Fadeev Valery Alexandrovich. How a "famous deceiver" Valery Fadeev "leaked" a TV channel

, Uzbek SSR, USSR

Valery Alexandrovich Fadeev(born October 10, Tashkent) - Russian journalist, TV presenter and public figure. Editor-in-Chief of Expert magazine (since 1998), member of the Supreme Council - co-coordinator of the Liberal Platform of the United Russia political party, member of the Supervisory Board - Chairman of the Expert Council of the Agency for Strategic Initiatives to promote new projects. Member of the Central Headquarters - head of the working group "Quality of Everyday Life", member of the interdepartmental working group on housing and communal services of the Government of the Russian Federation, director, host of the program "Sunday Time" on Channel One (since September 4, 2016).

Biography

In 1983 he graduated from the Faculty of Management and Applied Mathematics (MIPT).

In 1993-1995 - Deputy Director of the Expert Institute of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs. In 1992-1995, he was an expert, scientific editor of the Kommersant-Weekly magazine of the Kommersant publishing house.

In 1995-1998 - scientific editor, first deputy chief editor of the weekly analytical magazine "Expert".

From February 18, 1998 - First Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Izvestia newspaper.

Since November 1998 - editor-in-chief of the magazine "Expert".

One of the authors of the law "On the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation", member of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation (from 2006 to 2012).

Since October 20, 2011 - Member of the Supervisory Board - Chairman of the Expert Council of the Agency for Strategic Initiatives to promote new projects.

Since 2011 - member of the Central Headquarters of the All-Russian Popular Front and head of its working group "The quality of everyday life". He is a member of the Supreme Council of the United Russia party and co-coordinator of the party's Liberal Platform.

Since May 20, 2015, a member of the interdepartmental group on housing and communal services of the Government of the Russian Federation, created by order of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and led by Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Kozak.

Since September 4, 2016 - host of the Sunday edition of the TV program "Time" on Channel One.

Personal life

Social activity

In the fall of 2008, he was elected president of the All-Russian organization of media workers "MediaSoyuz".

Head of the Guild of Business Journalism.

Member of the Board of Trustees of Oleg Deripaska's Volnoe Delo Charitable Foundation.

Director of the Institute of Public Design.

Member of the Coordinating Committee of the International Open Grant Competition "Orthodox Initiative".

Write a review on the article "Fadeev, Valery Aleksandrovich"

Notes

Links

An excerpt characterizing Fadeev, Valery Alexandrovich

One thing that Pierre now wanted with all the strength of his soul was to get out of those terrible impressions in which he lived that day as soon as possible, return to the usual conditions of life and fall asleep peacefully in the room on his bed. Only under ordinary conditions of life did he feel that he would be able to understand himself and all that he had seen and experienced. But these ordinary conditions of life were nowhere to be found.
Although the balls and bullets did not whistle here along the road along which he walked, but from all sides it was the same as it was there, on the battlefield. There were the same suffering, tormented and sometimes strangely indifferent faces, the same blood, the same soldier's greatcoats, the same sounds of shooting, although distant, but still terrifying; in addition, there was stuffiness and dust.
After walking about three versts along the high Mozhaisk road, Pierre sat down on its edge.
Twilight descended on the earth, and the rumble of the guns subsided. Pierre, leaning on his arm, lay down and lay for such a long time, looking at the shadows moving past him in the darkness. Incessantly it seemed to him that with a terrible whistle a cannonball flew at him; he winced and got up. He did not remember how long he had been here. In the middle of the night, three soldiers, dragging branches, placed themselves beside him and began to make fire.
The soldiers, looking sideways at Pierre, kindled a fire, put a bowler hat on it, crumbled crackers into it and put lard. The pleasant smell of edible and greasy food merged with the smell of smoke. Pierre got up and sighed. The soldiers (there were three of them) ate, not paying attention to Pierre, and talked among themselves.
- Yes, which one will you be? one of the soldiers suddenly turned to Pierre, obviously meaning by this question what Pierre thought, namely: if you want to eat, we will give, just tell me, are you an honest person?
- I? me? .. - said Pierre, feeling the need to belittle his social position as much as possible in order to be closer and more understandable to the soldiers. - I'm a real militia officer, only my squad is not here; I came to the battle and lost mine.
- You see! one of the soldiers said.
The other soldier shook his head.
- Well, eat, if you want, kavardachka! - said the first and gave Pierre, licking it, a wooden spoon.
Pierre sat down by the fire and began to eat the kavardachok, the food that was in the pot and which seemed to him the most delicious of all the foods he had ever eaten. While he greedily, bending over the cauldron, taking away large spoons, chewed one after another and his face was visible in the light of the fire, the soldiers silently looked at him.
- Where do you need it? You say! one of them asked again.
- I'm in Mozhaisk.
- You, became, sir?
- Yes.
- What's your name?
- Pyotr Kirillovich.
- Well, Pyotr Kirillovich, let's go, we'll take you. In complete darkness, the soldiers, together with Pierre, went to Mozhaisk.
The roosters were already crowing when they reached Mozhaisk and began to climb the steep city mountain. Pierre walked along with the soldiers, completely forgetting that his inn was below the mountain and that he had already passed it. He would not have remembered this (he was in such a state of bewilderment) if his bereator had not run into him on the half of the mountain, who went to look for him around the city and returned back to his inn. The landlord recognized Pierre by his hat, which shone white in the darkness.
“Your Excellency,” he said, “we are desperate. What are you walking? Where are you, please!
“Oh yes,” said Pierre.
The soldiers paused.
Well, did you find yours? one of them said.
- Well, goodbye! Pyotr Kirillovich, it seems? Farewell, Pyotr Kirillovich! other voices said.
“Goodbye,” said Pierre and went with his bereator to the inn.
"We must give them!" thought Pierre, reaching for his pocket. “No, don’t,” a voice told him.
There was no room in the upper rooms of the inn: everyone was busy. Pierre went into the yard and, covering himself with his head, lay down in his carriage.

As soon as Pierre laid his head on the pillow, he felt that he was falling asleep; but suddenly, with the clarity of almost reality, a boom, boom, boom of shots was heard, groans, screams, the slap of shells were heard, there was a smell of blood and gunpowder, and a feeling of horror, fear of death seized him. He opened his eyes in fear and lifted his head from under his overcoat. Everything was quiet outside. Only at the gate, talking to the janitor and slapping through the mud, was some kind of orderly. Above Pierre's head, under the dark underside of the plank canopy, doves fluttered from the movement he made while rising. A peaceful, joyful for Pierre at that moment, strong smell of an inn, the smell of hay, manure and tar was poured throughout the courtyard. Between the two black awnings one could see a clear starry sky.
“Thank God that this is no more,” thought Pierre, again closing his head. “Oh, how terrible fear is, and how shamefully I gave myself up to it! And they…they were firm, calm all the time, to the very end…” he thought. In Pierre's understanding, they were soldiers - those who were on the battery, and those who fed him, and those who prayed to the icon. They - these strange, hitherto unknown to him, they were clearly and sharply separated in his thoughts from all other people.
“To be a soldier, just a soldier! thought Pierre, falling asleep. – Enter this common life with your whole being, imbue with what makes them so. But how to throw off all this superfluous, diabolical, all the burden of this external person? One time I could be it. I could run away from my father as I wished. Even after the duel with Dolokhov, I could have been sent as a soldier.” And in Pierre's imagination flashed a dinner at the club where he summoned Dolokhov, and a benefactor in Torzhok. And now Pierre is presented with a solemn dining box. This lodge takes place in the English Club. And someone familiar, close, dear, is sitting at the end of the table. Yes it is! This is a benefactor. “Yes, he died? thought Pierre. - Yes, he died; but I didn't know he was alive. And how sorry I am that he died, and how glad I am that he is alive again! On one side of the table sat Anatole, Dolokhov, Nesvitsky, Denisov and others like him (the category of these people was just as clearly defined in Pierre’s soul in a dream, as was the category of those people whom he called them), and these people, Anatole, Dolokhov loudly shouted, sang; but behind their cry was heard the voice of the benefactor, speaking incessantly, and the sound of his words was as significant and continuous as the roar of the battlefield, but it was pleasant and comforting. Pierre did not understand what the benefactor was saying, but he knew (the category of thoughts was just as clear in the dream) that the benefactor spoke of goodness, of the possibility of being what they were. And they from all sides, with their simple, kind, firm faces, surrounded the benefactor. But although they were kind, they did not look at Pierre, did not know him. Pierre wanted to draw their attention to himself and say. He got up, but at the same instant his legs became cold and bare.

Editor-in-chief of "Expert" - about education, journalism and national identity

Now it is very fashionable to brand the 90s and the oligarchs who plundered the people's property, Soviet property. And why don't we remember who gave them such an opportunity? Why have we forgotten how the miners thrashed their helmets on the Humpback Bridge near the White House and demanded immediate reforms and building happiness in 500 days - with the support of the intelligentsia, of course? All these people bought into the promises of imminent consumer happiness. At that time they did not have enough intelligence, culture, will to understand that this does not happen, that even the solution of consumer problems requires a value base.Reference: Valery Alexandrovich FADEEV was born on October 10, 1960 in Tashkent. In 1983 he graduated from the Faculty of Control and Applied Mathematics of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (MIPT). From 1983 to 1984 he worked at Almaz Design Bureau. From 1984 to 1986 - service in the ranks of the Soviet Army (RVSN). In 1986 - 1988 worked as a researcher at the Computing Center of the USSR Academy of Sciences, where he dealt with macroeconomics. In 1988 - 1990 worked at the Institute of Energy Research of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. From 1990 to 1992, he was a senior researcher at the Institute for Market Problems of the USSR Academy of Sciences. From 1993 to 1995, he served as Deputy Director of the Expert Institute of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP). From 1992 to 1995 he worked as an expert and scientific editor of the weekly magazine Kommersant-Weekly. From 1995 to 1998 - scientific editor, first deputy chief editor of the weekly analytical magazine "Expert". In 1998, he worked as First Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Izvestiya newspaper. In November 1998, he was appointed Editor-in-Chief of Expert magazine. In July 2006, he was appointed General Director of CJSC Mediaholding Expert. Board of the Media Union, member of the Russian Public Council for the Development of Education, co-chairman of the All-Russian public organization "Business Russia".

Life without history

Valery Aleksandrovich, what place does the problem of the spiritual and moral development of Russia take today among other problems on the agenda?

None. Spiritual and moral issues are simply not on the agenda. That is, in fact, of course, they exist, but I do not see them being widely discussed either in the public or in the political arena. The existing discussions are of a peripheral nature, although sometimes very worthy people participate in them. Of course, the Church tries to talk about such problems. However, how relevant is her approach to the secular socio-political space? Society is more concerned about the pragmatic side of life. Alas, we talk about anything, but we are silent about morality and spirituality, even in connection with such problems as education. But even questions of economics and politics cannot be solved without a real value base. And she, in the end, is always moral.

- Why is this happening?

Take a simple problem: economics. Now it is very fashionable to brand the 90s and the oligarchs who plundered the people's property, Soviet property. And why don't we remember who gave them such an opportunity? Why have we forgotten how the miners thrashed their helmets on the Humpback Bridge near the White House and demanded immediate reforms and building happiness in 500 days - with the support of the intelligentsia, of course? All these people bought into the promises of imminent consumer happiness. At that time they did not have enough intelligence, culture, will to understand that this does not happen, that even the solution of consumer problems requires a value base.

And people were deceived: what happened was what was supposed to happen. The property went to those who were able to take it - impudent, impudent. After all, there is never enough of it for everyone, you can’t spread it on a common edge, like butter, it will turn out too thin ... And then they suddenly came to their senses and began to complain about injustice! And who is to blame? They themselves are to blame - those who wanted quick consumer happiness. And they, too, must be held accountable for what happened. And now, for some reason, everyone is talking only about terrible oligarchs. But the oligarchs are also different. Some of them are simply outstanding people who put all their will, all their minds into business and provide, by the way, hundreds of thousands of people with jobs, and highly paid ones. They are engaged in charity - they themselves, without prompting and pressure from above, maintain schools, shelters, build temples and monasteries. So there are people everywhere, and you should not unequivocally scold or praise someone.

The sweeping, harsh criticism of the 1990s is immoral in a sense, because most of us are responsible for what happened then. In addition, there were positive changes, colossal changes. We freed ourselves, in the end, from the ideology of communism. Another thing is that freedom is a powerful and complex tool, which we still do not know how to use well. But today we have the main thing that people who live in a free country should have in general. We got a free economy, a free press, the possibility of self-realization. An open country, finally. There are much more opportunities than there were in Soviet times.

Another thing is that the conditions for realizing these opportunities in the 1990s were generally useless. They are useless even now. Their improvement is one of the priorities of society and the state. And this means that it is necessary to develop the positive that was laid down in the previous period of our history. And if you start to cross out everything in a row, as they first crossed out the tsarist regime, then the Soviet power, then the 90s ... We will live like this all the time without our own history!

About service dog skills

You mentioned education. What is your attitude to what is happening today in the field of education? Don't you think that the replacement of the "teacher-student" model by the "buyer-seller" model will lead to the fact that universities will not give knowledge (a worldview category), but information (an impersonal sum of facts)?

I agree that the most important things can now be removed from education. In general, what is an education for? Today, many people talk about education as a system for acquiring skills that will allow a person to live comfortably in the modern world. But the service dog has skills too! And very good. This is not what education is for. A person must understand why he exists, why and how to fulfill himself. And these questions are directly related to religion, which gives, perhaps, the most important answers. Education, education and upbringing of the individual are related things. If enlightenment and upbringing are removed from the education system, then service dogs will be obtained instead of educated people. There will be a very significant moral change. And today everyone is afraid of the word "morality", especially the word "spirituality". And therefore, even in the national project "Education" the emphasis is often placed on a purely pragmatic, technological aspect. There is no doubt that computers should be installed in every school and connected to the Internet, just as the need for schools to acquire books did not raise objections at one time. But this should not be the only achievement of the national project! Because books and notebooks, computers and the Internet are needed so that children can think, write, create.

After all, we do not use those outstanding competitive advantages of our education that we already have: hundreds of schools and hundreds of devotees - directors, teachers, who provide the best examples of secondary education in the world. Why not turn it into a system? The main thing is to change the teacher's status, to make it high again. But then it is necessary to set new goals in the reform of education. From skills and competencies to move to education and enlightenment. And if today we observe the rejection of such a formulation of the question, then it is connected, of course, with the absence of the very moral support that we are talking about.

Today, Russian education is becoming part of the pan-European Bologna system, which contains a number of advantages and opens up new opportunities for students and graduates. But is it capable of solving all the problems of our education? Will this system exacerbate existing problems?

And what prevents us from offering our own, along with those competitive advantages that we should gain by joining the pan-European education system? I recently participated in a small conference where the rectors of several leading European universities were present, including the rector of the famous Eton School (Eton College is one of the most prestigious private schools in the UK. - Ed.). And when I spoke in the vein that not only we have problems, but also they, in the West, they happily (or joylessly?) nodded. They agreed that education is experiencing a number of problems that they simply do not know how to cope with. So much the better for us - today there are not many areas where we have something to say. Education is such an area. Bye.

Church and freedom

In your article "The Politics of the Current Moment" you say that the current development plan for the country is "too pragmatic and has a pronounced consumer character - an increase in the standard of living of citizens." Does this mean that the long-term plan (and not the medium-term one, to which you refer the existing one) should lie in a different value plane? What does Orthodox values ​​and the Russian Orthodox Church have to do with these “long-term” tasks?

The consumer emphasis here is quite understandable: it is a reaction to the difficult 90s, to a sharp drop in living standards. And, of course, the task of the state is to provide some minimum so that people do not feel humiliated. After all, despite the rise in wages and the large increase in income in recent years, pensions still remain humiliatingly low; lower than in Soviet times. So consumer problems, of course, need to be addressed.

At the same time, I am sure that the powerful development of the country, which will be accompanied, among other things, by a proper increase in the standard of living, is impossible if you do not have a picture of the future, if you do not understand what Russia is, who we are and what we want to do. A large country must have a purpose, there must be a reason for existence, otherwise it will simply disappear. And the meaning of the existence of Russia is not yet visible to our society. Maybe it shouldn't lend itself easily to rational thought or verbal expression. But at least it should be felt. And he is not felt. This is the very problem of national identity that is being discussed today. It is not there, this identity, it is lost.

- And how does it manifest itself?

We do not rely on the heights of our own national genius. We have Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Russian philosophers. But they do not create the space of our life, the space in which ideas would be born about what we should do next, what is the meaning of our existence and what is the vector of movement. In this sense, we must go back a hundred or even more years ago. It is necessary to make the ideas of the ancestors instrumental. Of course, "sewn together" all this is a difficult task: after all, one cannot simply mechanically take and transplant the ideas of the past onto modern soil. But you will have to "stitch".

And in this process the role of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Orthodox community, the values ​​of Orthodox culture will be great. After all, all Russian literature, Russian philosophy is through and through religious... Of course, we cannot take it now and say: you know, we all need to live in Christ. And hope that tomorrow everyone will heal. It is necessary to develop such tools, create such institutions that can form the space of modern life based on the values ​​that once nurtured Russian culture.

One of these tools, of course, is education, if we understand it not only as a set of skills, but in the sense of upbringing and enlightenment. Then it will help us enter the space of our history, our religious-philosophical and moral heritage. This does not mean that everyone will start going to church and immediately become believers. But we, at least, will return to the space of our own culture, which is already a thousand years old. And now we have fallen out of this space. That's what it's all about. But how to formulate this, what needs to be done so that at least it becomes clear to everyone - I don’t know yet ...

In a recent interview with Time magazine, President Putin said: "There is not and cannot be, in my opinion, in today's world morality and morality in isolation from religious values." What, in this regard, do you see the role of the Church in modern society? After all, today the Church does a lot for society. But problems remain, and very serious ones.

Here you can argue with Putin. Modern secular ethical systems have abandoned the religious values ​​that once formed the concept of morality. Another thing is that, having refused, they faced a number of unsolvable collisions. Europe, which once said through the mouth of Nietzsche "God is dead", today cannot solve the elementary problem of the Arabs in Paris, which in a different value and socio-political situation was easily overcome.

New ideas - tolerance, political correctness - these are all substitutions, false ideas. Worshiping them sometimes takes comical forms. In some of the US states it is forbidden to tell Jewish jokes because it is treated as anti-Semitism. But Jewish jokes are a cultural phenomenon, the same as, say, Armenian ones, etc. Sometimes it’s not funny at all - when on some European airlines clerics are forced to take off their crosses when boarding a flight. This, allegedly, can offend non-Christians present. But this is a path to nowhere, a path to unfreedom. What Dostoevsky so beautifully described in The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor. And in the West, many have gone this way to the end. And then - nothing, then - emptiness. We can't get into this dead end. We must stay in the freedom zone. Many of us shy away from the word “freedom”, because they associate this word with liberalism. But these are different things...

But in modern society, the concepts of "Church" and "non-freedom" are often linked. Even today, any attempt by the church community to express itself in the public arena is seen as an encroachment on freedom. Are those who think so right?

This stereotype is precisely connected with a false understanding of freedom. After all, in the end, all ideological work in Russia, all Russian philosophy and literature were engaged in the development of this concept ... They could not, and in 1917 a catastrophe occurred when, in some terrifying impulse towards freedom, everything was destroyed ...

All religious problems are built around freedom. I am not an expert, but even I remember well the words of Christ: And you will know the Truth, and the Truth will make you free (John 8:32), and the Apostle Paul: Stand therefore in the freedom that Christ has given us (Gal 5:1). Of course, Paul meant primarily freedom in Christ, freedom from sin. But also freedom as a gift of God to man, freedom of moral choice. We have some kind of failure: a person understands freedom in a negative sense - as the freedom to do evil. Because of this, there is a widespread position today that freedom should be limited. But such a position is a sign of weakness. And actually, something else was meant: the possibility of creative self-realization. This is about education: after all, people are not born to acquire skills and practice them, but for something else. This is why the Church teaches.

Theologians and academics, Church and society

Does this mean that you do not agree with the academics, the authors of the well-known "letter of ten", who are extremely concerned about the problem of the clericalization of our society?

As far as I understand, these people generally reject religion and oppose it to science. It seems to me that all this looks simply comical, especially when you consider that among them there are even Nobel Prize winners. All the great scientists who laid the foundations of modern science, starting with Newton, tried to comprehend God's plan, were carriers of the Christian worldview, within the framework of which modern science was born - in Europe, and not in China, India or the Arab East. Already later, in the 18th-19th centuries, some scientists abandoned metaphysical guidelines, but the great ones, on whose shoulders we all stand, were believers. So there is no contradiction between religion and science.

In this regard, another important issue arises. In our country, theology (theology) has not yet become a recognized university discipline. There is no HAC standard for theology. There is a paradox: in all Western universities there is theology, but in Russia it is not, because, they say, this is obscurantism. We are the most progressive in the world, right? On the contrary, it seems to me that it is precisely the position that is set forth in the “letter of ten” that smacks strongly of obscurantism.

- That is, you are for theology to be a VAK discipline?

Certainly! Otherwise, you can then delete the mathematics from there. After all, what is mathematics? Does she study natural resources, the atmosphere, the laws of nature? No, this is an absolute abstraction, it does not exist in the material world. Or philosophy is a game in general. Theology has its own apparatus, its own tools, developed over the centuries. Thousands of the smartest people have been doing theology, how can you deny that?

And how can we make sure that there are fewer such misunderstandings in our society? How to make sure that the problems of morality and spirituality are included in the agenda? What needs to be done so that the whole society hears the voice of the Church?

Of course, it is not for me to teach representatives of the Church, but it seems to me that the time has come for her to participate more actively in public life. We need a tool, a channel that would bring our society closer to basic values. After all, the Church, as far as I understand, is not only bishops and priests. Perhaps one of these channels could be the initiatives of the laity. That is the normal development of civil society.

Thanks to the joint project of "Expert" and "Thomas", carried out on the basis of research by the Institute for Public Engineering, our readers have learned that believers are younger, more educated and more successful than is commonly believed. Many readers reacted with great distrust to such data. How would you explain both the results and the reaction?

First of all, I note: the result of our study is very close to reality. Because this is a gigantic sample - 15,000 people. It is very carefully done: if you take our data on the structure of society, you will see that they match almost perfectly with the population census data. This indicates the high quality of the sample, the accuracy of the result.

Yes, the believers turned out to be younger, more educated, more energetic than is commonly thought. After all, the myth is still alive that Orthodoxy is old women. In fact, each of us can remember our believing acquaintances and see that there are young, energetic, successful people among them. At the same time, they do not just go to church, but try to live according to the principles that the Church preaches: for example, they have large families and do charity work. By the way, in the regions the church way of life is already becoming quite everyday, if I may say so. And, remarkably, in many respects among the wealthy part of the population. Let me give you, perhaps, a somewhat unexpected analogy: drivers of expensive cars behave much better on the roads. Of course, there are insane people among them, but on average, the driving culture is much higher among the owners of foreign cars than among the owners of domestic cars. This, of course, is not a completely correct comparison, but often it is those who have already resolved material issues that begin to think: what's next? And what to do with it? What is this all for? This means that serious shifts are taking place in society itself, inspiring hope and optimism. After all, it is from the depths of society that, it seems to me, the transformations that will lead to the realization of national identity should begin. That is, these values ​​will not be brought down from above, but they will grow into the consciousness and life of people. And at this level, of course, the Church will increasingly become an integral part of the lives of so many people.

Then why, if everything is developing so well in our society itself, questions of morality and spirituality, as you said at the beginning of our conversation, are not even on the agenda? Hasn't a critical mass accumulated yet for them to manifest?

Institutions have not been created that link society, its aspirations with the political sphere of life, which can translate to the political level what is ripening in society's expectations. And this gap between the political top and the life of society remains. This is not tragic, but must be overcome.

I think that now public institutions that create such a connection will be in maximum demand. Development can go not even through politics, not through political parties, but through a social movement. And "from below". And this movement will have an ever-increasing influence on local government. Then there is a direct connection between politics and people's lives, and political and social institutions become "alive". We do not have this connection, and the parties look cardboard, alien to us.

What does the Church mean to you personally?

Perhaps many will condemn this view, but for me now it is primarily a matter of identity. If I live in Russia and I am Russian, then I am Orthodox. Moreover, Russian is not in the sense of blood, of course, but in the sense that Russia is my country. Of course, Muslims will also say that this is their country - well, that's good. But for me, these two points are inextricably linked. This is the ultimate identity. I do not think that every Russian should be Orthodox, but in the limit it is. And we must understand that this is one of the foundations on which the country rests ...

But such a position speaks more about cultural identity than about religious identity itself. So it turns out that many of us consider themselves Orthodox, but, say, not all of these Orthodox believe in the Resurrection of Christ and eternal life. There was even a new “identity”: an Orthodox atheist. But this is absurd. What do you think?

I will say this: do not demand too much from people.

About subjective journalism

You are the head of one of the most authoritative and successful publications in modern Russia, so I simply cannot ignore the issues of the professional sphere. What about the notorious "journalistic objectivity"? Recently, a journalist told me that Foma will never become a full-fledged participant in the media market, because "for you, the Church is a subject, but until it becomes an object, you will not be able to engage in proper journalism."

Yes, this position is typical for some publications. For them, not only the Church, but also the country of Russia is an object. And this is a profound delusion, just a catastrophic mistake - to think that everything should be an object for a journalist. It is not true. Of course, when we are at the level of news journalism, at the level of news agencies, this is possible. The main thing is that the information is as accurate as possible. Not even objective, but accurate - and all that is. But this does not mean that the rest of journalism should be "objective" - ​​that is, treat everything as an object. It's just nonsense, because it's a relegation of journalism.

Another mistake is to assume that the information must necessarily be fascinating. This is the concept of the so-called infotainment (from the English information (information) and entertainment (entertainment)), which also came to us from the West. Well, this is just some kind of idiocy! Why does everything have to be entertaining? Why is it necessary to reduce life to only entertainment? A person just wants to know what is happening, and they begin to captivate and entertain him. He should receive even simple information while having fun. But the task of journalism is not only to inform, but also to educate, and even more - to inspire. And the best examples of journalism, both in our country and in the West, show this. We forget about it. And we contrast supposedly objective journalism with biased journalism of opinions. This is a false contrast, because there is no objective journalism. There are professional principles. For example, if a journalist adheres to a particular point of view, he should not impose it on the reader, he should also communicate another point of view. This, I repeat, is his professional duty. Unless, of course, he writes an essay or a pamphlet. But in everything else… Even the choice of the agenda is already subjective. Readers of such "objective" magazines and newspapers feel false because editors and journalists simply do not respond to their thoughts and feelings. Because for the reader the country is one's own, but for them it is a foreign one.

Photo by Vladimir ESHTOKIN

In the new television season, Channel One will replace the host of the Sunday Time program. The place of Irada Zeynalova, who has been the face of the program since 2012, will be taken by Valery Fadeev, CEO of the Expert media holding.

This information was confirmed to RBC by several sources on Channel One, as well as those close to Valery Fadeev. The journalist himself refused to comment on this information, and Irada Zeynalova advised to contact the TV channel's press service on this issue, which did not provide any comments on the change of presenters.

Now the program "Sunday Time" has scheduled holidays. The last episode of the TV show was released on July 10, and the new season will begin on September 4 - until this time, the program staff are on vacation and they also do not know anything about the situation with the change of presenters. However, it is known that Valery Fadeev is already preparing for the role of the host of Sunday Time, passing tests in the studio of the program.

Most likely, sources say, Irada Zeynalova will remain on Channel One - she may be offered to host some kind of talk show.

Zeynalova has hosted the Sunday Time program since 2012, replacing TV presenter Pyotr Tolstoy, who is now running for the State Duma from United Russia.

One of the reasons for the change of presenters is the fierce competition with the program “News of the Week with Dmitry Kiselev”, which airs on the Russia-1 TV channel. The ratings of the programs are approximately the same: the latest issue of Voskreskoye Vremya gained 4.7%, while it was 4.4% for Vesti Nedeli. Prior to this, for three weeks in a row the program of the All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company held the palm, but the advantage was insignificant 0.1 - 0.3%.

The choice fell on Valery Fadeev due to the fact that the Kremlin wants to see on the eve of the presidential elections a presenter who will inspire more confidence among the conservative electorate. The second reason is the Kremlin's desire to compensate for Fadeev's resentment for losing the United Russia primaries and not getting into the State Duma, the newspaper writes. Fadeev was promised a passing place on the list of Moscow United Russia members, but at the last moment he had to advance in the unfamiliar Komi Republic.

Valery Fadeev has been the editor-in-chief of the Expert magazine since 1998. Since 2006, he has headed the holding of the same name. He is a member of the Supreme Council of United Russia, one of the leaders of the liberal platform of the party, a member of the central headquarters of the ONF. Confidant of Vladimir Putin in the presidential elections. Former member of the Public Chamber of Russia.

The head of the Department of Advertising and Public Relations of the Institute of Industry Management of the RANEPA Vladimir Evstafiev commented on the changes in the program "Sunday" especially for "Davydov.Index":
— Valery Fadeev is outwardly very attractive, imposing man, who, most likely, likes women. Then he speaks well, he has the right speech, he does not need to read from a piece of paper. This is a very big plus. He is brilliantly versed in the intricacies of politics, so he has been doing this for a long time, for almost twenty years. And he took part in all this. That is, when editing news, he can be extremely useful, he can become a leader.
He is very calm, reasonable, without any tantrums, not greedy for sensations, as some people like. Therefore, his appearance will undoubtedly decorate the broadcast and ennoble it, make it more professional. Of course, Zeynalova with her emotions will be missed, but she will probably find another application for herself.

Political scientist, historian and blogger Sergei Zelenin, in turn, does not see much difference in the change of hosts of Voskresnye Vremya.
— One talking head was changed to another talking head. I just can’t imagine what could categorically change as a result of this. Any presenter does not speak for himself, he voices something. If this is not an author's program, like Dmitry Kiselev on the second channel. So, for some reason, the management needed to change the presentation of the material.
I would not say that this is a serious, vital change that can change the attitude towards Channel One. Many did not watch television, did not perceive the information provided by the central TV, and will not do it,— commented the expert.

Well, something like this.

The full version of the material with detailed expert comments

Svetlana Povoraznyuk, Anna Akhmadieva

The founder of the Expert TV channel, Expert-TV LLC, which has multimillion-dollar debts to creditors and former employees of the TV channel, was renamed and ceased to exist after a merger with Paradise LLC in Ivanovo, specializing in the wholesale trade in food products. According to lawyers, now it will be extremely difficult to achieve payments on obligations from the assignee of Expert-TV. The prosecutor's office stated that there were no grounds for carrying out verification activities and prompt response.

The Expert TV channel was launched by the media holding of the same name in 2008. The problems with the channel began almost immediately after the launch, at the same time the search for investors began. According to the editorial staff, the debt of Expert-TV LLC in terms of salaries to employees amounted to about 25 million rubles. In 2012, "Expert" created a new company "LLC" Company "Expert-TV", which invited employees of a loss-making channel. After that, the TV channel continued to accumulate debts. One of the main shareholders of the Expert media holding, Vnesheconombank, allocated 100 million rubles for their liquidation. However, on March 12, 2013, Expert-TV filed a bankruptcy petition with the Moscow Arbitration Court.

According to the staff, the debt to them from both companies is about 50 million rubles. Employees are trying to "knock out" money through the courts. At the moment, payments have been made to 10 employees on maternity leave and several more employees who came from the regions. The debts are paid by Expert-TV Company LLC.

However, the second debtor - the co-founder of the TV channel - Expert-TV LLC - has not yet paid the debts. Instead, in 2012, the company was deregistered and renamed Techno-TV, co-owned by CJSC Mediaholding Expert (30.30%), CJSC Group Expert (30.30%), magazine Expert "(30.30%) and a native of the Tambov region Sergey Menshchikov (9.09%). In February 2013, Techno-TV was reorganized into Paradise LLC, which should now be responsible for the debts of Expert-TV.

According to the former employee of the TV channel Natalya Antipina, when trying to find someone responsible for obligations, the search ends at Techno-TV.

Creditors are sent to Techno-TV on Bolshaya Gruzinskaya, but there is no one there and never will be, - she explains.

Antipina's words are confirmed by the conclusion of the Moscow prosecutor's office (available to Izvestia). Metropolitan prosecutors found out that Techno-TV does not function at the address indicated in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, in addition, its general director is Sergei Menshchikov, who died on December 10, 2012. The merger with Paradise took place on February 15, 2012, on this date Menshchikov is listed as the CEO and co-owner of the company.

[Maria Istomina, 07/05/2013: As we managed to find out here, the founders of TECHNO-TV LLC (the changed name of Expert-TV LLC) are dead souls !!! On February 15, 2013, a native of the Tambov region, who hanged himself on December 10, 2012, was appointed the new CEO of the company. That is, in fact, for a month (before the closure) the channel was led by a dead man ... The situation is piquated by the fact that, according to the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, LLC "Paradise" (!!!) is the successor. The document fixing these facts is in. – Inset K.ru]

The Moscow prosecutor's office and the prosecutor's office of Tambov (where Menshchikov lived) came to the unanimous opinion that there were no grounds for a prosecutor's response. TV channel employees, who see elements of fraud in the actions of the former management, expect that the prosecutors of the city of Ivanovo, where Paradise is located, will take action.

However, the head of the Dobronravov and Partners bureau, Yuri Dobronravov, argues that it is too early to talk about fraudulent activities. Prosecutors must first prove the intent of the company.

Ruslan Konorev, a lawyer colleague from Knyazev & Partners, who specializes in LLC activities, calls the renaming of the company with further reorganization into a provincial firm a standard scheme for avoiding liability to creditors and employees. Most often in such cases, the ultimate successor goes bankrupt.

This is what they do when they want to get rid of the company in a civil way. Not just quit, but drain, - says Konorev. - The successor is far away, and no one will go there. Its founders are also, as a rule, nominal.

In this case, it is not worth counting on compensation for debts to employees, the lawyer believes. He is also supported by a colleague from the DS Law law office, Mikhail Alexandrov.

Valery Fadeev, co-owner and general director of the Expert media holding, said in a conversation with the publication that he was not ready to comment on the situation around Expert-TV LLC and did not understand what kind of reorganization he was talking about.

Expert-TV LLC is bankrupt, and I have nothing to do with it. There are some procedures, it is known, - he said.

Fadeev noted that the reorganization of Expert TV was probably caused by needs, but Fadeev does not remember exactly what. [...] this story was familiar for the TV channel (and, according to rumors, for the holding's printed publications). Salaries to employees were delayed from the very moment of launch, and, despite the found investors in the form of VEB and the promise to pay everything, many of the debts have not yet been returned. In the summer of 2012, designer Alexander Korotich, who came up with the design of the channel, publicly accused the management of the Expert holding - Valery Fadeev, Tatyana Gurova and Alexander Privalov - of cheating. According to Korotich, he was owed 600,000 rubles for the design of the channel. After the management refused to resolve the issue of debt with him through diplomacy, he went to court and won it, but found that he could no longer receive his money from the company.

The fact is that in January 2012, the Expert-TV channel changed its legal entity - from Expert-TV LLC to Expert-TV Company LLC. Thus, all won claims were addressed to a company that no longer exists. Many other employees of the TV channel found themselves in a similar situation, and some of them had debts that reached the size of an annual salary. According to Fadeev, the legal entity was changed as part of the holding's restructuring. He refused to tell in more detail about this restructuring in a commentary to Lente.ru, as he refused to name the size of the company's debt.

The last time Expert-TV journalists were paid was in mid-January - a quarter of their November 2012 salary. But, according to employees, the TV channel owes not only to them, but also to most of its counterparties, so much so that now in the office they threaten to simply turn off the light for non-payment of rent. However, very few people will need light there, since in early March the channel stopped broadcasting news and fresh releases of programs, and on March 12 it completely stopped broadcasting, including on the Internet. As a result, all the results of four years of work disappeared from the channel's website, although some of the recordings can still be found on the Expert-TV page on YouTube.

On the same day, March 12, the management of Expert-TV filed for bankruptcy with the Supreme Arbitration Court. And on the evening of March 13, Valery Fadeev met with Expert-TV journalists to talk with them about the fate of the channel and the company's debts (a Lenta.ru correspondent was present at this meeting). Fadeev announced to the employees that external supervision would soon be introduced and that from the moment the external observer appeared, the company would stop paying debts (the text of this speech, by the way, is already available on Facebook).

According to Fadeev, the reason for the failure was that the TV channel's expenses significantly exceeded its revenues, although in terms of costs, Expert-TV was "the most efficient channel in Russia." Fadeev explained that the project was difficult from the very beginning, as it was launched during the crisis, and his management "overestimated how the market would develop." As for the payment of debts to employees, Fadeev paid special attention to the fact that they had been warned in advance that the project was difficult. “Get out of this risky job, find yourself another job. Many will confirm that this has been said many times,” Fadeev said.

After the introductory speech, the CEO answered the questions of the employees, who, naturally, were most concerned about the issue of paying wages. After several evasive answers that the holding puts the payment of wages as its top priority and will try, despite filing for bankruptcy, to start selling equipment and furniture, as well as to find other, unnamed sources for repaying debts, Valery Fadeev nevertheless admitted that can not promise anything and does not undertake obligations to return the money. Desperate journalists, who obviously heard many of these phrases not for the first time (although earlier they were still promised to return the money), eventually suggested that Fadeev turn to Putin, whose confidant is the journalist, for help.

Valery Fadeev, of course, only responded to such a request with a surprised look, but the journalists of the TV channel published the next day, promising to send him, among other things, to the State Duma and the presidential administration. [...]

The media environment perceived the news about the closure of the Expert-TV channel and the scandal with debts to employees ambiguously. Some sympathize with the deceived journalists, others consider that they had to understand what they were doing and who they were working for. Still others note that there is nothing surprising in this story, since Fadeev "famous liar". And the general director of RBC-TV, Alexander Lyubimov, bluntly stated that "non-professional managers" were engaged in the channel, who should not have even contacted television.

The journalists of Expert-TV themselves, to all questions about why they remained on the channel, answer that they had too good a team and immediate superiors, besides, they believed Fadeev’s promises for a long time and relied on the reputation of the Expert holding. [...]

Valery Fadeev "for 5 years satisfied his ambitions at the expense of not only his employees, but also shareholders and creditors"

The original of this material
© "Forum.msk", 03/25/2013

The confidant of the National Leader bankrupted his TV channel, but did not become impoverished

Receive 400 million rubles from the State Bank for the development of the TV channel, and then bring it to bankruptcy; accumulate a $50 million debt to employees and leave only tables and chairs on the company's balance sheet; change the legal entity in time and ignore dozens of lawsuits from former employees and contractors. This is only possible for a person of remarkable intelligence with great connections. Valery Fadeev, one of the founders of the Expert-TV channel, is a member of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation, chairman of the Expert Council of the Agency for Strategic Initiatives and Putin's confidant in the 2012 presidential elections in the Russian Federation.

Unfortunately, in Russia, the founders are not at all responsible for their LLCs: at one fine moment, they didn’t like the financial indicators - you leave the company along with employees, with debts to creditors, and that’s all - you are clean before the law, you live happily ever after.

Former employees of "Expert-TV" went through the authorities for more than a year. However, all appeals to supervisory authorities, ministries and departments, in the end, ended up where they started their journey - in the Savelovskaya inter-district prosecutor's office and in the GIT, where they safely lay down under the cloth. The judicial and legal system of Russia proved unable to withstand such sophisticated methods of doing business, Mr. Fadeev. It seems that only the guarantor of the Constitution can cut this "Gordian knot". Desperate employees of the TV channel "Expert-TV" turned to the President of the Russian Federation for help. Text of the letter:

"Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich!

We, the staff of the TV channel "Expert-TV", appeal to you as the guarantor of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and urge you to pay attention to the blatant violation of the law by your authorized representative in the presidential elections in 2012, a member of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation, head of the Expert Council of the Agency for Strategic initiatives, the head of the media holding "Expert" and one of the founders of the TV channel "Expert-TV" Valery Alexandrovich Fadeev. Thus, the behavior of this manager partly discredits the authorities.

For 5 years, the head of one of the most authoritative Russian media has satisfied his ambitions at the expense of not only his employees, but also shareholders and creditors, among which were such state-owned banks as VEB and GLOBEX. In 2007, Valery Fadeev founded the Expert-TV channel, brought it to bankruptcy with his illiterate management, and now he is evading the responsibility and legal requirements of hundreds of employees, as well as Russian and international counterparty companies. The debt to the members of the labor collective of the TV channel Expert-TV amounts to tens of millions of rubles (from 150 thousand rubles for each employee).

Financial problems on "Expert-TV" began from the moment of launch and continued until the cessation of broadcasting. On March 12, the Expert-TV channel declared itself bankrupt. On March 13, at a meeting with employees, Valery Fadeev said that only two cameras remained on the balance sheet of the TV channel and promised to pay off part of the accumulated debt at the expense of proceeds from the sale of tables and chairs. All liquid property of Expert-TV Company LLC, including video cameras, studio equipment and vehicles, was transferred to the balance of the Expert media holding a year ago, just at the moment when Mr. Fadeev asked Vnesheconombank for money for the development of the TV channel . Throughout 2012, the TV channel rented the above equipment from the media holding. And this means that we have almost no chance of getting the money earned by honest work. At a meeting with employees on March 13, 2013, when each person already had thousands of dollars in debt, Mr. Fadeev cynically stated: “But we warned you: if you are afraid to take risks, you should not do it. Get out of this risky job, find yourself another job."

The state twice tried to help the distressed TV channel. In 2009, 20% of the holding's shares were purchased by GLOBEXBANK, and two years later an additional share issue was made. Mr. Fadeev repeatedly said that "400 million from VEB should be enough for 3 years of active development of the channel." However, neither the appearance of new equipment, nor the repayment of debts to the team, nor any other benefits from the receipt of money from the state treasury, the employees of the TV channel did not see. At the same time, at a meeting with the team on March 13, Valery Fadeev categorically stated that "all this money was literally "spent" by the TV channel in a year."

In 2011, in order to restructure the Expert media holding, the legal entity was changed from Expert-TV LLC to Expert-TV Company LLC, to which the entire workforce of the TV channel was transferred in January 2012. We were convinced that the change of legal entity was necessary in order to avoid debts to third parties and pay off employees. As the main argument, the management of the media holding used its reputation, which supposedly would not allow it to deceive employees. However, the debt to the team for the "old company" was never paid. Expert-TV LLC was renamed into TECHNO-TV LLC with a new legal address, so the management of the media holding ignored dozens of court decisions in favor of the plaintiffs (former employees of Expert-TV LLC). The debts of some of them for the "disappeared company" reach the size of an annual salary. In addition, Expert-TV Company LLC was deprived of any financial freedom: in 2011, the commercial service of the TV channel was transferred to the media holding. Everything that the TV channel earned from advertising was transferred directly to the Expert media holding.

Delays in wages were systematic in both companies. The debt to the channel's employees, according to our calculations, is about 60 million rubles. The last payment made to us for the "new company" was on January 16 and amounted to 1/4 of the salary for November 2012. Debts for the previous legal entity were not repaid. In addition, no contributions were made to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation for more than two years. At the moment, ten employees of the TV channel are on parental leave. For several months they do not receive the allowance due to them, which, by the way, is compensated by the state to the employer. At a team meeting on March 13, 2013, Valery Alexandrovich promised to "think about employees who are on maternity leave." We are afraid that he will limit himself to “thoughts”, and women will remain “hanging” on the balance sheet of a bankrupt company, not having received the money they need so much and rely on by law.

We filed collective and individual complaints with the State Labor Inspectorate in Moscow, the Savelovsky Interdistrict Prosecutor's Office of Moscow, the Savelovsky District Court of Moscow, the Federal Financial Monitoring Service, the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation, and the Federal Service for Labor and Employment. All lawsuits were resolved in favor of the plaintiffs, but the employer did not fulfill the requirements for them.

All this time, the Expert-TV team has been fulfilling its official duties in full. There were no complaints from the leadership of any of us. Moreover, many employees received certificates and verbal thanks.

We have repeatedly asked the direct management of the TV channel to resolve the problem of non-payment of wages. The general director of the TV channel, Firuz Karimov, forwarded our appeals to the management of the Expert Media Holding and personally to Valery Fadeev. In response, we received only regular promises to pay off the debt and stabilize the salary payment schedule, but they were not fulfilled.

Thus, the channel staff found itself in the position of serfs, while many employees found themselves below the poverty line, having dependent families and loan obligations. Some employees did not even have the financial opportunity to get to their place of work, and some employees from other cities had to live in the back rooms of the TV channel. To direct questions from the channel's employees about the prospects for paying off the increasing debt, the management simply offered to resign. But, as practice has shown, the retired employees have not received the calculation so far.

We believe that the positive image of Valery Fadeev as a politician and public figure is not compatible with such a dismissive attitude not only towards his employees, but also towards the norms of Russian legislation. We are turning to you for help, because the supervisory authorities and the entire judicial and legal system of the Russian Federation are sometimes powerless in the face of businessmen who are able to find a loophole in any legislation, such as Valery Fadeev. We believe that it is very dangerous for the country's economy to have such an "economist" as Mr. Fadeev at the head of the ASI Expert Council.

We ask you to take special control over the settlement of the financial dispute between the management of the Expert media holding and the creative team. We earned our money by honest work and we are sure that the employer must fulfill its obligations to employees.