Talk about censorship and personality cult?
Yes, about the very, undemocratic Soviet censorship. When in each publishing house, at each radio station, and so on, a certain person worked, invested with the power to decide what the ordinary Soviet philistine should know and what is not worth it.
Over the past 25 years, we were firmly struck in the head that censorship is bad. This is not democratic, it is a violation of our rights and freedoms. And now, a quarter of a century, we have what we have. And to be honest, they have us. In the brain. Moreover, very successfully.
In no way do I want to say nonsense like “return the Soviet censorship!”, No. I understand perfectly well that this is simply unrealistic, but here the promise is different. And for starters, I would like to draw several parallel lines and comparisons.
The thing is that for quite a long time (as it happened) I have been doing a kind of comparison between the Soviet and the Russian media. And I find both similarities and differences.
1. Cult of personality.
Exactly: the Cult of Personality. The Soviet press and television really cultivated Personality. Unlike the Russian media, which often advocate the cult of impersonality.
Requires clarification. But those who spent time in front of the Soviet screens will understand me immediately.
So, the Personality dominated in the Soviet media. And this person was, of course, boring by today's standards. Milkmaids who achieved record milk yields, miners who pulled tons out of the ground over plan, combine operators, tractor drivers, and so on. Yes, the reports, let's say, were not entirely “hot”, but this was not required. The goal was different.
The goal was to show the Man of Work. Is it good or bad, but a certain social vector was asked.
But - not interesting, right? But effective. And considering all these orders, cars and other incentives, it was generally not bad, albeit a bit boring.
Today's day, of course, is different. Like heaven from earth. Tell me, who will be interested? There is no "yellowness", there is no scandal.
As an example, I’ll take a reportage that was broadcast on 6 TV channels shortly before the new year. It described how the spouse of a famous football player K was grabbed by the hand during the purchase of a certain bag of white powder. Well, they added a bit of a telephone survey showing how she, in a private setting, makes manipulations in the society of a man who is not at all like her spouse with another powder. But also white.
So, what did our TV channels show us?
Slacker and parasite (this, incidentally, applies to 9 of 10 Russian “stars” of football), who did not create anything in his life but a couple of critical moments at the opponents' goal (and could not have created it, it’s normal for ours) wife of a person who:
a) can afford to buy white powders of dubious properties;
b) lead a wild life, capturing it on video;
c) use the acquired powders in a known way through a straw, also allowing it to be removed.
About aspects of what shishi all this is done, I tactfully keep silent.
And if it was an isolated case ...
But what do we have at the exit? And at the exit, we have advertising frankly parasitic being. Which our modern media diligently chew and suck. How, scandals bring views and cause interest. And thus create advertising for all these "socialites" and other, not the best part of our society.
2011 th remember? This is when some kind of pop figure (let's call him G.) 35 years old successfully married colleague P. “only” 62 years. All Russia was discussing ... unearthly love ...
But not in the everyday perturbations of the essence. This, as they say, is a private matter of this couple. The bottom line is that our media, alas, purposefully cultivate a cult of a slightly different person. Let's just say, scandalous and not producing anything. Of course, this is not applicable to all, the same Mrs. P. plowed on the stage as a mining combine, and perhaps her numerous state awards are justified. As well as income.
The fact is that all the drummers of labor and the foremost workers of the production have sunk into oblivion with the Soviet Union. It's good? Unlikely.
The fact that today the overwhelming majority of shkoloty has some other values in mind is the bitter truth. And the fact that the subject of imitation are not the working people, but all sorts of parasites, such as pop stars, football players, bankers and others, this is a dubious merit of the media.
"Socialite". The revived notion of a half-mono-half-light, and in actual fact - half-light and dirt in the flesh, which one from this category do not take. “Success” in the form of social life, presentations, parties, public and glamorous lifestyle, personal life for show, and with scandals - food for the media and, most shamefully, for the public.
But the public "hawkes" that give out the media. And the media, oddly enough, willingly goes for scandals. Under the new year, the Internet sphere was flooded with a video shot by NTV, in which a certain R. (also a "socialite", mediocrity living at the expense of her husband, and even with mental disorders) threw herself on the film crew.
Everyone enjoyed it.
Did they know in the NTV company that R. doesn’t tolerate them? They knew. Scandalous harvest collected already. And yet, still went. And got what they wanted. Because the co-group, and R., didn’t care about the problems of retirees, everyone needed SCANDAL. All and got it.
Dirt, scandals, advertising of parasites and frank mediocrity - unfortunately, this is our media today.
I will be distracted and project on my personality as a representative of the media. Alas, the fact is, sometimes the readership votes for such things that you are not proud of at all. A paradox, but it happens very often. Habit? Maybe. It is clear that a political article will gather many times more readers than historical or reportage. But this is a choice to work on.
In general, alas, the wrong person, or rather, mediocre impersonality, we cultivate, alas. Too much attention is paid to clowns like Ksyusha and Bozhena, and no attention is paid at all to truly interesting and wonderful people who just plow to their country and who therefore have no time to make trouble.
But this is not the worst yet. We turn to the second part.
2. The cult of the terrorist.
There is a place to be, agree. One has only to happen to something such as the hyenas of the pen / keyboard immediately rush to the topic. From Maskhadov to Breivik.
And whether it is necessary?
Do we really need to know in detail about the difficult and difficult life and difficult childhood of a killer maniac? Do I need to know the details of the last day of the terrorist? Are the comments of his friends and relatives so interesting?
Both terrorists and maniacs need one thing: lighting. Someone for the sake of momentary glory, for those who are ill with the soul, someone for intimidation. But those and others, fellow journalists actively help. Alas. Painting in detail what and how did the terrorist or maniac. Such a guide for those who want to "become a star."
You say nonsense? Yeah, and how many thanks to the media did Chikatilo have fans? What glory did the whitish maidens get, whose inheritance before the dancing in the temple was only in the filming of the half-hearted and stuffing frozen chickens into the places? And now? And now they are human rights defenders ...
And why very rarely talk about the victims? Apparently uninteresting. The same is for the most part ordinary people who are just unlucky enough to be in the concert hall, on the square, in the hypermarket.
And in the end, everyone revels in the identity of the killer. And the victims ... well, so ... in the background as statistics. Without which the terrorist in any way. After all, the more victims, the more attention.
Tighten the nuts? Yes, exit. Do not show terrorists and murderers. Do not fill the screens of TVs and monitors with their portraits and pictures from the places of their crimes. To tell not about the murderers, but about the victims. What they were, and, what is the most terrible, what COULD be the dead.
I, as a person, do not care deeply what guided the animal that killed Andrei Karlov. I don't care what he said, what he was thinking, and so on. He was killed, and had to be buried in pigskin like evil. I do not need his face in editorials, there should be a portrait of a soldier of our diplomatic front who died at the hands of this animal.
And so it should be in theory. Not killed, raspiarivat, waiting for the appearance of the same stupid followers, shizayuschih from the smell of blood. No need to talk about another monkey that sent a truck into the crowd. Tell us about those who died.
We must regret the loss, and not analyze the path of the terrorist. Yes, we normal people regret it. Against the background of all this advertising. We regret the soul, but who said that a journalist is necessarily a soulless brute? Living for the minute success of "hot" stuff?
“Careful need”, as Mikhail Zhvanetsky used to say. Careful ...
3. Where is the exit? Censorship.
Censorship ... Yes, for some reason, this is the way out. To prohibit or limit the dumping on the heads of viewers and readers of certain content. But for this, there should be a clear policy of the state and the body that will control it. “Roskomnadzor” in its current form is not in a position to do this unequivocally. But we will talk about the problems of Roskomnadzor separately.
But there are options. It is worth remembering the sudden decline in the popularity of Mr. Girkin. In November, 2015 of the year passed, as if in many media outlets, the recommendation “not to get involved”. From the three-letter. Whoever responded, we decided at the time that, on the contrary, we should offer help and cooperation. And they offered by visiting the press center of the Strelkov Fund in the center of Moscow. Then we received Boris Rozhin (Colonel Casad), well, Mr. Girkin ... honored by his presence. But then the foundation and the whole team were, as it were, on a certain rise, and did not become friends with us. Well, we are not particularly worried, to be honest. The choice was ...
But gradually everything turned out the way it did. The media stopped quoting and publishing Girkin’s views on Donbass, and everything went to naught.
That's the way out. "Ban" for specific characters. Makarevich, Sobchak, Rynska, Kiselev (Eugene) and the like should be forgotten and wiped out of information space altogether. There were a dozen petitions with a proposal to deprive Rynska and others like her Russian citizenship. With expulsion from the country.
The idea is not bad. The idea is also interesting because it suggests a return to normal. And it makes people think about whether the leaders of the Soviet Union were wrong in expelling Solzhenitsyn, Bukovsky, Voinovich and all the others in 70's?
But back to the terrorists.
The best weapon against a terrorist, who takes a life, and who takes a sober look around - complete oblivion. Not censorship, removing something, but complete oblivion.
Oh yes, many “journalists”, from among the “hunters for sensations,” may be left without work. Information space will be boring. Photographers who find themselves in the place of a state of emergency, do not poke people in the face with lenses. Video operators and correspondents do not climb under the hands of service specialists with idiotic cries “we are in the center of events, on the left you can see the bodies of the dead people ...” and so on, in the style of a television company, which many colleagues have now successfully copied.
No one climbs with cameras into the homes of relatives and friends of those killed in the first hours after the tragedy. All stories can be postponed in accordance with the norms of ethics. Ethics is something that today's media lacks. It is unrealistic to become more tactful on our own - it means that we must force it. The mechanisms for this are like dirt in modern information space.
All information about the incident is issued issued, taking into account the interests of the psychological safety of people. And in general, official news is often enough. Without savoring the bodies of the dead. Without close-ups of heartbroken relatives.
Is it boring But without dirt. You will say that there is enough dirt in social networks. I agree. There frank mayhem today. So, the owners of social networks are simply obliged to bear full responsibility for what is happening in these networks. So that Mr. N., the owner of the social network "Multinas" knew that if terrorists and other undesirable elements establish communication with his social network, he will receive a term. Real, not pixel.
Information terror? Lawlessness? Well, yes, it seems. But the preachers of sects and ISIL recruiters will disappear (especially for Roskomnadzor, which has nothing to do - it is prohibited in the Russian Federation!).
Is it worth being afraid that news will be the same and boring? The question of professionalism. And the question of security is another matter. And the third is that, indeed, if we want to be citizens of a great country, then the principles of building the information field should be appropriate. Educating citizens of a great country, and not who the hell knows, who is ready to turn upside down from a high-rise building because of a pair of dizlicas on his page.
It's time to start building a new personality cult. Personalities of a Russian person and a citizen. And any construction begins with cleaning and site preparation. Our territory should have long been cleared of all manifestations of "democracy" like "secular lionesses", "secular lions" and other representatives of zoology.
And vultures feasting on the blood, too, to remove.
Leave people. Real people do.
Over the past 25 years, we were firmly struck in the head that censorship is bad. This is not democratic, it is a violation of our rights and freedoms. And now, a quarter of a century, we have what we have. And to be honest, they have us. In the brain. Moreover, very successfully.
In no way do I want to say nonsense like “return the Soviet censorship!”, No. I understand perfectly well that this is simply unrealistic, but here the promise is different. And for starters, I would like to draw several parallel lines and comparisons.
The thing is that for quite a long time (as it happened) I have been doing a kind of comparison between the Soviet and the Russian media. And I find both similarities and differences.
1. Cult of personality.
Exactly: the Cult of Personality. The Soviet press and television really cultivated Personality. Unlike the Russian media, which often advocate the cult of impersonality.
Requires clarification. But those who spent time in front of the Soviet screens will understand me immediately.
So, the Personality dominated in the Soviet media. And this person was, of course, boring by today's standards. Milkmaids who achieved record milk yields, miners who pulled tons out of the ground over plan, combine operators, tractor drivers, and so on. Yes, the reports, let's say, were not entirely “hot”, but this was not required. The goal was different.
The goal was to show the Man of Work. Is it good or bad, but a certain social vector was asked.
But - not interesting, right? But effective. And considering all these orders, cars and other incentives, it was generally not bad, albeit a bit boring.
Today's day, of course, is different. Like heaven from earth. Tell me, who will be interested? There is no "yellowness", there is no scandal.
As an example, I’ll take a reportage that was broadcast on 6 TV channels shortly before the new year. It described how the spouse of a famous football player K was grabbed by the hand during the purchase of a certain bag of white powder. Well, they added a bit of a telephone survey showing how she, in a private setting, makes manipulations in the society of a man who is not at all like her spouse with another powder. But also white.
So, what did our TV channels show us?
Slacker and parasite (this, incidentally, applies to 9 of 10 Russian “stars” of football), who did not create anything in his life but a couple of critical moments at the opponents' goal (and could not have created it, it’s normal for ours) wife of a person who:
a) can afford to buy white powders of dubious properties;
b) lead a wild life, capturing it on video;
c) use the acquired powders in a known way through a straw, also allowing it to be removed.
About aspects of what shishi all this is done, I tactfully keep silent.
And if it was an isolated case ...
But what do we have at the exit? And at the exit, we have advertising frankly parasitic being. Which our modern media diligently chew and suck. How, scandals bring views and cause interest. And thus create advertising for all these "socialites" and other, not the best part of our society.
2011 th remember? This is when some kind of pop figure (let's call him G.) 35 years old successfully married colleague P. “only” 62 years. All Russia was discussing ... unearthly love ...
But not in the everyday perturbations of the essence. This, as they say, is a private matter of this couple. The bottom line is that our media, alas, purposefully cultivate a cult of a slightly different person. Let's just say, scandalous and not producing anything. Of course, this is not applicable to all, the same Mrs. P. plowed on the stage as a mining combine, and perhaps her numerous state awards are justified. As well as income.
The fact is that all the drummers of labor and the foremost workers of the production have sunk into oblivion with the Soviet Union. It's good? Unlikely.
The fact that today the overwhelming majority of shkoloty has some other values in mind is the bitter truth. And the fact that the subject of imitation are not the working people, but all sorts of parasites, such as pop stars, football players, bankers and others, this is a dubious merit of the media.
"Socialite". The revived notion of a half-mono-half-light, and in actual fact - half-light and dirt in the flesh, which one from this category do not take. “Success” in the form of social life, presentations, parties, public and glamorous lifestyle, personal life for show, and with scandals - food for the media and, most shamefully, for the public.
But the public "hawkes" that give out the media. And the media, oddly enough, willingly goes for scandals. Under the new year, the Internet sphere was flooded with a video shot by NTV, in which a certain R. (also a "socialite", mediocrity living at the expense of her husband, and even with mental disorders) threw herself on the film crew.
Everyone enjoyed it.
Did they know in the NTV company that R. doesn’t tolerate them? They knew. Scandalous harvest collected already. And yet, still went. And got what they wanted. Because the co-group, and R., didn’t care about the problems of retirees, everyone needed SCANDAL. All and got it.
Dirt, scandals, advertising of parasites and frank mediocrity - unfortunately, this is our media today.
I will be distracted and project on my personality as a representative of the media. Alas, the fact is, sometimes the readership votes for such things that you are not proud of at all. A paradox, but it happens very often. Habit? Maybe. It is clear that a political article will gather many times more readers than historical or reportage. But this is a choice to work on.
In general, alas, the wrong person, or rather, mediocre impersonality, we cultivate, alas. Too much attention is paid to clowns like Ksyusha and Bozhena, and no attention is paid at all to truly interesting and wonderful people who just plow to their country and who therefore have no time to make trouble.
But this is not the worst yet. We turn to the second part.
2. The cult of the terrorist.
There is a place to be, agree. One has only to happen to something such as the hyenas of the pen / keyboard immediately rush to the topic. From Maskhadov to Breivik.
And whether it is necessary?
Do we really need to know in detail about the difficult and difficult life and difficult childhood of a killer maniac? Do I need to know the details of the last day of the terrorist? Are the comments of his friends and relatives so interesting?
Both terrorists and maniacs need one thing: lighting. Someone for the sake of momentary glory, for those who are ill with the soul, someone for intimidation. But those and others, fellow journalists actively help. Alas. Painting in detail what and how did the terrorist or maniac. Such a guide for those who want to "become a star."
You say nonsense? Yeah, and how many thanks to the media did Chikatilo have fans? What glory did the whitish maidens get, whose inheritance before the dancing in the temple was only in the filming of the half-hearted and stuffing frozen chickens into the places? And now? And now they are human rights defenders ...
And why very rarely talk about the victims? Apparently uninteresting. The same is for the most part ordinary people who are just unlucky enough to be in the concert hall, on the square, in the hypermarket.
And in the end, everyone revels in the identity of the killer. And the victims ... well, so ... in the background as statistics. Without which the terrorist in any way. After all, the more victims, the more attention.
Tighten the nuts? Yes, exit. Do not show terrorists and murderers. Do not fill the screens of TVs and monitors with their portraits and pictures from the places of their crimes. To tell not about the murderers, but about the victims. What they were, and, what is the most terrible, what COULD be the dead.
I, as a person, do not care deeply what guided the animal that killed Andrei Karlov. I don't care what he said, what he was thinking, and so on. He was killed, and had to be buried in pigskin like evil. I do not need his face in editorials, there should be a portrait of a soldier of our diplomatic front who died at the hands of this animal.
And so it should be in theory. Not killed, raspiarivat, waiting for the appearance of the same stupid followers, shizayuschih from the smell of blood. No need to talk about another monkey that sent a truck into the crowd. Tell us about those who died.
We must regret the loss, and not analyze the path of the terrorist. Yes, we normal people regret it. Against the background of all this advertising. We regret the soul, but who said that a journalist is necessarily a soulless brute? Living for the minute success of "hot" stuff?
“Careful need”, as Mikhail Zhvanetsky used to say. Careful ...
3. Where is the exit? Censorship.
Censorship ... Yes, for some reason, this is the way out. To prohibit or limit the dumping on the heads of viewers and readers of certain content. But for this, there should be a clear policy of the state and the body that will control it. “Roskomnadzor” in its current form is not in a position to do this unequivocally. But we will talk about the problems of Roskomnadzor separately.
But there are options. It is worth remembering the sudden decline in the popularity of Mr. Girkin. In November, 2015 of the year passed, as if in many media outlets, the recommendation “not to get involved”. From the three-letter. Whoever responded, we decided at the time that, on the contrary, we should offer help and cooperation. And they offered by visiting the press center of the Strelkov Fund in the center of Moscow. Then we received Boris Rozhin (Colonel Casad), well, Mr. Girkin ... honored by his presence. But then the foundation and the whole team were, as it were, on a certain rise, and did not become friends with us. Well, we are not particularly worried, to be honest. The choice was ...
But gradually everything turned out the way it did. The media stopped quoting and publishing Girkin’s views on Donbass, and everything went to naught.
That's the way out. "Ban" for specific characters. Makarevich, Sobchak, Rynska, Kiselev (Eugene) and the like should be forgotten and wiped out of information space altogether. There were a dozen petitions with a proposal to deprive Rynska and others like her Russian citizenship. With expulsion from the country.
The idea is not bad. The idea is also interesting because it suggests a return to normal. And it makes people think about whether the leaders of the Soviet Union were wrong in expelling Solzhenitsyn, Bukovsky, Voinovich and all the others in 70's?
But back to the terrorists.
The best weapon against a terrorist, who takes a life, and who takes a sober look around - complete oblivion. Not censorship, removing something, but complete oblivion.
Oh yes, many “journalists”, from among the “hunters for sensations,” may be left without work. Information space will be boring. Photographers who find themselves in the place of a state of emergency, do not poke people in the face with lenses. Video operators and correspondents do not climb under the hands of service specialists with idiotic cries “we are in the center of events, on the left you can see the bodies of the dead people ...” and so on, in the style of a television company, which many colleagues have now successfully copied.
No one climbs with cameras into the homes of relatives and friends of those killed in the first hours after the tragedy. All stories can be postponed in accordance with the norms of ethics. Ethics is something that today's media lacks. It is unrealistic to become more tactful on our own - it means that we must force it. The mechanisms for this are like dirt in modern information space.
All information about the incident is issued issued, taking into account the interests of the psychological safety of people. And in general, official news is often enough. Without savoring the bodies of the dead. Without close-ups of heartbroken relatives.
Is it boring But without dirt. You will say that there is enough dirt in social networks. I agree. There frank mayhem today. So, the owners of social networks are simply obliged to bear full responsibility for what is happening in these networks. So that Mr. N., the owner of the social network "Multinas" knew that if terrorists and other undesirable elements establish communication with his social network, he will receive a term. Real, not pixel.
Information terror? Lawlessness? Well, yes, it seems. But the preachers of sects and ISIL recruiters will disappear (especially for Roskomnadzor, which has nothing to do - it is prohibited in the Russian Federation!).
Is it worth being afraid that news will be the same and boring? The question of professionalism. And the question of security is another matter. And the third is that, indeed, if we want to be citizens of a great country, then the principles of building the information field should be appropriate. Educating citizens of a great country, and not who the hell knows, who is ready to turn upside down from a high-rise building because of a pair of dizlicas on his page.
It's time to start building a new personality cult. Personalities of a Russian person and a citizen. And any construction begins with cleaning and site preparation. Our territory should have long been cleared of all manifestations of "democracy" like "secular lionesses", "secular lions" and other representatives of zoology.
And vultures feasting on the blood, too, to remove.
Leave people. Real people do.
Information