The mirror of society
If the media often like to call themselves the “mirror of society,” then we must admit that they have some reason for this. Precisely some - because, looking at a part of the Russian media, one would like to look more closely at their belonging to society.They are so desperately and selflessly defending ... no, not freedom of speech, but the interests of another state. Or a whole group of states.
But I am interested in something else - if the media is a mirror of society, then what is the mirror of the media? What makes it possible to adequately assess their work? Whatever one may say, but the conclusion suggests itself - society is a mirror for journalists and those publications in which they work. And the way to find out the opinion of society is a sociological survey.
A similar poll was recently conducted by the Public Opinion Foundation in order to find out the opinion of Russians on a whole range of issues related to journalism and the media.
The results give us a lot of food for thought and analysis. The first question was: "From what media do you usually learn about the latest events in our country?" From the answers it is clear that the majority of Russians learn about the main events in the country from the Central Television.
Much has been said about the decline in the role of TV and news programs for a long time, however, according to FOM, the number of those who prefer to learn news on the leading TV channels has not changed at all in the year that has passed since the previous survey (88%), and the number of those who watch regional and local channels for the same purpose even slightly increased (from 25% to 28%).
The number of those who obtain information from the Internet has slightly increased (from 32% to 42%), while the number of those who like to rustle with the central newspaper has slightly increased (from 16% to 17%). But they lost in the trust of the audience (or in the convenience of obtaining information) and, accordingly, the number of people receiving information from: central radio (from 14% to 13%), regional or local newspapers (from 14% to 10%) and regional and local radio (from 6% to 5%).
The trend is obvious - the role of the Internet is increasing, but not as catastrophically as predicted. I myself can say that it is the news programs of the central channels that are exactly what I watch on TV.
Equally as a blogging person, I learn some of the information on the Internet, looking at a whole range of resources. But newspapers in the paper version are clearly inferior to Internet resources and even to themselves, but in the World Wide Web.
The second question of the poll is even more curious: "Do you think the Russian mass media cover the events taking place in modern Russia, on the whole, objectively or biasedly?" 60% agreed that objectively, 23% said no, and 17% found it difficult to answer.
A further table of the breakdown of answers by age gives us a completely predictable picture: those who consider the media biased are most of all young, reaching their peak at the age of 31–45 (28%). And vice versa, the number of those who are satisfied with objectivity grows with age, having its maximum, starting to grow in the range of 46-60 and more years (63%).
The FOM survey is conducted immediately after an important historical event - the reunification of Russia and Crimea. The massive support for this action, carried out by the Russian authorities after the triumphant results of the referendum in Crimea, provides an interesting opportunity to look at the media in the same "mirror" and find out what people think about the work of journalists from different media outlets.
60% of respondents are satisfied with the objectivity of TV, while the liberals accused television of creating a “propagandistic and distorted” impression of what is happening in Crimea and Ukraine. Most of the accusations were heard against the central Russian channels. And the illegitimate current government of Kiev completely agreed in its dissatisfaction with their picture and interpretation with the position of the Russian liberals, after which it tried to “turn off” four leading Russian channels throughout Ukraine.
But the citizens of Russia expressed a completely different view of the objectivity of the leading TV channels in their country. 39% of respondents were satisfied with all television, 10% - with Channel One, Russia 1 - 7%, NTV - 4%, Russia 24 - 3%. Central channels were named entirely by another 3%. But Dozhd, RBC and REN TV, which present information in a pro-Western style, which suddenly became anti-Russian due to the Crimean crisis, were mentioned only by 1% of the respondents.
For comparison, only 17% are satisfied with the objectivity of the Internet, that is, three times less than TV! But it is the "network" that is traditionally the "stronghold" of the opposition and a means of delivering information necessary for the West - it is no coincidence that in Turkey, which really does not want the Maidan at home, Twitter is already turned off.
But we see that Russians have serious claims to the Internet in terms of its objectivity. Newspapers generally turned out to be beyond the attention of people in a frantic pursuit of news from Ukraine and Crimea, which changed almost every minute.
Therefore, only 8% were satisfied with the print media and their objectivity, and the only newspaper whose name eventually appeared was AiF with a figure of 1%. On the whole, the radio gained 5% of objectivity, while Ekho Moskvy named the same 1% of the respondents as such.
As a result, all liberal TV channels and the main radio horn of the anti-state forces, which bears the name of the capital of Russia solely by misunderstanding, and spreads the echo of completely different overseas capitals, turned out to be at the level of statistical error.
The following question is also very important, which helps us to understand the dynamics of the assessment by the citizens of the country of the activities of the media. It sounded like this: “Do you think that 2-3 years ago the Russian media covered events more objectively or less objectively than today? Or has nothing changed in this respect? "
The bottom line is this - 22% said that it was more objective, 18% - less objectively, and 46% did not see the difference, together with 14%, who, probably, that is why they did not find what to answer. As the saying goes, the art of the media is deeply indebted to the people.
A similar question regarding the events of 30 years ago, that is, the Soviet media, gave the following result: 40% believe that then the media were less objective, 19% - more objective, 11% are sure that nothing has changed, and almost every third ( 30%) did not find an answer to the question.
I think that these people either did not live at that time, or were then children, and therefore can neither evaluate nor answer ...
The number of those who believe that journalists working for federal TV channels can criticize the Russian authorities amounted to 60%, having slightly decreased over the year from 64%. At the same time, the number of those who believe that such criticism should not take place has increased - from 21% to 27%.
However, it seems to me that this question was formulated incorrectly, because the word “criticism” is too vague. Especially against the background of the situation in Crimea and Ukraine.
However, when asked which media people trust more, they give a clear answer. And it sounds like a complete dissonance with those liberal mantras that we have been hearing for two decades.
The media must be independent, otherwise, they say, they will not be able to really reflect reality. But people think differently: only 16% of respondents trust more non-state media, 62% - state-owned, and still every fifth did not find anything to say (21%). Thus, trust in the state media is almost four times higher.
The second block of questions by the FOM concerned the assessments of journalism. But the results, in my opinion, have become another illustration of the picture that emerged from the analysis of the assessments given by the citizens of Russia to the media. “What, in your opinion, should a journalist be for you to call him a professional?” - so the question sounded.
How many respondents do you think answered that a journalist should be “independent”? Only 4%. True, even fewer said that a journalist should be a “patriot” - only 1%. The leader of the answers is the option that speaks of the desire for justice: “Honest, truthful, objective, fair” (57% in one form or another).
“Do you think that the level of professionalism of Russian journalists has increased, decreased or has not changed in general recently?” Increased, 54% of respondents believe. 25% are sure that it has not changed, 7% - that it has decreased.
When asked about respect for journalists in society, 69% answered that they are respected, and only 17% think that they are not. When asked to name the specific names of respected journalists, whose opinion is authoritative, the following picture came out: Soloviev (13%), Kiselev (8%), Posner (6%), A. Mamontov (6%), S. Brilev (3%), A. Pimanov (2%), A. Malakhov (2%), A. Karaulov (2%) and 12 more surnames with 1% each. At the same time, the answer "there are no such" collected as much as 4%.
The conclusions suggest the following: in our society there is a traditional respect for journalists. But it rather applies to the entire profession than to individuals. And only four (!), Only four journalists were able to gain a percentage of respect for themselves and their work more than, in fact, meaning, as in the elections, the result “against all” - “there are none” (4%).
It is curious that out of the first four most authoritative journalists in Russia, only one Vladimir Pozner can be classified as liberal "in its pure form". And two - Yevgeny Kiselev and Arkady Mamontov - are the subject of burning hatred of "independent media" and "independent journalists". The very ones that either themselves did not gain authority and respect at all, or they have incomparably less of it.
By the way, judging by the sanctions imposed against Kiselev and the howl of our "British partners" against Mamontov after his film about hiding places in stones, Russia's geopolitical opponents do not like them as much as the liberal community inside our country. And what is most surprising is that it is not at all surprising.
Remember where we started our review? They are so desperately and selflessly defending ... no, not freedom of speech, but the interests of another state. Or a whole group of states. This is so, and the results of the polls conducted by the Public Opinion Foundation convincingly confirm this.
And in conclusion, the respondents believe that journalists have the opportunity to express their opinion “as much as necessary” (65%) or even “too much” (13%). So “crocodile tears” about “strangling freedom of speech” should not be shed.
“In your opinion, lately, journalists have more opportunities to freely express their opinions, less or nothing has changed?” - ask the citizens of Russia.
And only 8% today (10% in 2012) say there are fewer opportunities. 32% (in 2012 - 37%) believe that there are no changes for the worse. But the number of those who are confident that journalists have more opportunities to express their opinions has increased from 34% in 2012 to 47% in 2014!
You can write, you can speak, you can express your point of view. Just don't lie, don't push what other states need under the guise of an "independent" opinion. Even if it is very strong and influential. The people of Russia love their journalists, they respect their work.
Information