen, I was just in Altai. They bring me to the garage at night and show me: people are making small aircraft with their own hands in the garage. In every city, Kulibins sit in the garage. These people remain with us, alive, nothing has gone anywhere. We have amazing human capital, our country was killed and ruined for centuries. Everyone is alive, stop burying yourself. Just because we have idiots in our government does not mean that we are idiots. In every city, in every garage, we have great people with hands and brains. Yes, perestroika broke us, yes, the hungry post-perestroika years broke us, but we are still alive, thank God, we are alive. Yes, Fursenko and Livanov buried education, but they didn’t, and we will live - stop burying the country.
- You can’t strangle this song, you can’t kill it...
You won’t kill, that’s absolutely, I promise you that.
- This patriotism of yours...
This is not patriotism, this is faith in the country.
- This admiration for your people - isn’t this patriotism?
But I don’t have another country and never will. I really like other countries, I love to travel, I love to live in them for a long time, but I don’t have and never will have another country. This is my country, here I always have time to hug the ground. By the way, Kabakov’s book is called “The Defector.”
Dilyara Akhmetzyanova, photo by Maxim Platonov
Bloggers are killing journalism, real analysts do not go on television because they are engaged in serious research and cannot “put two words together,” and the country is on the verge of a major economic catastrophe, which we all somehow need to survive. Famous television journalist, RBC journalist Igor Vittel spoke about this and much more during the online conference of Realnoe Vremya.
Internet in every madhouse
“Recently in GUM I had to run into a paid toilet. The cashier who was sitting there said: “Igor Stanislavovich, don’t you remember me?” I said, no, I don’t remember, “And I was often on your air, now here.” That’s why I say: “Guys, having been on my show, remember where everything can end.” An online conference with RBC journalist Igor Vittel began with such a bitter-tasting story.
Almost the first topic of conversation with a federal journalist was state propaganda. Vittel noted that many people far from the media have the impression “that in the morning the president’s installations are being broadcast directly into our brains.”
In fact, propaganda is not when people broadcast to you from behind the Kremlin wall what to say and what not to say. This is when you begin to broadcast your own beliefs, presenting them as the ultimate truth. Or you begin, if you really are a pro-government journalist, to sincerely believe in something that you don’t believe in outside the frame,” Vittel noted.
Propaganda is not when people broadcast to you from behind the Kremlin wall what to say and what not to say. This is when you begin to broadcast your own beliefs, presenting them as the ultimate truth.
Now in Russia and the world one can see the general decline of journalism. This is influenced not only by ideologization, but by the low quality of education and a decrease in the general level of intelligence. Responsibility for this lies largely with in social networks and the Internet, says Vittel:
People who previously would not have been allowed to clean toilets now believe that they are outstanding bloggers, gathering a certain audience precisely through propaganda and broadcasting accessible ideas.
<...>With the advent of the Internet, people appeared who should not have been allowed to do anything. And yet everyone has a mania, everyone sits, clicks their fingers and writes all sorts of garbage, but they think that they are expressing an opinion. Something crazy is happening.
Professional journalism with the advent of the Internet did not raise its standards, but fell to the level of bloggers.<…>Where are the youth? I come to the students and their eyes light up. And when they start to open their mouths, it becomes scary. At least go read some books, or something,” Vittel complained.
It's scary, it's scary<…>Both Western and Russian journalism are now competing not over who is better and more professional, but over falling standards in the profession. They just deepen the bottom. And today I don’t know who is worse - “Russia” or the BBC,” says Vittel.
Ruminant analytics
In addition to the decline in the general level of journalism, the level of analytics has also noticeably decreased, the editorial guest believes. In his opinion, real analysis is now being replaced with “simple chewing gum.” Moreover, this situation is again developing both in Russia and in the world as a whole.
All television analysts simply “shine their face” and earn media capital for themselves, Vittel believes. Even those who come to his program. Real analysts “sit underground” and few people know them.
Serious analysts - they can’t even say two words on air. But TV needs something else - they need Zhirinovsky.
When they say that we are a country of gas stations, on the one hand, you want to “smack us in the face” for such words, but on the other hand, you realize the truth of these words
“You won’t strangle, you won’t kill”
Perhaps the most striking part of the conversation was the discussion of the current situation in the country. Vittel says Russia has long been on the brink of economic disaster.
If those people who brought it to the brink of economic disaster remain in charge of the country, not understanding that this economic disaster must be eliminated (I’m talking about the government now), then it will be really bad.
At the same time, people of the “generation of janitors and watchmen” will be able to easily go back:
We always manage to hug the ground. And the generation of young people who grew up in fat years, they can no longer withdraw into themselves. They are used to living, as it seems to them, in an amicable way.
Vittel considers the country's President Vladimir Putin to be very lucky: “As they say in the cards, lucky. If he gets lucky again, it means we’ll be a short distance away. If he doesn’t get lucky, and the country comes to its senses (both he and the government), then we’ll be in a long time.
“In 31 years, we haven’t sat down and thought: “Okay, the Soviet Union is yuk, that’s it, no.” Soviet Union. Let's build, guys new world. What should it be like? When they say that we are a country of gas stations, on the one hand, you want to “smack us in the face” for such words, but on the other hand, you realize the truth of these words,” says Vittel.
He also noted that he considered perestroika the most difficult and terrible time that the country and the Russians went through. He hoped this wouldn't happen again. “If we fall into this hole again. What can I say. In the end, this is not what we were worried about,” Vittel is sure that in the end, “we will somehow get out”:
Our country has been killed and robbed for centuries. Everyone is alive! Stop burying yourself! Just because we have idiots in our government does not mean we are idiots. In every city, in every garage, there are great people with hands and brains. Yes, it died, but perestroika broke it. But still alive. Thank God they are alive. Yes, Fursenko and Livanov buried education - they didn’t! And we will live!
Yulia Krasnikova, photo by Maxim Platonov
— You came to television journalism in 1991, 25 years ago. What are the most important changes that have occurred since then?
— In my opinion, there has been a complete degradation of the journalistic profession. A profession that must get to the bottom of things, analyze and try to figure everything out. Now this is propaganda, from all sides. There are practically no normal media left either in Russia or in the world that would actually try to engage in professional journalism in the form in which I understand it.
Of course, I’ve gone too far about the world, but the latest BBC exercises about Putin are no different in better side, but rather even get worse from what, say, the Rossiya channel does.
“RBC has developed in recent years in the direction of normal journalism”
“Both sides of the barricade turned out to be occupied by non-journalists. But then, for example, RBC: how objective was he before the dismissal on May 13 of the chief editor of the RBC newspaper Maxim Solyus, the editor of the news service Roman Badanin and their chief editor Elizaveta Osetinskaya?
— I probably shouldn’t talk about RBC from the point of view of corporate rules. But it seems that RBC in recent years - the website, newspaper and magazine - have developed in the direction of normal journalism. RBC is one of the few last remaining islands of objectivity. Behind last years RBC managed to assemble an interesting team, which, unfortunately, left the other day. All disturbances, fortunately, have always bypassed RBC-TV, and I do not expect anything to happen to it.
— Will you remain at RBC if it ceases to be such an island of objectivity?
- Of course, I will leave. I don’t like some of the ongoing processes, but I wouldn’t like to talk about it.
— In general, would you like to engage in journalism and run your program until you are 80 years old, like Vladimir Pozner?
- No. I'm not sure I want to do journalism all my life. In the form in which it is. There are some other projects, partly related to journalism, that I am and will be involved in. There are some good professional journalists. In our generation they exist and, thank God, they work. Even in those publications in which you generally wouldn’t expect to see them.
— Regarding the milestones in the development of Russian television journalism. There was the seizure of Gusinsky's NTV, the destruction of Berezovsky's TV6. Are there others?
— I wouldn’t measure dates like that. Somehow it all gradually developed. Moreover, I cannot strictly call this a regression. For example, the RBC-TV channel was initially not entirely journalistic. He recruited a lot of people who had nothing to do with journalism. Because at that time it was very difficult to find journalists who understood economics, and RBC - good example, when a professional journalistic team was created from non-professional journalists.
— Economic journalists are one thing, and the economic literacy of the population is another thing. How high is it from your point of view?
— Generally speaking, then, of course, it’s not high. Because the literate population is unlikely to take out microloans and use such services. And even before microloans, there were a number of banks that provided loans at 70% interest, and this indicates low literacy. But on the other hand, I travel around the country and meet people. Some people themselves have perfectly learned to deal with their finances and trade financial instruments. And they talk about these topics professionally; there is something to talk about with them.
— If we talk about the journalism that you do at RBC, are there any topics that management asks you not to raise?
- There is no such. I have never been approached with such requests. There were complaints, perhaps, about the not very correct coverage of some (as it seemed to the management at that time) topics. But it didn’t happen that they banned it.
“People working for Dozhd firmly believe in what they say, but that’s why it is propaganda.”
— You said that journalism has come to naught, all that remains is propaganda. Here is the Dozhd TV channel, for example. Do you classify it as journalism or propaganda?
— Propaganda has changed a lot. People working for Dozhd firmly believe in what they say, but that is why it is propaganda.
Now the media paradigm itself has changed. If earlier a person watched TV, read newspapers in order to find out something, today he turns on the TV solely to hear confirmation of his point of view. That is, if a person firmly believes that the Ozero cooperative stole everything in Russia, he turns on the Dozhd TV channel to hear it and not hear anything else. Because all other channels cause him epileptic seizures and a desire to turn them off.
Well, there are some compromise options like RBC. But in general, people don't need information. They need emotions that match their emotions.
— It turns out that journalists everywhere replace objectivity with their own views? But it has always been like this.
- If a person is sure that this is how everything is happening, he broadcasts it. This does not mean at all that someone above or below him says: “Yes, you will say this and that...” This is simply one’s own conviction, which is broadcast as the only correct opinion. The same representatives of “Echo of Moscow” claim that they invite different guests, and this is true. But the presenters all belong to the same camp and a very aggressive one. It's just a broadcast certain people certain thoughts to a certain audience.
— Do you consider yourself an objective journalist?
- Well, most of the time yes. I may be biased because I also have my own beliefs and I also defend them. And for me there are people who are unacceptable to me on my air. Therefore, I’m probably not a very objective journalist.
“They are, in my opinion, sincere idiots”
—Who will you never invite on air in your life?
“I’m ready to argue with anyone if that person has at least a minimum IQ.” For example, I won’t invite Borovoy. Because there are people with whom you can discuss, and others with whom you cannot. For me personally, it seems idiotic to argue with the same Borov.
- Well, this is the first galaxy of market businessmen. Konstantin Natanovich, and there was also the Alice exchange, German Sterligov.
— Sterligov is simply crazy and has always been like that. And Konstantin Natanovich is just an apologist invisible hand market, which will put everything in its place. Indeed, this is the first galaxy of businessmen; they sincerely believe in all this. They cannot be blamed for any bias. They are, in my opinion, sincere idiots.
Moreover, some of them have changed and turned into people with whom I communicate with pleasure. In particular, with the same Irina Khakamada. Now this is a person whose opinion I am interested in.
“Our government, with rare exceptions, are people who bring harm to the country.”
— How would you briefly describe your beliefs?
- I can’t describe it briefly. Here, from one very well-known channel, they invited me on air and picked on the topic: which side should we put you on - the statists or the liberals? The answer was: “I am neither a statist nor a liberal. I have my own beliefs that do not coincide with either one or the other. For some I am on the liberal side, for others I am quite a statist.” The editor fell into a state of stupor: “Well, we can’t do that. We need to place you somewhere." In general, participation in the broadcast did not work out.
It is impossible to describe my beliefs from these positions. As far as domestic economic policy is concerned, I believe that our government, with rare exceptions, are people who bring harm to the country. Concerning foreign policy, then I largely support her.
I believe that the country is in a very difficult situation. But people who consider themselves to be in the liberal camp are also not useful, just like the government in power. Well, what should I do about it? This is my position, to put it briefly.
— How do you relax? Or not before that?
— I relax and travel. But it's still work. For me, any trip is always a work of thought on some new project. When traveling around Europe, I mainly study the history of the First and Second World Wars. This is my hobby, and instead of looking at some sights or quietly drinking at a bar, I start digging up data unknown to me. And then it usually results in some new project.
- You came to television journalism in 1991, 25 years ago. What are the most important changes that have occurred since then?
In my opinion, there has been a complete degradation of the journalistic profession. A profession that must get to the bottom of things, analyze and try to figure everything out. Now this is propaganda, from all sides. There are practically no normal media left either in Russia or in the world that would actually try to engage in professional journalism in the form in which I understand it. Of course, I’ve gone too far about the world, but the latest BBC exercises about Putin are no different for the better, or rather even worse, from what, say, the Rossiya channel is doing. “RBC has developed in recent years in the direction of normal journalism”
Both sides of the barricade turned out to be occupied by non-journalists. But then, for example, RBC: how objective was he before the dismissal on May 13 of the chief editor of the RBC newspaper Maxim Solyus, the editor of the news service Roman Badanin and their chief editor Elizaveta Osetinskaya?
I probably shouldn’t talk about RBC from the point of view of corporate rules. But it seems that RBC in recent years - the website, newspaper and magazine - have developed in the direction of normal journalism. RBC is one of the few last remaining islands of objectivity. In recent years, RBC has managed to assemble an interesting team, which, unfortunately, left the other day. All disturbances, fortunately, have always bypassed RBC-TV, and I do not expect anything to happen to it.
- Will you remain at RBC if it ceases to be such an island of objectivity?
Of course I will leave. I don’t like some of the ongoing processes, but I wouldn’t like to talk about it.
- In general, would you like to engage in journalism and run your program until you are 80 years old, like Vladimir Pozner?
No. I'm not sure I want to do journalism all my life. In the form in which it is. There are some other projects, partly related to journalism, that I am and will be involved in. There are some good professional journalists. In our generation they exist and, thank God, they work. Even in those publications in which you generally wouldn’t expect to see them.
Regarding the milestones in the development of Russian television journalism. There was the seizure of Gusinsky's NTV, the destruction of Berezovsky's TV6. Are there others?
I wouldn't measure dates like that. Somehow it all gradually developed. Moreover, I cannot strictly call this a regression. For example, the RBC-TV channel was initially not entirely journalistic. He recruited a lot of people who had nothing to do with journalism. Because at that time it was very difficult to find journalists who understood economics, and RBC is a good example when a professional journalistic team was created from non-professional journalists.
Economic journalists are one thing, and the economic literacy of the population is another matter. How high is it from your point of view?
Generally speaking, it is, of course, low. Because the literate population is unlikely to take out microloans and use such services. And even before microloans, there were a number of banks that provided loans at 70% interest, and this indicates low literacy. But on the other hand, I travel around the country and meet people. Some people themselves have perfectly learned to deal with their finances and trade financial instruments. And they talk about these topics professionally; there is something to talk about with them.
If we talk about the journalism that you do at RBC, are there any topics that management asks you not to raise?
There is no such. I have never been approached with such requests. There were complaints, perhaps, about the not very correct coverage of some (as it seemed to the management at that time) topics. But it didn’t happen that they banned it. “People working for Dozhd firmly believe in what they say, but that’s why it is propaganda.”
You said that journalism has come to naught, all that remains is propaganda. Here is the Dozhd TV channel, for example. Do you classify it as journalism or propaganda?
Propaganda has changed a lot. People working for Dozhd firmly believe in what they say, but that is why it is propaganda. Now the media paradigm itself has changed. If earlier a person watched TV, read newspapers in order to find out something, today he turns on the TV solely to hear confirmation of his point of view. That is, if a person firmly believes that the Ozero cooperative stole everything in Russia, he turns on the Dozhd TV channel to hear it and not hear anything else. Because all other channels cause him epileptic seizures and a desire to turn them off. Well, there are some compromise options like RBC. But in general, people don't need information. They need emotions that match their emotions.
- It turns out that journalists everywhere replace objectivity with their own views? But it has always been like this.
If a person is sure that this is how everything is happening, he broadcasts it. This does not mean at all that someone above or below him says: “Yes, you will say this and that...” This is simply one’s own conviction, which is broadcast as the only correct opinion. The same representatives of “Echo of Moscow” claim that they invite different guests, and this is true. But the presenters all belong to the same camp and a very aggressive one. It is simply the broadcasting of certain thoughts by certain people to a certain audience.
- Do you consider yourself an objective journalist?
Well, most of the time yes. I may be biased because I also have my own beliefs and I also defend them. And for me there are people who are unacceptable to me on my air. Therefore, I’m probably not a very objective journalist. “They are, in my opinion, sincere idiots”
-Who will you never invite on air in your life?
I'm ready to argue with anyone if that person has at least a minimum IQ. For example, I won’t invite Borovoy. Because there are people with whom you can discuss, and others with whom you cannot. For me personally, it seems idiotic to argue with the same Borov.
Well, this is the first galaxy of market businessmen. Konstantin Natanovich, and there was also the Alice exchange, German Sterligov.
Sterligov is simply crazy and always has been. And Konstantin Natanovich is simply an apologist for the invisible hand of the market, which will put everything in its place. Indeed, this is the first galaxy of businessmen; they sincerely believe in all this. They cannot be blamed for any bias. They are, in my opinion, sincere idiots. Moreover, some of them have changed and turned into people with whom I communicate with pleasure. In particular, with the same Irina Khakamada. Now this is a person whose opinion I am interested in. “Our government, with rare exceptions, are people who bring harm to the country”
- How would you briefly describe your beliefs?
Can't describe it briefly. Here, from one very well-known channel, they invited me on air and picked on the topic: which side should we put you on - the statists or the liberals? The answer was: “I am neither a statist nor a liberal. I have my own beliefs that do not coincide with either one or the other. For some I am on the liberal side, for others I am quite a statist.” The editor fell into a state of stupor: “Well, we can’t do that. We need to place you somewhere." In general, participation in the broadcast did not work out. It is impossible to describe my beliefs from these positions. As for domestic economic policy, I believe that our government, with rare exceptions, are people who are causing harm to the country. As for foreign policy, I largely support it. I believe that the country is in a very difficult situation. But people who consider themselves to be in the liberal camp are also not useful, just like the government in power. Well, what should I do about it? This is my position, to put it briefly.
- How do you relax? Or not before that?
I relax and travel. But it's still work. For me, any trip is always a work of thought on some new project. When traveling around Europe, I mainly study the history of the First and Second World Wars. This is my hobby, and instead of looking at some sights or quietly drinking at a bar, I start digging up data unknown to me. And then it usually results in some new project.
As it became known today, May 13, the management of the RBC media holding fired several “top” employees at once. This is RBC editor-in-chief Elizaveta Osetinskaya, Chief Editor RBC news agency Roman Badanin and the newspaper's editor-in-chief Maxim Solyus. According to general director RBC Nikolay Molibog, the reason was disagreements about the future of the holding.
After this, some RBC employees said that they would “follow their bosses,”
"We've been talking a lot lately about how to further develop RBC, and in these conversations we couldn't come to unanimous opinion regarding important issues, so we decided to separate. I want to thank Elizaveta, Roman and Maxim for their work and their contribution to the development of the company,” Molibog said in a message on the RBC website.
Of course, the “opposition public” has its own opinion on this matter. Ever since the information appeared in Gazeta.ru that Mikhail Prokhorov plans to sell the media holding, there has been talk about pressure on “independent media” represented by RBC. They say that now the “men in gray” have come for them. The turmoil only intensified when it became known about investigative actions against individuals and companies apparently associated with RBC. And now - a loud dismissal. Which, of course, will already become a reason to talk about “links of the damn chain.”
In reality, as often happens, everything is much more prosaic than “the struggle of free media against totalitarianism and censorship.”
According to a statement made by the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications, the turmoil within and around the media holding should be linked not to politics, but to purely economic reasons. According to Deputy Minister of Communications and Mass Communications Alexei Volin, “the owner of RBC had every reason to be dissatisfied with the activities of the management of his company for many years.”
The holding, as Volin said, has long been unprofitable - and the current leaders of RBC either did not want to do anything about it, or could not. “The hole with the debt remained the same. His managers generated losses, not profits,” Volin explained. Information about the state of RBC's finances is quite accessible. So the words of the deputy minister are easy to confirm.
In 2013, the losses of the “independent information holding” amounted to 407 million rubles, and in 2014 - already as much as 1.5 billion. That is, the situation has not only not improved over the year, but has become significantly worse. The total amount of RBC's debts at the moment is no less than 17 billion rubles.
It is not at all surprising that in such a situation the company is greatly shaken, there are rumors about the sale of a “unprofitable asset”, details of dubious financial manipulations emerge that attract the attention of law enforcement agencies, and now high-profile layoffs follow. Because it is obvious that the current management has brought RBC to a completely deplorable state.
As for politics, there are complaints against RBC in this regard, and there are many of them. True, not at all because they are “independent”. On the contrary, judging by some data, they are very dependent. From foreign funding. Last year it became known that RBC, as well as the well-known Dozhd TV channel, are closely involved in British and American financial flows. And this year there is a new scandal, this time with German funds allocated for “promoting democracy and Western values.”
Such formulations have not deceived anyone for a long time: what is hidden behind them in ten out of ten cases is ordinary anti-Russian propaganda.
And now, in reality, a situation emerges in which the greedy and rather incompetent management of RBC, selling itself more expensive left and right, still failed to cope with its responsibilities and brought a large and once successful media holding to a deplorable financial situation. And instead of admitting mistakes and correcting the situation, our opposition begins to blame the Kremlin for everything. And be sold to the West for a small penny.
Where this approach leads is clearly visible from the ratings of the political part of the opposition tending to zero. The media, however, also have an audience - and this audience, if we continue in this spirit, will also be rapidly declining. Not at all because the “totalitarian regime” introduces censorship. But quite natural reasons organizational and professional unsuitability.
And one last thing.
Do the opposition like to talk so much about the “hand of the market” and the “honest free economy”?
Well, here's the hand of the market:
“Shares of the RBC holding jumped 7% on Friday evening on the news that a number of top managers left the company.”
RBC has achieved “success”