The Kremlin controls television, but teenagers don't watch it. Who controls the leading Russian TV channels - ivgnnm Nine “Ethers” by Andrei Paramonovich

Page 1 of 6

Chapter XVI. Media and politics

The media perform a variety of functions: informing the population about events taking place in the country and the world; education and socialization; advertising in its various forms. The media influence almost all spheres and institutions of society, including politics, health care, education, and religion.
The media are the most important tools for implementing the political process.
It is significant that in modern political science the media are characterized by such pompous titles as “the great arbiter”, “the fourth branch of government”, along with the legislative, executive and judicial, etc. The belief in the omnipotence of television is so great that some politicians believe that whoever controls television controls the entire country. It is impossible to imagine politics without the press, radio and television. We can confidently say that the media play an important role in the tremendous changes that our country is currently experiencing. Moreover, one can even argue that in the absence of opposition parties, any significant organizations and unions capable of posing a real challenge to the totalitarian system, the media played the role of a kind of organizer and powerful stimulator of those forces that ultimately contributed to the political defeat of this system .

§ 1. The place and role of the media in politics
§ 2. What is teledemocracy?
§ 3. Relationships between the media and government agencies
§ 4. Media as a tool of “political marketing”
§ 5. Media and public opinion polls
§ 6. “Theatricalization” of the political process

§ 1. The place and role of the media in politics

Back in the early 60s. Canadian sociologist M. McLuhan, not without some exaggeration, argued that the medium of transmission itself is more important than the information transmitted by it. From this point of view, each mass communication system has its own specific characteristics. Not all media are united by the ability to communicate directly with the public, as if bypassing traditional communication institutions such as church, school, family, political parties and organizations, etc. It is precisely this ability that is used, whether by an advertising agent trying to persuade the public to buy a particular product, or by a politician, political party, etc., to mobilize mass support for his program.
For a long period, the main source of information for the general public was the press - newspapers and magazines. Initially, many of them arose as organs of one or another political party or were involved in the political process in one form or another. In any case, the newspapers did not hide from the very beginning that they were not going to be politically neutral. It was also important that newspapers offered more than just political and economic information. By also providing entertainment and local news, they taught people to see themselves as part of a larger world, reacting to events within it.
The beginning of the “era of television” in politics is considered to be 1952, when it was first used for widespread coverage of the presidential election campaign in the United States.
In the 70s - 80s. television, which was gaining more and more weight in the political process, became the dominant mass media. As an example of the influence of television on the nature of political behavior and especially the voting of American voters in the United States, the television debates between J. Kennedy and R. Nixon in 1960 are often cited. E. Roper, who conducted a survey among voters at that time, came to the conclusion that It was these televised debates that contributed significantly to Kennedy's victory. In 1980, according to existing data, television debates made it possible for R. Reagan not only to close the four percent gap with J. Carter, but also to get ahead of him by five percent. An important role was played by the television debates between the main contenders in the subsequent election campaigns - R. Reagan and W. Mondale in 1984, G. Bush and B. Dyukakis - in 1988, G. Bush and B. Clinton - in 1992.
Gradually, television debates between competing candidates for the highest elective positions as a tool of election struggle are increasingly recognized and used in all industrialized countries, including here in Russia.
It is obvious that although the claim that McLuhan's "electronic village" has become a reality is an exaggeration, television in industrialized countries today has enormous potential for influencing public opinion. Depending on whose hands it is in, it can be used both to objectively and promptly inform people about real events in the world, to educate and educate them, and to manipulate them in the interests of certain groups of people. The role of the media in politics cannot be assessed unambiguously. They are a complex and multifaceted institution, consisting of many bodies and elements designed to implement the diverse tasks of informing the population about events and phenomena occurring in each specific country and throughout the world. Even G. Laswell identified the following four main functions of the media: monitoring the world (collection and dissemination of information); “editing” (selection and commenting on information); formation of public opinion; dissemination of culture. In other words, media provide an enhanced form of human communication. To all this we must add one more important function: the politicization of society and the political education of broad sections of the population. The press, radio, television claim to perform the functions of a “watchdog of public interests”, to be “the eyes and ears of society”, warning, for example, about a recession in the economy, the growth of drug addiction and crime or corruption in the corridors of power, etc. . To justify such an image or such a claim, the media must appear as independent as possible, both economically and politically.
In most industrialized countries, the media is a private enterprise institution, a branch of the economy that employs tens or even hundreds of thousands of people. Their economic activities are based on the collection, production, storage and "selling" of information. In this capacity, the functioning of the media is subject to the laws of a market economy. They are permeated with the contradictions of society and reproduce them in their publications and programs. They affect the interests of various layers and groups. As economic power and sociocultural influence increase, the media acquire relative freedom from control by the state and major corporations - advertisers. Naturally, advertising, being one of the most important sources of funding and profits for the media, has served and continues to serve as a significant obstacle to their moral and political independence. However, the matter cannot be presented in such a way that advertisers directly dictate their will to the editor-in-chief of a particular newspaper or magazine. Moreover, the largest media conglomerates in the West themselves have turned into an independent, extremely profitable business sector with their own special interests, which do not always coincide and even often come into conflict with the interests of certain influential forces in society or the country’s political leadership.
The commercial principle, which underlies most media bodies and organizations, is in principle indifferent to content; it involves the market use of information for sale to the widest possible public. It is noteworthy that in February 1988, for the first time in all seven years of R. Reagan's tenure in power, three leading US television companies rejected the White House's request to allow R. Reagan the opportunity to speak on their channels. Official representatives of these companies unanimously stated that since the presidential speech will not contain anything new, the commercial interests of the companies will not allow them to waste airtime.
The media, in their publications, reports and comments, can shed light on the hidden springs of the policies of the ruling circles, and draw public attention to the most odious aspects of their activities. Examples include the publication of part of the so-called “Pentagon Papers” by the New York Times newspaper, the exposure of the Watergate scandal by the Washington Post newspaper, the broadcast by leading television corporations of revealing hearings of this case in Congress, the mobilization of public opinion by the leading media organs of Western countries against the dirty US Vietnam War and much more. It can also be mentioned that certain US media outlets played a role in the departure of Presidents L. Johnson and R. Nixon from the political arena. In other words, public opinion, expressed in one form or another through the media, plays an important role in limiting the power and specific actions of the ruling circles, in exposing some of the most flagrant violations of the rule of law on their part.
It should also be noted that many magazines and newspapers, as well as radio and television stations, such as Spiegel, Stern, Time, Newsweek, Cambio-16, Panorama, Europeo ", "Washington Post", "Los Angeles Times", "Le Monde", "Figaro", "Matain" and many others, stay afloat and even thrive on uncovering scandals, exposing fraud, finding out secrets, exposing them to everyone . Revealing or "investigative" journalism has become the motto of many publications. In this regard, the Russian media are no exception. Often, these publications are greedy for sensationalism, seeking to “explode the bomb” by simultaneously revealing corruption, official abuses, voter deception and the decline of political morality in the corridors of power.
Many of these publications set the tone in public discussions and disputes, bringing the most pressing problems and topics, scandals and scams to the public. It was through these and similar “elite” publications that the Watergate scandal became public, leading to the resignation of a president for the first time in American history. Der Spiegel published an article entitled “Telephone assassination attempt on citizen T.”, which described in detail the scandal associated with the secret entry of employees of the department for the protection of the constitution into the house of engineer K. Traube and the installation of listening devices on his phones. Shortly after this revelation, German Interior Minister W. Mayhofer, responsible for these actions, was forced to resign.
It should also be noted that by appealing to such sensual, irrational, emotional-volitional components of public consciousness, such as a feeling of love for the motherland, nationalistic and patriotic sentiments, etc., the media are able to mobilize the support of significant sections of the population for certain actions of the ruling circles or specific interest groups. As a rule, in such cases, changes in mass consciousness are short-term in nature and after the end of the propaganda campaign on this particular issue, everything, as they say, returns to normal. This feature of the functioning of the media, as will be shown below, is especially clearly manifested in the electoral process, during election campaigns.
An example of the skillful and large-scale use of irrationalistic impulses is the escalation in the United States in the early 80s. Media of "patriotism" and openly nationalistic sentiments towards the Soviet Union. The English media demonstrated an enviable ability to appeal to emotional-volitional, irrational impulses during the Falklands War. By whipping up imperial ambitions and claims that had seemingly sunk into oblivion in the country, as well as anti-Argentine sentiment, the English press, radio, and television convinced the whole world that the average Englishman, despite the radical change in Britain’s position on the world stage, remains susceptible to incantations of the spirits of the “fathers” and executors of the colonial empire.
As the results of many sociological and socio-psychological studies show, constant media reports about phenomena and events deviating from generally accepted norms in society, presented, as a rule, in a sensational way, give rise to anxiety and fear among readers, listeners, and viewers of a violation of the usual world order, the usual course of life , fear for one’s place in society, for one’s future, etc. At the same time, evidence suggests that people who use the media too often are more likely to develop negative attitudes about the world around them. Thus, children who often watch a lot of programs filled with violence become convinced that the world in which they live is full of violence, disorder, dominance of the strong, etc. They tend to be more willing to come to terms with these negative phenomena, to view them not as an aberration or the result of dysfunction in the social system, but as an integral part of it.
Moreover, different categories of the population may react to these phenomena differently. Constant reports of crime, drug addiction, terrorism, riots, etc. lead some readers, listeners, and television viewers to think about the need for a “steady hand,” a strong personality who can put an end to anarchy, ensure law and order, etc. It was among this part that R. Reagan, M. Thatcher and other leaders of right-wing and conservative forces, who came out with similar slogans, found a lively response. For another part of society, withdrawal into private life and privatization serve as a compensatory mechanism, and for still others, joining various kinds of communities, communes, religious sects, etc.
Perhaps, from the point of view under consideration, the nature and extent of the impact of the media on the emotional-volitional and irrational level of public consciousness can be seen through the example of shifts in the mass religious consciousness of the society of a number of industrialized countries, which collectively received the name “new religious consciousness.” It manifests itself in many forms: in the steady growth of denominational churches, an unexpected surge in various variations of fundamentalism, an increase in the number of church parishioners in certain countries, in the emergence of many traditional and non-traditional sects, etc.
This is also evidenced by the unprecedented expansion of the so-called “electronic churches”, where various churches use radio and television as a kind of pulpit for preaching their views. Broadcasts of a religious nature or touching on topics of religious faith have become commonplace on leading radio and television networks in industrialized countries. There is a growing number of radio and television stations that specialize exclusively in religious topics. Using the latest achievements of scientific and technological progress, attracting first-class specialists in audiovisual, electronic and computer technology, consultants on creating the most attractive images and arranging programs, these “electronic churches” have become a powerful means of influencing public consciousness. By appealing to multimillion-dollar audiences and often extracting significant amounts of money from them, they turned into ordinary business corporations with turnover of tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars. Moreover, a number of the most famous “electronic priests” or “televangelists”, especially in the USA (for example, J. Falwell, B. Graham, etc.), have acquired such great influence on the public that senior government officials are forced to take their opinion into account . It is significant that televangelist P. Robertson was one of the contenders for nomination as a candidate for the presidency of the United States from the Republican Party in the 1992 presidential primaries.
The impact of the media is modified by the influence of family, school, church, community and other institutions. But here we cannot ignore the fact that these institutions themselves are also influenced by the media. Be that as it may, the study of this phenomenon must be supplemented with an analysis of interpersonal communication, interpersonal relationships, taken in the full scope and complexity of the entire complex of institutions of socialization and regulation of consciousness. With such an analysis, it is discovered that the media do not and cannot provide a mirror image of reality.

On July 14, 1990, Mikhail Gorbachev signed a decree on the democratization and development of television and radio broadcasting in the USSR. This decree emphasized the importance of freedom and democracy in broadcasting in the new conditions. What has changed in 26 years and is it necessary to limit modern television? Two editors-in-chief crossed swords

Questions:

Should Russian television be controlled?

Pavel Gusev

Any media manager always controls the content he produces. Without this it is impossible, because it is the leader who determines the position, quality and direction of journalistic materials. Therefore, he continuously monitors what is on the television channel. But given that most of our companies are state-owned, those who control them take into account, first of all, state interests and, to a lesser extent, the interests inherent in people with a different point of view, although this is also present there, this cannot be ignored . She appears in many programs, on different talk shows, there are different political forces there.

Margarita Simonyan

From the point of view of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, censorship is prohibited.

How?

Pavel Gusev

I believe that the only control over the media by the state should be the control of the media law, which is of very high quality, adopted in 1991 and remains of high quality despite all the amendments. And the law does not provide for control over the media.

Margarita Simonyan

Each media outlet has its own editorial policy, its own editor-in-chief, of course, he controls the content.

Can we say that it corresponds to the principles of a democratic society?

Pavel Gusev

First of all, we do not yet have a democratic society, we have a lot of problems with democracy, and we are still only striving for it. Problems also arise in matters of the election campaign, judicial affairs, and the implementation of legislation. All together, this suggests that the authorities’ stupid control of television channels does not play into the hands of the formation of democracy.

Margarita Simonyan

Let us first understand what a democratic society is. A new Prime Minister has just appeared in democratic Great Britain, whom the people of Great Britain did not choose. And the society is considered democratic! Therefore, you and I will first delve into the terms for a long time and understand them before we hang labels.

Is there a “monopolization” of airtime by one party or another?

Pavel Gusev

If television belongs to the state, then, naturally, all parties that support the state are monopolists in this case.

Margarita Simonyan

What do Kovalchuk, the Rotenbergs and Sherlock Holmes have in common? The battle for the “first button”

Realnoe Vremya analyzed information about the owners of the largest channels in Russia, Tatarstan and Russian cities with a population of over a million. The Russian television market belongs to large media groups, including Gazprom. Tatarstan channels are almost completely divided between Tatmedia and the head of Ether, Andrei Grigoriev. In Russian million-plus cities, the channels are owned either by people from the mayor’s office or by large businesses.

Scandalous start to the year for Channel One

The year had barely begun when the main Russian channel, Channel One, found itself embroiled in several scandals at once. First, a petition appeared on the Internet, on the change.org platform, in which Channel One, represented by Konstantin Ernst, demanded to improve the New Year's show. A few days later, Ernst organized a conference at which he spoke about his vision of the problem: the main audience of New Year's shows is 45+, and the creators, in pursuit of ratings, are targeting precisely this category of viewers.

Nevertheless, the petition was signed by more than 160 thousand people. However, later the author of the petition apologized to Alla Pugacheva. The show with her participation was especially heavily criticized.

Just a few days after this, the final episode of the fourth season of the popular TV series “Sherlock,” voiced by Channel One, was made publicly available online. The premiere was supposed to take place only two days later. The source of the leak turned out to be one of the Channel One employees.

These facts prompted representatives of some media outlets to theorize that these events are nothing more than a planned attack on Konstantin Ernst, general director of Channel One. Journalists suggested that the attack was based on a conflict between Arkady Rotenberg and Yuri Kovalchuk, who owns a controlling stake in the channel.

Against the backdrop of this whole confusing and politicized story, Realnoe Vremya decided to find out who owns Russian TV channels.

The blocking stake in Channel One belongs to the National Media Group of Yuri Kovalchuk. Photo fb.ru

We divided the airwaves: Abramovich, SOGAZ and NMG

The main Russian channel - Channel One - which has experienced a whole series of owners and managers over the past two decades, now operates under the legal entity of Channel One JSC.

According to open sources, the channel is 38.9% owned by the state represented by the Federal Property Management Agency. Another 24% is owned by Roman Abramovich's ORT-KB LLC, and Yuri Kovalchuk's National Media Group has a blocking stake. It can also be noted that the Federal Property Management Agency, in addition to its share in the “first button,” also has the Russia Today TV channel (via RIA Novosti).

Behind the sign “National Media Group” (NMG), if you believe the company’s official website, hides the association of media assets of the “metallurgical king” Alexei Mordashov (Severstal), who fell under the sanctions of Rossiya Bank Yuri Kovalchuk, a mysterious and wealthy representative of the Russian fuel and energy complex OJSC Surgutneftegaz and the SOGAZ insurance group (a subsidiary of Gazprom).

The empire of the National Media Group includes another highly rated federal channel, Ren TV (it is believed that it was formed on behalf of its creator, IRENA Lesnevskaya). Located on the 11th button, the channel has gained particular fame among Russians due to its love of conspiracy theories and strange investigations.

The legal entity of the channel is Acceptance LLC. The media group's share here is 82%, and the remaining 18% belongs to SOGAZ Tower JSC (as one would expect - a wholly owned subsidiary of SOGAZ JSC).

The media assets of the National Media Group also include Channel Five (72.4%), Russian News Service (100%), Izvestia newspapers (98.32%), Sport Express (75%) and "Metro-Petersburg" (100%). In addition, NMG, together with Discovery Communications, owns the Media Alliance company, which manages the Russian versions of the Discovery and Eurosport channels.

In the portfolio of a gas monopolist

It is clear that the state holding VGTRK, which controls a whole family of different television channels, stands apart. Among them are two of the most popular Russian TV channels - “Russia 1” and “Russia 24”.

One of the highest-rated channels, known to TV viewers for its high-profile investigations (how can one not recall the already ingrained “scandals, intrigues, investigations”) and endless crime series - NTV (JSC NTV Television Company). Now the channel is owned 86% by Gazprom-Media Holding JSC (35% directly, 51% through Aura-Media LLC).

NTV is now 86% owned by Gazprom-Media Holding JSC. Photo mediasat.info

Other assets of Gazprom-Media Holding include entertainment channels TNT, TNT4, TV 3, Friday, 2x2, sports TV channels Match, radio stations Avtoradio, Children's Radio, Comedy Radio, Like FM, Relax FM, radio “Romantika”, NRJ, “Echo of Moscow”, “Humor FM”, magazines “Seven Days TV Program”, “Caravan of Stories”. In addition, Gazprom Media owns the production companies Comedy Club Production, Good Story Media, distributors Central Partnership and Red Media, Internet services 101.ru, Rutube, Now.ru, Zoomby, vokrug.tv, satellite television operator NTV Plus "

“Rain” by Vinokurov’s wife and “Zvezda” by the Ministry of Defense

The sixth most cited TV channel in Russia is Dozhd (Telekanal Dozhd LLC) owned 95% by Natalya Sindeeva, 5% by Vera Krichevskaya. Sindeeva is also one of the creators and co-owner of the Silver Rain radio station, as well as other projects included in the Dozhd media holding - these are, in particular, the Bolshoy Gorod magazine (formerly owned by the Afisha publishing house) and the Republic website (formerly portal Slon.ru).

Let us note that the investor of all projects is Alexander Vinokurov, one of the founders of the KIT Finance company - Sindeeva’s husband. The second founder of Dozhd is Vera Krichevskaya, a journalist and television director. She is known for being the director of the “Anthropology” program with Dmitry Dibrov on NTV, the producer of the “Freedom of Speech” project with Savik Shuster (first on NTV, then launched the project on the Ukrainian ICTV). She also launched the project “Citizen Poet” with Mikhail Efremov on “Rain”.

Natalya Sindeeva and Alexander Vinokurov. Photo by Peter Antonov (forbes.ru)

Seventh place in terms of citation index is occupied by the Zvezda TV channel. The legal entity of the channel is OJSC “TRK VS RF “Zvezda”. The owner is 99.99% - OJSC TK Krasnaya Zvezda, 100% owned by the subsidiary of the Ministry of Defense, JSC Krasnaya Zvezda. Another 0.01% of the TV channel is owned directly by the Ministry of Defense.

The ninth most cited channel in Russia, TV Center, operates under a legal entity of the same name (in the form of a joint stock company). Since the time of Yuri Luzhkov, the channel has been the main mouthpiece of the Moscow City Hall. Little has changed even now.

Ownership information varies depending on the source of information. In particular, the company itself discloses the owner of only 21.02% - this is CTK JSC (Central Fuel Company). According to Rosstat, this company owns only 18.21% of the shares. Another 0.47% belongs to Promtorgtsentr JSC, and 81.32% belongs to the State Public Institution “Department of Urban Property of the City of Moscow”. JSC CTK, according to the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, is 16.02% owned by the same Moscow Property Department, and Promtorgtsentr is owned by Andrey Ryabov and Nikolai Mikhailov.

The European TV channel Euronews closes the top ten most cited channels. Back in 2004, it was reported that VGTRK became one of the owners of the channel’s shares. She received a 16% stake in Euronews. Other owners of the television company include France Televisions, the Italian RAI, the Turkish TRT, and the Swiss SSR.

Tatarstan: 16 state regional channels

When preparing the rating, the most surprising discovery for us was that more than 60 TV channels are registered in Tatarstan! Moreover, more than half of them - 32 - are registered in Kazan. However, a significant part of them are only indirectly related to the capital of the Republic of Tatarstan.

So, almost two dozen of them, even from the name, are broadcast not in Kazan. For example, “Efir Chistopol”, “Bavlinskoye Television and Radio”, “Chally-TV” and others. 16 channels are registered at one address - st. Akademicheskaya, 2. This is easily explained: the legal entity of the owner, JSC Tatmedia, is registered at this address. Accordingly, they all have one founder - the republic (the Ministry of Land Property of Tatarstan, to be more precise). The list of channels includes most of the “regional tabs” to federal channels, the “Tatarstan-Novy Vek” or “Tatarstan-24” channel.

Standing apart is the Tatarstan-24 TV channel, which became the joint brainchild of Kazan private media magnate Andrei Grigoriev (UK Efir LLC) and Tatmedia. He united the “Ethers” and the team of the deceased “KZN”. It is on this joint project that the Tatarstan authorities have high hopes.

Andrey Grigoriev is the founder of nine channels. Photo efir24.tv

Nine “Ethers” by Andrei Paramonovich

If we talk about Andrei Grigoriev, then, according to open data, he is the founder of nine channels. The main one is, in fact, the Efir television company, partially rebroadcasting Ren TV, and all its regional legal entities in Naberezhnye Chelny, Nizhnekamsk, Leninogorsk, Bugulma, Chistopol and Almetyevsk. In all these legal entities, Andrey Grigoriev owns 97.23%. Among the remaining minority shareholders are Grigoriev Jr. and Ilshat Aminov, who worked with the founder of Efir even before joining TNV. In addition, Andrey Grigoriev fully owns the Efir-24 Relax TV channel, and Efir Management Company LLC owns 31.58% of the Luch-Almetyevsk television company. The remaining shares belong to Management Plus LLC (63.16%), Alexey Baganov (2.63%), Alexey Sobolev (2.63%).

Grigoriev, in addition, owns 50% in Efir-Transit LLC, 34% in TsRT Stolitsa LLC, 50% in Radiotelecom LLC, 25% in DTV-Kazan LLC, 76% in CHOP LLC "Rubezh-Efir". In total, he is a founder in 33 companies and a director in Rent LLC (engaged in the rental of real estate, registered at Gladilova, 17).

How a Chelny builder turned out to be a media tycoon

Three channels - Ilnar Gaisin. He owns 26% of three Chelny channels - STV, Ren TV-Naberezhnye Chelny, Chelny-24. All three channels are represented by one legal entity - InterTeleCom LLC. Another 19% is owned by Galina Khanmurzina, and Abdulkhak Batyushov, Yuri Gorbunov and Maria Egoshina have 18.5% each. The company was founded in 2002.

In total, Ilnar Gaisin owns 17 construction companies. But the basis of his empire is Eurostyle LLC. It is engaged in the construction of a cab plant for the Daimler Kamaz Rus joint venture, as well as the emergency hospital building, the Ice Palace, the building of the 2.18 business center in Naberezhnye Chelny, as well as the Chelny IT park. Eurostyle also built a school building in Naberezhnye Chelny by order of GISU. Activist Ivan Klimov filed a complaint regarding this order in September 2016: the school began to be built even before the tender was published.

As for the director and one of the founders of InterTeleCom, Abdulkhak Batyushov, he is also the founder and director of Radio Mendeleevsk LLC (former Elkom LLC), as well as the chairman of the board in the Chelny territorial branch of the Republican public movement Tatarstan-Novy Century". He also heads two more companies - Trio Plus LLC and Modern Technologies, in which he is also the founder with shares of 18.5%. The main shares belong to Ilnar Gaisin.

Batyushov is a deputy of the City Council of Naberezhnye Chelny, a member of the United Russia party. The website of the local party branch says that to this day he is the general director of the STV-Media holding.

Let us note that Abdulhak Batyushov is one of the most famous media managers in Naberezhnye Chelny. Until 2001, he was a director at the municipal Chally TV, but later resigned from his position due to a conflict with the former mayor of the city, Khamadeev. In 2002, he registered InterTeleCom, and in 2004 the channel began broadcasting. At the moment, the assets of InterTeleCom (STV-Media holding) include the Chelny versions of Ren-TV and Channel Five, as well as Avtoradio, NRJ, Humor FM, Radio 7, Radio Dacha" and Comedy Radio.

Abdulkhak Batyushov is one of the most famous media managers in Naberezhnye Chelny. Photo nabchelny.ru

TV moguls, but small ones

More than a third of the package of two Almetyevsk channels operating under one legal entity (Almetyevsk Radio Television Company LLC) - Video Set and RTKA - belongs to Lidia Maslova. RTKA LLC is headed, by the way, by Gennady Maslov. Together with Lydia, they also own another local channel - Vega-TV-Almetyevsk LLC. As we learned from the open ones, Gennady Maslov is the director of the local branches of Avtoradio, NRJ and Humor FM.

As for the other owners of RTKA, 25% belong to Irina Samoilova, 20% to Marina Strelova, 10% each to Alexander Panyuta and Akhmat Salimov.

Chelny LLC “TV-7” is engaged in rebroadcasting of two channels “Sem TV” and “Ru.TV”. The company is owned in equal shares by Elza Kabirova (also heads Radio Record LLC, Google.Pro LLC, Good Services Bureau LLC, Chelny-Telecom LLC) and Fanzila Poleva.

Two more channels - "ChTTs" and "ChTTs-Plus" - are registered with the LLC "Teleradiocompany ChTTs" from Chistopol. 40% of the company belongs to Rafgat Kamalov, 20% to Gulnara Khamaeva, 10% each to Arthur, Ildar, Zaudat, Arthur and Albert Kamalov. It is interesting that Albert Kamalov also owns 27% of the Efir 12 Channel broadcasting company from Chistopol. The channel rebroadcasts Ren-TV, with another 27% from Khamzi Kashapov, 26% from Andrey Mikheev, 20% from Rafgat Kamalov. Interestingly, in 2012, a conflict broke out between the owners of the Efir Channel 12 shopping and entertainment complex - Kashapov held an extraordinary meeting of shareholders and transferred the company’s property to himself in trust.

A large federal holding - STS Holdings LLC - owns two channels. This is “Che” and, in fact, “The First Entertainment STS”. Both channels operate under the legal entity CJSC Channel 6, registered in Kazan, on Gladilova, 34. Another 29.98% of the company belongs to JSC STS, and 21.04% to JSC STS-Region. The holding owns the channels “STS”, “Domashny”, “Che”.

“Tatarstan-New Age” and the satellite version of the TNV Planet channel belong to the TAIF company and the Ministry of Land Property of Tatarstan.

In addition, the executive committee of the Bugulminsky district also got involved in something like a holding. He is the sole founder of two channels - “51 MTV” (MUP “MTV”) and “Elabuga News Service” (Autonomous institution of the Yelabuga municipal district “Elabuga News Service”).

“Tatarstan-New Age” and the satellite version of the TNV Planet channel belong to the TAIF company and the Ministry of Land Property of Tatarstan. Photo by Maxim Platonov

One channel

The remaining Tatarstan channels do not belong to holdings, but to individual individuals and legal entities. For example, Yu-TV (legal entity - Information Systems Plus LLC) belongs to Gabdulgaziz and Faruza Bikmullin (27% and 24%), Vyacheslav Dolgopolov (23%), Nikolai Korchagin (2%) and TV-Service JSC "(24% - the holding also owns Muz-TV, which has turned into a cable channel, Domashny, Che, Disney channel). Let us note that there is also the Information Systems company, the chairman of the board of directors of which is Marat Gabdulgazizovich Bikmullin, a deputy of the Kazan City Duma. Let us note that he is also the founder of BIM-Radio. The current head of the radio station, Vyacheslav Dolgopolov, 100% owns the cable music and entertainment TV channel BIM-TV.

Kazan Federal University also has its own channel. It is represented by the legal entity of the university itself; accordingly, the founder can be considered the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia.

Among the channels with completely their own broadcasting network, we can also highlight “First City Channel” and “Tatar Musical TV Channel Maidan”. “First City” in Kazan was founded by Maxim Solodyankin (50%), Vadim Skopin (33.33%), Vladimir Suvorov (16.67%).

“Tatar Music Channel Maidan” was founded by Ruslan Khalilov (51%), Damir Davletshin (37%), Eduard Utyaganov (12%).

The remaining channels, and there are 11 of them, represent regional “tabs” in the broadcast of federal channels. Noteworthy here are the Nizhnekamsk TV channel "Neftekhim", the founder of which is PJSC "Nizhnekamskneftekhim", and the Almetyevsk channel "Alma" - it was founded by the son of Shafagat Takhautdinov, the former head of Tatneft - Rustem Takhautdinov.

Among the remaining channels, most are located in Almetyevsk: these are “Family TV-Almetyevsk” (owned by Valentina Zinovieva), “Gambit” (owned by Vasily Ipatiev), “Rekom TV” (owned by Rinat Mirgaliev), “Region-TV” (owned by Anisa Yamalieva ).

Two more channels are based in Elabuga - “Domashny-Elabuga” (owned by Nikolai Gordeev and Marat Mukhamedzyanov) and “TNT Elabuga” (owned by Alexander Kozlov). In addition, another channel is based in Aznakaevo (“Aznakaevo Radio and Television” by Ilkam Gazizyanov, Marat Basariev, Nail Iskhakov, Ramil Islamov, Igor Rodionov, Niyaz Khamzin and Farkhat Yusupov), Urussu (“KTV-Urussu” by Alexander Koshchienko) and Bavlakh (“TV-Fortuna” by Rishat Yunusov, Olga Lyamina, Rashit Samarkhanov).

Russian millionaires: local big business and city hall officials

As for Russian cities with a population of over a million, in most regions the first place in ratings, according to TNS Russia data, is occupied by regional representative offices of VGTRK. These regions include St. Petersburg (rating 1.3%), Yekaterinburg (1.4%), Omsk (1.3%), Volgograd (rating 1.6%), Ufa (0.9%), Nizhny Novgorod (1%), Samara (2%), Novosibirsk (1.7%), Chelyabinsk (1.6%), Rostov-on-Don (1.7%), Voronezh (1.3%), Izhevsk (0 .8%), Saratov (1.2%).

It is interesting that in Russian cities with a population of more than a million, only in four cases the first places in the ratings were taken not by VGTRK branches, but by other channels. These regions include Kazan, Perm, Krasnoyarsk and Moscow (in the latter case we are talking about channels broadcast exclusively to Moscow).

As for the Perm channel “Rifey-Perm”, its rating, like that of “Ether”, is 2.1%. The actual audience of “Ether” is larger - 24 thousand people versus 20 thousand. At the moment, the only founder of the company is Rifey-Invest LLC, which belongs to Alexey Bodrov. According to the Kartoteka service, he founded eight companies, including EKS Real Estate Management LLC, EKS Construction Management LLC, E.K.S. LLC. International". According to the company's website, Alexey Bodrov is deputy director for corporate and legal support. The company itself is engaged in construction and development, including the opening of the “Semya” shopping and entertainment complex in Perm and Ufa, the company produces food products under the “Whales of Food” brand, Family Choice. Bodrov, in addition, is a deputy of the Legislative Assembly of the Perm Territory from the United Russia party.

Let us note that the Rifey-Perm television company itself is considered to be one of the assets of the former governor of the Perm region Oleg Chirkunov; Bodrov is called a deputy close to Chirkunov. Chirkunov, according to Kommersant, was the owner of the SemYa chain, but in February 2015 he transferred his share to new owners, who, however, were still close to the ex-governor.

The Rifey-Perm television company is considered to be one of the assets of the former governor of the Perm region Oleg Chirkunov. Photo medialeaks.ru

The third regional TV channel, occupying a place in its region above VGTRK, is the Krasnoyarsk TVK. The channel's rating is 1.6%, the audience is 16 thousand people. The legal entity of the company is Krasnoyarsk Information Television LLC (TVK-6 channel). The company is owned by two legal entities - 64% by Shares LLC and 35% by For Media LLC. The “shares” belong with equal shares to Marina Dobrovolskaya, Vadim Vostrov and Natalya Klyukina. Form Media is owned by Pavel Ezubov (through Tensor JSC and Polaron LLC). The latter company, according to RBC, previously belonged to Oleg Deripaska’s Basic Element, and Ezubov is called the son of State Duma deputy from United Russia Alexei Ezubov, the brother of Deripaska’s mother. The company also operates television and radio stations in Bratsk, Novosibirsk, Irkutsk, Abakan, Sayanogorsk and Nizhny Novgorod. As for the first company, the only person from the founders involved in other companies is Vadim Vostrov - former director of TVK-6 Channel ", in 2001-2006 he was a deputy of the Legislative Assembly of the Krasnoyarsk Territory.

In the capital, among regional channels, the first place in rating is occupied by the Moscow-24 information channel. The channel's rating is only 0.2%, but the actual audience is quite large - 27 thousand people. The legal entity of the company is JSC “Moscow Media” (it also includes the channel “Moscow. Trust” with the same rating). The founder of the company is TV Center. The company itself was created by VGTRK. Its director was Igor Shestakov, author of the morning channel “Good morning, Russia!” on the RTR channel (later Russia 1), former producer of the Vesti channel (now Russia 24), editor-in-chief of the Russia-2 channel, as well as chief producer of the Russia-1 channel. One of the channel’s presenters, we recall, is the former presenter of the “Efir-24” channel, Ksenia Sedunova. Sedunova also works as a host for corporate events - for a New Year's event with her participation you need to pay 200 thousand rubles.

As for the highest-rated channels that do not belong to VGTRK in other regions, the key figures here are most often associated with the city leadership. In St. Petersburg, however, the first place in the rating after the State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company "St. Petersburg" is occupied by the Life 78 channel with a rating of 0.2%. The legal entity of the company is TV-Kupol LLC, whose general director is Aram Gabrelyanov, president of the News Media publishing holding, which includes the Life newspaper, LifeNews TV channel, RSN radio, and the Life.ru portal. Legal entity Life 78 belongs to News SPb LLC, founded by Ikar LLC and Aram Gabrelyanov. News SPb belongs to Sergei Rudnov and Marina Kotelnikova. Rudnov is the son of Oleg Rudnov, the head of the Baltic Media Group, who died in 2015. After the death of Oleg Rudnov, News Media received control of the Baltic Media Group.

Life 78, however, fell on hard times. In mid-January, in particular, it became known that the channel would stop broadcasting on February 1. At the same time, according to the FlashNord agency, about 70-80% of almost five thousand employees have already been laid off. At the same time, in mid-2016, News Media lost control over the Izvestia newspaper - the National Media Group did not renew the contract with Gabrelyanov’s company, and at the end of 2015, it was reported that a third of News Media’s employees were being laid off due to the difficult financial situation in the country and crisis in the advertising market.

TNT-Saratov, the highest-rated local TV channel after VGTRK, is officially owned by Sergei Vasiliev and Oleg Chistyakov, but local media associate it with the mayor of Saratov, Oleg Grishchenko.

The highest rated non-state channel with its own news in Yekaterinburg is “41 Domashny”, formerly “Studio 41”. Channel rating 0.5%. The channel belongs to LLC NVF Author's Technologies, CJSC Intourist-Ekaterinburg, CJSC Uralstinol and CJSC PKP Avtopromkompleks. NVF "Author's Technologies", the largest shareholder, belongs to Denis Levanov. In 2006, Kommersant called the owners of the channel close to the Yekaterinburg mayor’s office.

In mid-January it became known that Life 78 would stop broadcasting on February 1. Photo pantv.livejournal.com

The Omsk TV channel "Antenna 7" with a rating of 0.6% is 80% owned by Valery Kokorin, a deputy of the Legislative Assembly of the Omsk region and director of the construction company "ASK". He is also called the owner of ASK with an asset value of 6 billion rubles. According to the company's website, it built the Nativity Cathedral in Omsk, the surgical building of the oncology clinic, the Continent hypermarket, and the Cascade trade and exhibition complex. In addition, the company built a temple in the name of the Resurrection of Christ in Khanty-Mansiysk, and the Gorskiy City Hotel in Novosibirsk.

The Izhevsk channel “New Region” with a rating of 0.7% belongs to Tatyana Bystrykh (she has a tax identification number of the Perm Territory), and the Novosibirsk channel “NTK” belongs to VGTRK and Gennady Uvarkin’s TV Development LLC. He is the founder of the Moscow Center for Corporate Legal Protection LLC, as well as the director of the Omega Legal Bureau LLC. The latter appeared as an executor of “dubious government orders”, according to the All-Russian Popular Front: in particular, the company carried out an order from the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications in 2014 to analyze the enforcement of Russian legislation in the field of media and carry out research work on the development of recommendations in the field of standardization of sound signals in television and radio broadcasting . The ONF found it strange that the performance of services of different nature was entrusted to one company. Regarding this situation, Gennady Uvarkin told RBC that “the company specializes in carrying out research and analytical work on orders from federal executive authorities and enterprises in the media and telecommunications industry. Among the company's clients are the TV channels Rossiya Segodnya, Euronews, Public Television of Russia and many others. For us, participation in research work for the needs of the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications is an opportunity to demonstrate our qualifications in the area of ​​our specialization.”

In Volgograd, municipal television is second in ratings (0.1%). In Ufa, the BST TV channel with a rating of 0.2% is a state unitary enterprise. The Nizhny Novgorod television company "Volga" with a rating of 0.5% is owned by Sergei Kondrashov, a deputy of the city Duma and the brother of the former head of the administration of Nizhny Novgorod Oleg Kondrashov.

Samara TV channel "Skat" with a rating of 0.6% is owned by Interfax-TV LLC, as well as Elena and Georgy Limansky. Georgy Limansky is the former chairman of the Samara City Duma and the head of the Samara city district, and Elena is his wife, Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation and composer.

Chelyabinsk channel "STS-Chelyabinsk" with a rating of 0.6% (Info-TV Enterprise LLC) belongs to Elena Silaeva. She is called a relative of Alexey Silaev, a member of the board of directors of the Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Plant. The Voronezh channel "TNT-Guberniya" with a rating of 0.3% belongs to the regional property department.

Maxim Matveev, Fail Gataulin

In Russia there is still no law that would regulate the sphere of television and radio broadcasting. Such a law was developed back in the late 1980s; there were several versions of it, but all of them either could not pass parliament or were rejected by the President of the Russian Federation. The last of these bills was adopted in the first reading in 1997, but in 2000, without passing the second reading, it was returned to the state of the first reading and rejected by the State Duma. This means that a new concept must now be developed and a different text presented. By mid-2002, neither a new concept nor a new text of the bill existed.

Regulation of electronic media involves solving a number of specific problems. What is the main one? Of all the media, the most effective, the most important both for society and for authorities, is, of course, television. This is the most influential, operative and accessible mass media for the population. Unlike the press, television is free, television news releases and socio-political programs are popular, they are regularly watched by the majority of the country's residents, television programs are discussed to a much greater extent than newspaper or magazine articles, not to mention radio broadcasts. The effect television has on the audience is enormous. Therefore, much in society depends on who controls television. To maintain or change the balance of power in any country in the world, it is extremely important whether the president, government, parliament or public bodies control television.

Naturally, in the Russian Federation, the President wants television to be controlled by his Administration or Government. At first, the legislator wanted to grant this right exclusively to himself as a spokesman for the interests of the people; at some stages they thought about involving representatives of the public in the television control bodies - the concept of legislative regulation of television and radio broadcasting has changed several times. The only thing that has remained unchanged is that this area is still not regulated by law in our country. As a result, television and radio broadcasting is “safely” regulated by decrees of the President of the Russian Federation and decrees of the Government. In the absence of a special law to which decrees and regulations must comply, these acts create an independent, albeit very shaky, legislative framework.

As already mentioned, the law on television and radio broadcasting was created in the late 1980s - early 1990s simultaneously with the Law on Mass Media. Since it was assumed that Media Law will become the basis for all mass media, it also contained the basic provisions on how television and radio broadcasting will be regulated. As a result, five articles appeared that talked about the creation Federal Commission on Television and Radio Broadcasting, on the implementation of licensing by this particular commission, on the inadmissibility of interference on the air and the storage periods for materials of radio and television broadcasts (vv. 30–34). The powers of the Federal Commission on Television and Radio Broadcasting are also stated in the Federal Law “On the procedure for covering the activities of government bodies in state media” (Article 14). Although both laws have been in force for several years, this commission has never been created, primarily because the law on television and radio broadcasting has not entered into force. Consequently, the articles on the Broadcasting Commission are “dead”, i.e. in fact, they don't work and may never work.

Control over television and radio broadcasting is embodied, first of all, in licensing. What is the nature of licensing? At its core, this is the issuance by executive authorities of permission to a certain circle of individuals or organizations to engage in one or another activity and control on their part over the use of this permission. Many areas of activity are subject to licensing in Russia, as in other countries. For example, in order to teach journalism, a university must pass state certification and obtain a license to engage in educational activities. The presence of such a license means that the state allows a specific university to teach journalism and issue corresponding diplomas of higher education. In order to obtain such a license, a university must prove that it has a sufficient number of experienced teachers, a large percentage of candidates and doctors of science, professors, publishes scientific and methodological literature, has premises equipped for classes, the necessary technical teaching aids, etc. d. In this case, the government agency issues a license to the university. In order to, say, clean the yard at this university, you do not need a license; you can engage in such activities without a license, simply by hiring janitors. A license is also not required to edit and publish a newspaper. The state does not interfere in this area and does not say who has the right (due to qualifications, experience, education) to edit a newspaper and who does not.

Licenses are required to engage in many types of work and services, for example all types of pharmaceutical, medical and veterinary activities; production, trade and repair of weapons and military equipment; oil and gas production, etc. That is, there are a number of activities, “the implementation of which may entail damage to the rights, legitimate interests, health of citizens, defense and security of the state, the cultural heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation and the regulation of which cannot be carried out by methods other than licensing.” This is what the basic law regulating the procedure for issuing licenses in Russia says: Federal Law “On licensing of certain types of activities” of 2001.

It is important to understand the difference between licensing of television and radio companies and registration of media outlets. As mentioned above (see Chapters I, II), registration is mandatory for the media, but it is actually of a notification nature. The applicant submits the necessary information, no one spends time checking it, no one makes inquiries to the competent authorities whether the applicant really lives at the address indicated in the application and whether he is really able to publish a newspaper. The application for registration is assessed only on what is written in it, the applicant pays a small fee and receives the right to establish a media outlet. This media can be either a newspaper (magazine) or a television and radio program. After registration, if the applicant wants to publish a newspaper, he negotiates with the publisher, but if he intends to engage in television and radio broadcasting, he must go through the licensing procedure.

One important feature unites registration and licensing in the media- this is what, in essence, if the media does not violate the law, both are given to it forever. Most countries have a system whereby, unless a broadcaster flagrantly violates the law, they can renew their license indefinitely, resell it or assign it. Those who received licenses back in the 1940s in the USA or in the 1980s in Western Europe still use the frequencies allocated then, and will continue to use them as long as the principle of licensing television and radio broadcasting remains in effect. Moreover, the procedure for renewing a license has come down (at least in the USA) to the need to send a postcard filled out in a certain form to the licensing authority once every few years.

In fact, after the late 1940s and early 1950s in the USA and since the 1990s in Western Europe, new frequencies have not appeared and new licenses have not been issued: the market has already been divided. Indeed, where will the new frequency come from? It is in Russia that demilitarization and conversion are taking place; in Russia, until recently, there was no commercial broadcasting, there was no serious accounting of free frequencies. Only now these frequencies are being filled, but at the current rate of development of commercial broadcasting in Russia, there will be no new “vacancies” in ten years. Therefore, how the licensing process occurs now will determine the television landscape in the Russian Federation for the coming decades.

It should be noted that the legislation on television and radio broadcasting in any country in the world is fundamentally different from the legislation on the press, although the objects of regulation - electronic and print media - have much in common. Legislation on television and radio broadcasting, as a rule, does not use such concepts as “journalist”, “editor”, “audience”, “censorship”, etc., but is more “technical” in nature, using the words “licensee”, “employee” television and radio company", "responsible for release", "subscriber", etc. This emasculation of the social significance of broadcasting for ensuring freedom of speech and information can be explained by the same interest of the authorities in subordinating such an effective means of public control to them, with seeming non-interference in the exercise of constitutional rights to freedom of search and dissemination of information.

Putin's former press secretary Gromov talks to television reporters on the phone several times a day; during the elections, the reins of power pass to Surkov and his subordinates

“Last October - at the height of the election campaign - my grandmother got through to Putin during a [direct] line, and the Kremlin also prepared this remark in advance: “Is it really you? Was it you before too? Oh, God, thank you very much.”

The original of this material
© "Russian Newsweek", 08/04/2008, Broadcast for two

Mikhail Fishman, Konstantin Gaaze

The new television season will pass without surprises: Putin’s system of hidden censorship on television will continue to operate as before.

All summer, officials and television functionaries exchanged rumors about the upcoming reorganization of one of the central television channels. One of the Duma committees even prepared a concept for transforming the state holding VGTRK into a kind of public television. And the government confidently said that VGTRK was about to be removed from the list of strategic enterprises - it was added there in 2004, a source in the White House emphasizes, on Putin’s personal instructions - and then they would immediately be corporatized. Sources presented the political background and logic of this reform in different ways, but agreed on one thing: under President Medvedev, the situation on central TV should change.

Changes are expected from Medvedev. And his rare press conference this summer did not include a question about the Russian media - in the sense of whether the Kremlin will reduce pressure on the press, mainly on the news and political broadcasts of central television channels. Medvedev invariably responded that television in Russia is excellent, but at one meeting in Berlin he admitted that “freedom of the media... requires protection... from encroachments by the administrative apparatus at various levels.” And political scientists demonstrating their closeness to the Kremlin even began to point out “the “scissors” between the information agenda of the press, radio and Internet, on the one hand, and television, on the other.” In such a general way that, they say, current television is outdated.

Medvedev will be cautious, people who know him warned: Putin is very jealous of how his successor sees the prospects for the media. And so it happened: by the end of July, rumors about reforms at VGTRK died down. “There was an initiative [on VGTRK], but it was frozen [in the Kremlin]. If there is political will, we will resuscitate it,” says the Duma deputy, without revealing his last name. And several informed sources immediately confirmed that there is no need to expect changes on TV yet: the system of hidden censorship and management of television news broadcasts built under Putin will continue to operate as it is.

There won't be any confusion

After Medvedev became president and Putin became prime minister, in a technical sense, newsmen and their leaders had a difficult time: they needed to maintain a balance. According to Newsweek's interlocutors, the central television channels have been given the following message: in the news, Medvedev is first, Putin is second - in accordance with their formal status. At the same time, state television channels are directly instructed: if Medvedev is on air, then Putin must be on air, even if he did not do anything important that day. “Two thirds of [these] news stories are dubious,” admits one television worker.

A former high-ranking VGTRK employee calls this rule the “principle of information parity.” He emphasizes that this is a personal agreement between Putin and Medvedev, and as long as they follow it, there will be no confusion on TV: “The way five people decided everything, that’s how they decide.” Alexei Gromov, formerly Putin's press secretary and now deputy head of the presidential administration, still shapes the news picture of the day. He also leads Friday meetings with the heads of central television channels. And the so-called “Putin Groups” - special editorial departments at VGTRK, which previously only edited stories about Putin - now work for both the Kremlin and the White House.

In fact, directly or indirectly, the Kremlin controls not only the presence of top officials, but all socio-political broadcasting, “public catering,” as they say on TV. For example, when in early July the Chukchi Bishop Diomede anathematized Patriarch Alexy II, the Kremlin completely blocked this topic on TV. Recently, a Newsweek journalist found himself on the Mayak radio station, part of the All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company. Mayak and Radio Russia are also controlled from the Kremlin. The presenter had a two-point memo in front of him: “1. There are only good things to say about Kazakhstan! 2. Do not under any circumstances mention that Dmitry and Svetlana Medvedev arrived at the summit separately!” Most likely, it was a memo from the editor: as a rule, written instructions do not come from the Kremlin.

In manual mode

There is no censorship as such - in the Soviet sense of the word - in Russia. But for many years now, television news has been created according to a well-established scheme. State television channels were oriented towards the Kremlin even in the late 90s, but in its current form, observers note, the system of control over TV took shape after Beslan. Back in 2003, Boris Berezovsky could be seen live on television with his harsh criticism of Putin. In 2005, TV people recall, this would have been nonsense. At the same time, political talk shows began to be broadcast live only on “Orbit” - that is, in the Far East. So, since then, there has been more freedom in the Far East than in the country as a whole: at daytime meetings, channel managers, in contact with Gromov or other Kremlin officials, decide what, how and where to correct - before broadcasting to the European part of Russia.

And then it became clear that the president is absolutely beyond criticism on TV. Forbidden topics and figures appeared, such as the disgraced Mikhail Kasyanov or the National Bolsheviks. In 2006, for example, in every editing booth of the Information Policy Directorate of Channel One there was a reminder to editors that NBP symbols were prohibited from being shown in television stories: the Kremlin was then wary of Limonovites and was playing it safe.

Everyone on television says: the Kremlin controls TV channels “manually.” Neither TV bosses nor Kremlin managers can relax literally for a minute. “Gromov talks to TV people on the phone several times a day,” says a TV industry worker. Polishing the picture and story often lasts throughout the day, and the meaning of the same news changes. For example, on February 18, in the 6 o’clock news of Channel One, the story about Medvedev’s keynote speech in Krasnoyarsk began with its central thesis: “Freedom is better than lack of freedom.” The television archive testifies: three hours later in the “Time” program the same key quote was already heard at the very end of a long story, and the story sounded differently.

Over the phone, Kremlin managers finally build a picture of the day - something unexpected always happens. However, in general, broadcast planning is subject to strict bureaucratic regulations - otherwise the system would hardly be able to work any effectively. Regardless of planning meetings and specific prohibitions, editors and heads of news services are guided by the ideological concept of “positive news”, formulated, says a source in the Kremlin, by Vladislav Surkov. Its meaning is that the state quickly and effectively solves any problems of the country and citizens. “For example, if fuel oil was not delivered to the region, then TV will show how it was delivered and the perpetrators were punished,” explains Newsweek’s interlocutor.

Areas of work are distributed among Kremlin officials: on Gromov (when he was the president's press secretary) - top officials and foreign policy, on Surkov and his employees - the Duma and the parties. At Friday planning meetings in the Kremlin, informational events and schedules of top officials for the coming week are discussed. This creates a news background. The news seems to stretch out within the week: first comes the “head” of the news, that is, the statement of the problem; then the news itself, how the president, the government, the Duma are doing something in this regard; and then the reinforcing “tail” - on the weekends in the final programs they explain everything again from the beginning.

thank you very much

During the elections, the reins of power pass from Gromov to Surkov and his subordinates. An employee of one of the TV channels recalls: during the parliamentary campaign, it was Surkov who forbade showing communist Gennady Zyuganov on air surrounded by ordinary voters of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, so as not to arouse unnecessary sympathy for him: “At a party plenum or, for example, with pioneers it is possible, but with workers it is impossible " Gromov is used to working with TV channel executives. Surkov forms a picture of the day through commentators and newsmakers - ministers, deputies, etc. For them, the Kremlin Department of Internal Policy writes and faxes “quotes” - what they will tell TV correspondents.

At the same time, these faxes sometimes come to the news services of the channels - so that TV understands who to contact for comment and what “quote” to broadcast. Usually faxes arrive without a signature. One of the Kremlin officials, they say for example on television, first signed these papers with his last name, and then stopped, and when the head of the information service on TV asked him - so calmly - to return to this practice, he began to put two crosses instead of a signature. A source in the Duma recalls that before the elections, the leader of A Just Russia, Sergei Mironov, had big problems with the regional branches of the Rossiya TV channel: they demanded from the employees of his headquarters a telephone message from the head of the All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company Oleg Dobrodeev, that stories about SR could be broadcast.

Observers have repeatedly noticed that Putin’s so-called direct lines with the people bear clear traces of painstaking direction, and those who participated in these broadcasts later admitted that they memorized the texts of the questions. These same questions, the ministries confirmed, were sent in advance to the relevant departments in order to prepare answers. Last October - also in the midst of the election campaign - during the last such line Putin got through to his grandmother, and the Kremlin also prepared this remark in advance: “Is it really you? Were you there before too? Oh my God, thank you very much.” “[For TV filming] people were then trained for hours,” confirms a source in the Duma.

Then, in September, Oleg Dobrodeev personally went to Nikita Mikhalkov’s dacha to make a film together about Putin for his, Putin’s, birthday. “This is a gift,” Dobrodeev was quoted by his subordinates at the time. Dobrodeev is generally more immersed in politics than his colleague from Channel One, Konstantin Ernst, and he himself proposed, when Scotland Yard accused the Russian intelligence services of the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, to launch a retaliatory propaganda attack, recalls a former VGTRK employee. “For the first time, the Kremlin did not defend itself, but attacked,” he explains. And with the help of TV, the Kremlin exposed Berezovsky as a poisoner.

Conspiracy of successful people

Thirty years ago, a television and radio transmitter was built in Chukotka to deliver a signal throughout Siberia and the Far East - several times more powerful than the Ostankino one. “And he is still boiling the Pacific Ocean,” a former employee of the Rossiya channel sneers. In the sense that it sends a signal almost empty - the audience in the sparsely populated Siberian expanses is small. The USSR State Television and Radio was transformed into four state-controlled television channels, but remained the same excessively expensive, observers emphasize.

This year the state will spend 23.5 billion rubles on television and radio broadcasting. For the budget, this is a trifle, but against the backdrop of the industry’s relatively modest advertising revenues (according to experts, $4.5 billion this year) it is quite a lot. And besides, it is comparable to the budgets of the world's largest television networks, such as the British BBC with its bureaus around the world, four television channels and a budget of $6 billion. In addition, ministries and departments have their own separate budgets for promoting their activities, and this money Mostly they also go to TV channels.

Not only VGTRK channels, but also Channel One and NTV - formally, private companies - receive subsidies from the state to deliver the signal to cities with a population of less than 200,000 people. This is how it happened historically, and the money is small - about $70 million - but it goes to these channels precisely because, observers say, the state considers political news a strategic resource, like fuel oil or products imported from the north. “This is a conspiracy of successful people,” commentator Anna Kachkaeva describes the cooperation between TV channel heads and Kremlin managers, “according to the formula: you provide us with [the necessary news picture], and we give you additional business opportunities.”

The state does not interfere in the accounting department of central television. The Accounts Chamber is not interested in the state of affairs on Channel One, says Kachkaeva. The Accounts Chamber inspects ministries every year, but the last comprehensive inspection of VGTRK took place in 2000. The ownership structure of Channel One is still in the fog, experts point out. Although Berezovsky claims that in 2000 - when Putin accused him of organizing a television production with the participation of prostitutes at the site of the sinking of the Kursk submarine - he sold his 38 percent stake in Channel One to Roman Abramovich, formally these shares are still recorded in equal shares for five Cypriot companies.

Dreaming is not harmful

So it is not a strict dictatorship, but mutually beneficial cooperation that determines the state of affairs on TV, experts from outside and inside the television industry note. “The TV channels themselves want to be closer to the Kremlin,” says a former top manager of VGTRK, “they even have branded logos on letterheads with the coat of arms - like ministries.” The bar for what is possible is not strictly defined, but journalists tend to lower it themselves, just in case, and then they themselves begin to believe in what they say, the television worker explains: “This is depravity coming from above.” The Kremlin is even complaining that at events with the participation of top officials, television reporters themselves come up for instructions: “What was important?” Television confirms that this is true.

At the same time, industry workers claim that not all journalists and their bosses care what they can and cannot do. When people get a job, they are seriously worried about whether they will have freedom, assures a top TV manager. Sometimes the manager manages to defend his point of view in front of the same Alexei Gromov, they say on TV. For example, do not broadcast the story. But in practice, this most often means that next time he will not have such an opportunity, and the story will be shown by colleagues from another channel.

For the Kremlin, Channel One, Rossiya and NTV are a tool for solving political problems. Sociologists confirm that the growing popularity of the Internet has not yet affected the effectiveness of central TV, and it remains the news provider for the vast majority. Therefore, the Vesti-24 cable channel is much freer - it is rarely watched, and, for example, there is no pressure at all on Russia Today, which broadcasts abroad. And as a tool, TV works well: apart from the monetization of benefits in 2005, Newsweek’s interlocutors did not remember any crises that television propaganda could not cope with. Then, in 2005, there were active rumors on TV about the resignation of the heads of the first two channels - Ernst and Dobrodeev.

“Everyone was expecting changes [with Medvedev’s arrival],” says a Kremlin-connected TV worker, “and I can say with confidence: nothing has changed at all.” And the Kremlin employee makes it clear: Medvedev will not break the system, but proceeds from the fact that the notorious “scissors” between the real and television information agenda will gradually narrow by themselves - such are the trends of life. The position of central television channels will inevitably be affected by the introduction of digital television, for which Medvedev actively advocates, but the key decisions necessary for this have not yet been made.

This is still not soon, in the future. And in September, when the new season begins, the picture on TV channels is unlikely to change fundamentally, Kachkaeva predicts. “Dreaming is not harmful,” agrees Pavel Gusev, editor-in-chief of Moskovsky Komsomolets and head of the Public Chamber’s commission on media. “Television is a cage in the power structure.”