Controls the media. How is media control exercised?

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

These violations must be committed within twelve months preceding the application to the court (clause 35 in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated June 15, 2010 No. 16 “On the practice of application by courts of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Mass Media”).

Of particular interest is the issue of determining the legal nature of the institution of warning issued by the registration authority - Roskomnadzor. In the same Plenum No. 16 in paragraph 27, the Supreme Court indicated that warnings issued by a government body or official contain an expression of power that gives rise to legal consequences for the founder (co-founders) of the mass media and (or) its editorial office (editor-in-chief) , cases of challenging such warnings are subject to consideration in the manner provided for by Chapters 23 and 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation (currently in the manner provided for by the CAS RF).

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

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

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

In addition, if you look at what a typical Roskomnadzor warning looks like, for example, a warning issued to the Znak agency (https://rkn.gov.ru/docs/preduprezhdenie12102015.pdf), you can see that Roskomandzor in such a document practically states that that the editors committed a crime under Art. 329 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (it is interesting that the Supreme Court, in Resolution of the Plenum No. 16, noted that since justice in a criminal case in the Russian Federation is carried out only by the court (Part 1, Article 8 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), the question of whether there was use of the mass media information to commit criminal acts should be decided taking into account the final verdict or other court decision in a criminal case, but in this case Roskomnadzor found the elements of a crime without any verdict), so it is difficult to imagine that after such statements such a warning can be called a measure prevention. This is a full measure of responsibility. A preventive measure in administrative legal relations is an oral remark, which is provided for in Art. 2.9 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

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

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

However, Roskomnadzor believes that the warning is a preventive measure; therefore, the media, when challenging the warning, cannot refer to Art. 57 of the Law on Mass Media.

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

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

Delo Grani.Ru and Media Consult

In this case, the media challenged the warning from Roskomnadzor, which was issued for disseminating information justifying the practice of committing war crimes on the Ekho Moskvy radio channel in the program “With Your Own Eyes.” In this regard, the controversial program was broadcast live, was the author’s, and in accordance with clause 5 of Art. 57 of the Law “On the Mass Media”, the editors are not responsible for the dissemination of information contained in works of authorship broadcast without prior recording; the editors asked that Roskomnadzor’s warning be declared illegal. The court refused to the Editorial Board, pointing out that the warning issued informs about the inadmissibility of the actions taken and the need to eliminate the consequences of violations and, accordingly, is a measure of a preventive and preventive nature.

It's MY business! Online (“MY! Direct line!”)

A warning was issued to the editors for posting it on the Internet on the website of the electronic periodical “MOE! Online (“MY! Direct Line”), in the “News in Russia and the World” section of the material “Dill in Hysterics! At the “Okean Elzy” concert in Minsk, Ukrainian symbols were banned, equating them to fascist! to be brought to justice by Roskomnadzor, since the material was posted on the editorial website by a third party (Part 5 of Article 57 of the Law on Mass Media), without the consent of the editorial office, the applicant asks to declare the warning illegal and cancel it.

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

Radio Record Case (2-3709/2015)

On June 24, 2015, Roskomnadzor issued a written warning against the editorial office of the Radio Record radio channel about the inadmissibility of violating the legislation of the Russian Federation, with reference to Art. 4, 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation of December 27, 1991 No. 2124-1 “On the Mass Media”. When issuing a warning, Roskomnadzor saw the broadcast of the radio channel as propaganda of pornography.

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

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

Although it should be noted that there was also a fly in the ointment in this ointment, in one of the cases considered by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court declared Roskomnadzor’s warning illegal, since Roskomnadzor did not draw up a memorandum when issuing it. This procedure, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation noted, as well as its violations, although they are definitely of a formal nature, are aimed at ensuring uniform verification activities, the same approach of the body exercising control (supervision) to all media without exception in order to minimize the occurrence of the latter has grounds to consider the attitude of the state control body to be biased and biased, and the results obtained during inspections to be unreliable (Decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 19, 2014 N 5-APG13-57).

This rare approach is simply a revolution against clichéd arguments like “a correct decision cannot be overturned on formal grounds.”

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

Meanwhile, even if we adopt such logic, ignoring the provisions of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, we will get an absurd situation. Roskomanadzor is carrying out preventive measures in relation to those offenses for which the editorial board could not and should not be held accountable if it were brought to administrative responsibility and given an undeniable punishment. , for example, in the form of a fine.

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

So, if a certain guest of the program, who is not its full-time employee, responds live on air in an offensive manner about the day of military glory, then the editors, taking into account the provisions of Art. 57 of the Law on Mass Media, will not be held responsible for the actions of this guest and for his statements, but the editorial office, following the position of Roskomnadzor, may be issued a warning so that it does not allow such violations. In my opinion, such a situation looks like, at a minimum, it is impossible to prevent something for which you cannot, in principle, be responsible.

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

In addition, the recently adopted Federal Law of June 23, 2016 N 182-FZ “On the fundamentals of the crime prevention system in the Russian Federation,” which establishes the legal and organizational foundations of the crime prevention system, in Art. 17 indicates that preventive action can be carried out in the following forms:
1) legal education and legal information; 2) preventive conversation; 3) announcement of an official warning (warning) about the inadmissibility of actions that create conditions for the commission of offenses, or the inadmissibility of continuing antisocial behavior; 4) preventive accounting; 5) making a proposal to eliminate the causes and conditions conducive to the commission of an offense; 6) preventive supervision; 7) social adaptation; 8) resocialization; 9) social rehabilitation; 10) assistance to persons who have suffered from offenses or are at risk of becoming so.

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

It is impossible to imagine the modern world without the media. You need to live at least on a desert island so as not to have access to news from the outside world. have always existed, but they have reached their greatest development in our time, and continue to develop along with science and technology. Some people are interested: “Explain why the media is called the fourth estate?” Everything is very simple. Because the power of their influence on human consciousness is truly enormous. The first three (legislative, judicial and executive) are vested with certain powers. They have power by law. And the media rule over human minds, which is no less significant. The power of their power is so great that it can program entire nations to certain thoughts.

What is media

The media is the public dissemination of various data and information through various technical means. Not everyone is a media person. There are certain requirements. For example, although newspapers and magazines belong to the means of communication, not all of them can be called media. To be considered such, they must have a circulation of more than 1,000 copies. The same sources as wall newspapers, libraries, forums, Internet blogs, conferences and the like do not belong to the media.

Why is the media called the fourth estate in society? Because, in addition to a tool for transmitting data, the media are also a way of manipulation, propaganda and agitation in political and other spheres of life of the population.

History of media development

The birth of writing and printing became a turning point in the formation of humanity, changing its perception of the world around us. A person has the opportunity to receive information created by other people. After the first book was printed, printing houses began to be created throughout Europe, as well as on other continents. Of course, before the appearance of the first printed books, there were papyrus scrolls, clay books, etc. However, it was with the advent that human society entered a new stage of development.

After books came newspapers. This was due to the need of people to receive news about the economic and political life of society. With the development of science and technology, the means of mass communication also developed. After newspapers, magazines began to appear. After some time, radio and television entered human life. And finally, the Internet is something that no modern resident of a developed country can imagine himself without. Nowadays, a person has free access to all kinds of information that can be obtained from various sources. Newspapers, magazines, books, television, and the Internet - all this is at the complete disposal of every resident of any developing country. Why is the media called the fourth branch of government? Because they control people’s consciousness no less than the legitimate branches of government.

Functions of the media in the modern world

Currently, the media have the following functions:

• observation of events taking place in the world;
• editing, which consists of selecting and reporting current events;
• development of a public point of view;
• promotion of culture;
• political education of the broad masses of the population.

Why is the media called the fourth estate? Bypassing the usual institutions of power, such as school, church, etc., the media appeal directly to the public. They have a strong socio-psychological influence on the formation of collective opinion. This feature of the media is widely used by various advertising agencies promoting a particular product, politicians and parties to support their programs, etc.

Another main function of the media is to convey to the population important information from the main branches of government. Let's take the legislative branch. An example of how the adoption and interpretation of new laws is brought to the attention of the general population through television, print and online publications can be observed regularly. Also in other areas of life. People get information about absolutely all events in the modern world from the media.

Media classification

Modern media are united according to various criteria. For example, there is the following classification:

• by style (serious publications, or the so-called “yellow press”);
• by genre (advertising, political, etc.);
• by type of ownership (corporate, state);
• by publication frequency (every day, once a week or once a month);
• by distribution radius (regional or central).

There is also another classification of media, more general:

• printed;
• electronic.

One form of media is also various news agencies.

Newspaper

A newspaper is a printed publication that is regularly published under a permanent name. The frequency of release is at least once a month.

Living conditions, reader's interests, requirements for the media in a given period of time dictate certain forms of information presentation to printed publications. If before the war in Soviet times the most common genre used in newspapers was the essay, now the situation has changed somewhat. In the modern world, materials that carry educational and educational functions have “migrated” to various magazines and other publications. Modern newspapers perform slightly different functions. All sorts of notes, reports, reports, interviews came to the fore - everything is extremely concise, containing a large number of facts. The presentation of various information in modern newspapers should be prompt. The news, which is already several days old, is considered hopelessly outdated. Such a concept as “sensation” has become an integral attribute of any self-respecting publication. Only sensations can increase the circulation of any newspaper and, accordingly, bring profit to the publisher.

More than half of all materials in the newspaper are news. Today they have become the main genre in this printed publication. Political, economic, sports and other news - the bulk of all newspapers are filled with them. Why is the media called the fourth estate? The explanation is very simple. The same newspapers, along with other sources of mass communication, dominate, figuratively speaking, over the minds of the broad masses of the population who read them and perceive the world through the prism of the information provided.

Magazine

A magazine is a journal that has a permanent column and contains publications on scientific, political, industrial and other issues. There are also online magazines. They can be an electronic version of a printed magazine, or they can be an independent publication on the Internet. A magazine, just like a newspaper, is a lever of influence on public consciousness. This explains why the media is called the fourth estate. With their help, public opinion is formed and influences people's lives.

Radio

Radio is the wireless transmission of data using electromagnetic waves of the radio range. For many people, radio is a source of information that accompanies them throughout the day and creates a certain emotional background. With the development of science and technology, radio is also changing. Perhaps the role of terrestrial radio in the future will be reduced to a minimum, but today it remains the closest and most convenient means of mass communication for many consumers.

A television

Television became widespread in the second half of the 20th century. Along with radio broadcasting, it is one of the most widespread means of disseminating information. The UN has recognized the significant role of television in the life of society, establishing the World The advantage of television is that a person can receive information not only by reading or hearing, but also see events with his own eyes. Social science explains why the media is called the fourth estate as follows: mass communications have a huge impact on all aspects of the life of human society, and television is no exception.

Internet

The Internet is one of the largest sources of information. Today, the Internet replaces almost all other resources for people. The World Wide Web contains an incredible amount of various data for any need. And if previously people spent hours in the library to collect any materials, now they can find them without leaving home.

You can read the following question on the Internet: “Explain why the media is called the fourth estate.” The answer is obvious. The media at all times, and especially now, have power over the influence of the Internet, as one of the sources of mass information, is becoming greater every day.

The role of the media in society

Why is the media called the fourth estate? The power of the media is based on the dissemination of information that influences people's lives. It often happens that various journalistic investigations become the foundation for the legal actions of investigative authorities. The role of the media in modern society is enormous. A person now has the opportunity to learn the latest news happening on another continent. We are accustomed to keeping our finger on the pulse of all world events, and we can no longer imagine life without it. Our opinion about them and about what is happening in general depends on how different events are presented to us.

The influence of the media in political life

The media today are a very significant attribute in political life. This explains why the media is called the fourth estate. The media occupy a central place in election campaigning. Politicians understand this well and invest huge amounts of money in this event. The fate of a particular voter depends on how competently the campaign is carried out.

At the same time, the media also plays such an important role as containing and restoring power. By shedding light on some of the misconduct of politicians, they bring to the attention of the public those facts that the latter would like to hide. The media can put an end to the careers of some people in power if their crimes become public knowledge. The investigations of some journalists, which have an evidence base, may become a reason for opening a criminal case.

Media as a manipulator of human consciousness

In the modern world, such a concept as “information war” has appeared. In these “combat” actions, the main object of influence is information. With the help of mass communication, you can instill certain thoughts in people and force them to take specific actions. Hitler also actively used this technique, trying to arouse hatred among the Aryans towards the Jewish people. He paid great attention to propaganda films that had hidden subtext. For example, a film in which a vile Jew rapes a beautiful Aryan woman caused outrage among viewers, automatically turning them against the entire Jewish people. The same thing is happening now. With the help of the media, those in power manipulate the consciousness of entire nations. Why is the media called the fourth estate in society? Because their influence on human consciousness is difficult to overestimate.

Information. How to manage it correctly

In the modern world, people are faced with a large flow of all kinds of information.

Unfortunately, it is not always true. Therefore, you should not blindly trust what you read, especially in unverified sources. In some cases, the media - the fourth estate - can serve you badly. Based on false data, you can form the wrong opinion about certain events, and the picture will be distorted. You need to look for data in different sources, compare them (fortunately, there are enough resources now) and only then try to form your personal opinion. Always check the information and draw the right conclusions.

The conflict in the existing system of interaction between the media and society was formed as a result of a violation of the order of their interaction and the transformation of the media institution from an actualizer of worldview into a tool for manipulating mass consciousness, which contradicts the concept of journalism by definition. As a result, false values, stereotypes, opinions, desires that do not correspond to the interests of entire social groups are substituted and imposed. Moreover, it seems possible to isolate and completely erase entire communities from the media space.

The reasons for this phenomenon lie in the system of formation, financing of the media, their management and control. The widespread establishment of “private” media and the accompanying slogan about freedom of the press in no way corresponds to reality. The good aspirations of media moguls and the sincerity of the media are obviously incompatible concepts. The integrity of individual editors and journalists constantly comes into conflict with the “daily bread” dilemma. As a result, the independence of modern media lies only in their independence from society, whose interests they, in essence, are designed to protect.

Restricting access of a part of society to media resources as an audience, and even more so as authors, creates the illusion of the absence of real problems. Therefore, the main tasks of technologists of manipulation of mass consciousness are to prevent carriers of ideas different from their opinions from entering the media space, along with narrowing, up to the complete elimination, of the information space of their opponents.

The motives for the policy of systematic disintegration of Russian-language media are not so difficult to explain, the reason for which is the still high degree of audience coverage. The number of Russians, according to Moldovan statistics, is about 6%, Russian-speaking - 25%, and Russian-speaking potential audience, at least 90%. In the Baltic countries, Transcaucasia and Central Asia, this audience is slightly smaller, but in Ukraine and Belarus it is generally 100%.

Depriving Russian-language media of the influence of pro-Russian public organizations on them, reducing the quality of broadcasting and diverting topics into irrelevant areas makes it possible to mock a significant part of society and not allow it to govern the fourth estate. In turn, it is the involvement of pro-Russian public organizations in the process of managing Russian media in any form that can solve a number of problems with the completeness and quality of broadcast policy.

The principle of democratic coverage is when a media resource represents the interests of a certain group of the population, where the completeness and diversity of various media with undisguised owners and governing bodies are capable of creating objective diversity in the media space.

Without taking this concept of interaction between the media and public organizations as a general rule, only in action will it be possible to determine its effectiveness and usefulness. All that remains is to find an acceptable consensus between representatives of the Russian media and organizations of Russian compatriots in Moldova.

Control and supervisory activities over compliance with mandatory media requirements are carried out by territorial bodies of Roskomnadzor without interaction with media representatives in the form of:

1. Systematic observation
2. Monitoring

Control measures are carried out in relation to printed publications, electronic periodicals, television programs, television channels, radio programs, radio channels, online publications, as well as in relation to media of other forms of distribution.

Such forms of control and supervisory measures are not inspections in the sense of Federal Law dated December 26, 2008 N 294-FZ “On the protection of the rights of legal entities and individual entrepreneurs in the exercise of state control (supervision) and municipal control”

It is also necessary to distinguish measures to control systematic surveillance in relation to the media from similar measures in relation to licensee broadcasters.

Systematic monitoring activities in relation to the media can be planned or unscheduled. Planned systematic monitoring activities are carried out in accordance with an annual plan approved at the discretion of Roskomnadzor. The current list of planned systematic monitoring activities in relation to the media is reflected by the territorial department of Roskomnadzor in the activity plan published on the Department’s website. In order to find out whether your media is included in the Plan, you need to contact the websites of the territorial departments of Roskomnadzor at the place of registration of the media and at the location of the media editorial office.

Basic requirements checked for HF

Compliance (fulfillment) of requirements Law of the Russian Federation “On Mass Media”

1. Art. 8 (media registration)
2. Art. 4 (inadmissibility of abuse of freedom of mass information) and the Federal Law “On Combating Extremist Activities”.
3. Art. 11 (re-registration and notification)
4. Art. 20 (editorial charter)
5. Art. 27 (output)
6. Art. 34 (storage of materials from radio and television programs)
7. Art. 37 (erotic publications) in relation to media specializing in messages and materials of an erotic nature

Compliance (implementation) with the requirements of the Federal Law “On Legal Deposit of Documents”

1. Art. 7 (delivery of legal deposit of printed publications)
2. Art. 12 (delivery of legal deposit of audiovisual products)
3. Art. 13 (delivery of legal deposit of electronic publications, programs for electronic computers and databases)

Monitoring

Media monitoring is a form of control over compliance with certain mandatory requirements for the media, carried out without interaction with its representatives. In other words, during monitoring the implementation of the predetermined most significant (from the state’s position) mandatory requirements is monitored.

In accordance with Roskomnadzor Decree No. 21 dated June 29, 2012 “On approval of methodological recommendations for organizing and conducting state control and supervision of compliance with the legislation of the Russian Federation on the media,” territorial bodies of Roskomnadzor conduct media monitoring in the following areas

1. In the so-called priority areas (countering extremism, identifying cases of drug propaganda, the cult of violence and cruelty, as well as pornography). It is worth noting that other government agencies also control similar areas to varying degrees: the Prosecutor’s Office, the Federal Drug Control Service, the FSB.
2. In competitive cities (all cities of the Russian Federation with a population of over 100 thousand people) in relation to television programs, television channels, radio programs, radio channels. In this case, compliance with both certain provisions of the RF Law “On the Mass Media” and the licensing conditions of the broadcasting license are checked.

Where do they get media material?

Since during monitoring there are no grounds for interaction with representatives of the media, the territorial departments of Roskomnadzor carry out control measures on legal copies of the media transferred to recipients of documents, subscribe to printed publications, purchase them at kiosks or collect them in places of free distribution, record television and radio channels (programs) ), including with the involvement of the radio frequency service.

HF and monitoring results

Based on the results of systematic surveillance and monitoring activities in relation to the media, authorized Roskomnadzor employees can draw up a protocol on an administrative offense, issue a warning to the media (mass media can be canceled at the request of Roskomnadzor after two warnings), issue an order to eliminate violations, send an official demand or request , conduct unscheduled systematic observation on another subject of supervision.

What to consider

The best solution is to comply with the law, and if in doubt, consult with specialists with experience in this field. Also, the optimal solution may be to conduct an audit of compliance with media legislation. If such an audit is ordered from me, the media representative will receive a report on compliance with mandatory requirements, which are checked by Roskonadzor, the antimonopoly service, and other government agencies.

Monitoring the activity plan of the territorial department of Roskomnadzor at the place of registration of the media or the location of the editorial office (if registration was carried out in the central office of Roskomnadzor) will help to significantly reduce the likelihood of identifying violations in the activities of the media. Three months before the start of systematic monitoring, it is recommended to take enhanced measures to monitor compliance with the law in relation to the media under your control

In some cases, it is possible to establish the fact of a violation by the founder or editorial board of a media outlet after obtaining an explanation from the editor-in-chief or founder of the media outlet. If the editor-in-chief or founder of a media outlet is invited in writing or by telephone to the territorial department of Roskomnadzor to give explanations and (or) draw up a protocol on an administrative offense based on the results of systematic observation or monitoring of the media, it is best to consult with a specialist before making any decisions.

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

The current status of the Russian media as hangers-on for influential daddies, like many other features of modern Russia, is due to the dramatic events of the late 80s - early 90s of the 20th century. Without a brief analysis of what happened to the domestic mass media then, we will not understand their current state.
At the end of the USSR, the domestic press was an amazing phenomenon. With incredible popularity among the Soviet people thirsting for change (the circulation of “Arguments and Facts” was an incredible 33 million copies in 1990!) it was the media that were the sledgehammer with which the authorities hammered the bonds of their own state: from its “outdated” ideals to its “criminal” stories.
Influential media - take the Ogonyok magazine, the Moscow News newspaper, or the TV show Vzglyad - received their editors-in-chief directly from the hands of the “architect of perestroika” Politburo member Alexander Yakovlev and at the same time, without hesitation to offend their benefactors, they inspiredly shied away from everyone guns by party and country. This was called "glasnost"; It was then that the destructive fervor that has not dried up even today was put into the “liberation” media.
In return, the authorities paid their accusers with tender love. In the perestroika USSR, editorial boards of publications received complete independence from the organizations that once founded them. At the same time, total freedom of speech was declared. The fear of being branded as a retrograde among officials was so great that the publication had to cry out: “Censorship is coming back! The reaction is rearing its head!” - and it immediately got rid of any outside interference.
In the end, the USSR collapsed - and with it the well-being of the overwhelming number of citizens went to hell. And a new amazing thing happened. People stopped subscribing to the press. Firstly, money was lost: there would have been enough to buy bread, what kind of newspapers were there? Secondly, the desire to read the “paper scribblers” who five years before promised the people mountains of gold as soon as the “evil empire” fell, disappeared.

SOLD FOR LOVE

To the surprise of some writers, not only the people, but also the journalistic workshop itself had to deal with new economic realities. In addition to a sharp drop in circulation and the death of the subscription institution, editorial offices were faced with a wild rise in prices for paper, rent of premises, transport needs and similar “prose of life.” Just a year after its “golden age,” Russian media found itself literally on the brink of survival.
This is where the “young Russian business”—the emerging oligarchy—jumped onto the scene. Having offered their services to the “lucky” media, the suddenly enriched “new masters of life” pursued purely practical interests. The fact is that they themselves and their affairs were so unpopular among the people that they absolutely could not do without well-executed PR. It was necessary to explain to the population that everything that happens in the country is being done for the sake of collective benefit and with common consent. Who could cope with this better than the “unique creative teams” from liberal TV channels and newspapers?
The basis of the emerging information holdings were television channels. Relatively quickly saturated with advertising, they could quickly recoup the costs of the new owners. But what is much more important: in comparison with other media, the “zombie box” in the 90s still remained an attractive source of information that people completely trusted. Full of new technologies, TV, like the Internet later, created a narcotic effect for the dumbfounded population and for a long time was a “magic box” near which it was so pleasant to while away the evening after a lousy day.
Of course, the media could have avoided selling itself to moneybags if it had tried to survive on its own. But why such feats if the liberal press completely shared the ideological guidelines of their new owners? As for the authorities of that time, here too an understanding of the ongoing process was revealed: the media fed by the oligarchs were not going to campaign for Zyuganov. The authorities dissolved almost all of the state press - in full accordance with the then prevailing attitude: “As little government as possible!”
This is how the first private media empires appeared in Russia. Among them, the two most powerful players stood out - the information structures of Logovaz of Boris Berezovsky and the Media-Most holding of Vladimir Gusinsky. Against their background, other “market participants” - the media group of Yuri Luzhkov and AFK Sistema, the ProfMedia group subordinate to Potanin’s Interros and the structure of Gazprom Media - looked more modest, but also demonstrated the general trend in the development of the domestic press.

“GOOSE” “BIRCH” IS NOT A COMRADE?

Often at odds with each other, with different styles and operating principles, all these media empires were united by one main feature. Through its own media, large oligarchic business, in the broad sense of the word, ruled the country. The propaganda weapons of these media empires were aimed at two objects of influence at once - the authorities and the population.
In the first case, the press allowed its owners to feel confident in big politics. In the second case, the press provided multi-echelon “PR support” for the activities and aspirations of its owners - as happened, for example, throughout the entire second term of the deeply ill Yeltsin’s presidency, which took place under the banner of loans-for-shares auctions and economic default. That was the time when the main principles of modern liberal journalism were fully formed: “Propaganda instead of truth” and “Big money always wins.”
Purely externally, the media empires of Berezovsky (main assets: TV channels ORT and TV-6, print publications "Nezavisimaya Gazeta", "Novye Izvestia" and "Ogonyok", radio station "Our Radio") and Gusinsky (main assets: TV channels NTV and TNT, newspaper " Segodnya", the magazines "Itogi" and "7 Days", the radio station "Echo of Moscow") were as if created for mutual hostility. Possessing approximately equal information potential, their owners were believed to profess fundamentally different approaches to their media. And in general they behaved like spiders in a jar, trying to devour each other.
It was argued that for Berezovsky, his scattered information assets, like business as a whole, were just a means for political survival and advancement to the very top of the “family” hierarchy. Gusinsky, on the contrary, allegedly put the achievement of profit of his media empire concentrated in a single holding at the forefront and considered any political multi-moves only from the point of view of the business interests of Media-Most.
It was even said that, in defiance of Berezovsky, who was “loyal” to the Family, Gusinsky deliberately played the card of “opposition to the regime,” which could also be very profitable. For example, some analysts prosaically explained NTV’s unambiguous support for the “Ichkerian rebels” during the First Chechen War by the large volumes of payments from Maskhadov and Basayev, which passed through Most Bank.
However, for many years billions of completely state money passed through the same bank, and the NTV channel used a state satellite for broadcasting, and even at preferential rates - so there was no need to seriously talk about any real opposition to the Goose empire.

TERRIBLY FAR FROM THE PEOPLE

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

“THREE COMPONENT PARTS” OF THE MEDIA OF THE 2000S

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

CHANGE OF WORLD VIEW

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

WHO IS YOUR OWNER, JOURNALIST?

So what happened to the Russian press in the 2000s? Has it been “strangled”, as this “strangled” opposition press never tires of blabbering about on all corners? Or was the “sabbath of freedom” of the 90s simply transferred to a new organizational and technological level - to the Internet? Neither one nor the other. Liberal journalism survived, but was largely pushed to the periphery of public interest. “Liberation” newspapers are coming out - in scanty circulation. “Handshake” sites are in full swing, with steadily falling traffic. But no serious “revelry of primeval elements” capable of “capturing the minds of the broad masses” is observed.
In the 2000s, it became finally clear that absolute, unfettered freedom of speech is fraught with great costs for society and, ultimately, for the owners of the media. One of the “markers” here was the “Nord-Ost” tragedy - after it, the country for a long time discussed the behavior of the media, which managed to broadcast live the beginning of the operation to free the hostages, which the terrorists who were watching on TV were able to take advantage of.
The main thing is that in the “zero” the country’s population had no questions about “freedom of speech” in relation to the media bought up by business. Today everyone understands perfectly well that it is impossible to be free and at the same time belong to a billionaire. Society has finally matured to the point where, before reading this or that publication in the press, it asks the question: who is the owner of this media, how is it doing now and what does it actually want to achieve in the foreseeable future. And only after that start exciting reading.

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

MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS

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

ARE THERE ONE OFFSHORES AROUND?

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

NEAR THE STATE

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

SOMEWHERE IN THE TOP TEN

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

THEY HAVE NO NUMBERS

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

Denis Tukmakov