This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
Triumph of the will: Putin's war against Russia's last independent TV channel
Triumph of the will: Putin's war against Russia's last independent TV channel
(about 4 hours later)
Vladimir Putin won the war in Crimea without a bullet being fired. But to triumph in a very different war – that against independent Russian media – he didn't even have to bring in the army. In today's Russia, there are very different instruments for this kind of thing.
Vladimir Putin won the war in Crimea without a bullet being fired. But to triumph in a very different war – that against independent Russian media – he didn't even have to bring in the army. In today's Russia, there are very different instruments for this kind of thing.
My colleagues and I know this from first-hand experience: the only Russian independent television station where we work, Dozhd, or "Rain", has been operating on the edge of extinction for the past couple of months.
My colleagues and I know this from first-hand experience: the place we work, the only Russian independent television station, Dozhd or "Rain", has been operating on the edge of extinction for the past couple of months.
Dozhd first aired in Russia in 2010, when, after the first two tough presidencies of Putin, there was a strong demand for unbiased information and rigorous journalism. Thanks to this, within four years it became one of the main information resources in the country. We didn't have to do anything particularly cunning to achieve this – we just filmed the kinds of things that had disappeared from Russian television over the previous 15 years: live broadcasts, cutting-edge interviews with politicians and public figures, live feeds from different parts of the world.
Rain first aired in Russia in 2010, when, after the first two tough presidencies of Putin, there was a strong demand for unbiased information and rigorous journalism. Thanks to this, within four years it became one of the main information resources in the country.
During the past four years we not only interviewed members of the opposition who have been in effect blacklisted by state-run media, but also representatives of the leadership who answered incisive and uncomfortable questions live that simply wouldn't get asked on state television.
We didn't have to do anything particularly cunning to achieve this – we just filmed the kinds of things that had disappeared from Russian TV over the previous 15 years: live broadcasts, cutting-edge interviews with politicians and public figures, live feeds from different parts of the world. We interviewed not just opposition figures, but also the leadership, including Dmitry Medvedev, asking them uncomfortable questions live that simply wouldn't get asked on state TV.
We interviewed the then president, Dmitry Medvedev, and Putin's press secretary, Dmitry Peskov. In contrast to others, we covered the social protests in Russian cities during the winter of 2011-2012, just by installing cameras and broadcasting the demonstrations live. Mikhail Khodorkovsky gave his first interview on being freed from prison last December to us. And it was Dozhd, alone among Russian media outlets, that covered the riots in Kiev last winter live, giving airtime to opposition figures and the authorities.
Our audience has grown with every month: we broadcast on the internet and our channel is carried by the biggest Russian cable and satellite networks.
Our audience has grown with every month: we broadcast on the internet and our channel is carried by the biggest Russian cable and satellite networks.
On the face of it, we weren't doing anything out of the ordinary but for one fact: this is Russia, where the Kremlin's media agenda does not presuppose the existence of independent media. And so it became essential for the Kremlin to find a reason to start a campaign against unwanted media.
Then, in January, we aired a debate about the siege of Leningrad and whether the city should have surrendered so as to avoid loss of life. This is not an original question in Russia. It's even mentioned in a school textbook. But it quickly escalated into a matter of state.
In the case of Dozhd this reason was found in January, when during one of our programmes there was a discussion on the question of whether, during the second world war, Leningrad (now St Petersburg) should have surrendered to the German army so as to avoid the loss of thousands of lives. This question has repeatedly been brought up by historians and is even covered in an official Russian school textbook, but it was only when it came up on Dozhd that the reaction took on a governmental scale.
Within a month, Rain was excluded from virtually all cable and satellite services and lost almost 90% of its audience. And though the leaders of these companies said they did it because they had been offended by the question about the siege of Leningrad, privately they explained that they were under pressure from the Kremlin.
Firstly, we had bloggers and journalists writing on social media about this, people who are known for supporting the official point of view. Next, the state media with a series of reports about how Dozhd had raised questions about the outcome of the second world war and the feats of the Soviet people. The campaign gained momentum. Within a month, Dozhd was excluded from virtually all cable and satellite services and lost almost 90% of its audience. And though the leaders of these companies said they did it because they had been offended by the question about the siege of Leningrad, privately they explained that they were under pressure from the Kremlin. MPs wrote several requests to the state prosecutor about Dozhd – they were interested in how we were funded. Tax and labour inspectors came. The owner of our building suddenly declared he no longer wanted to extend our lease. But the most important thing was that Dozhd lost its advertisers: several left because our audience had collapsed, others were worried about advertising on a television channel that was in the doghouse.
MPs wrote several requests to the state prosecutor about Rain – they were interested in how we were funded. Tax and labour inspectors came. The owner of our building suddenly declared he no longer wanted to extend our lease. But the most important thing was that Rain lost its advertisers: several left because our audience had collapsed, others were worried about advertising on a TV channel that was in the doghouse.
All this happened within two months. From a successful business, Dozhd turned into a project on the edge of oblivion, existing only on funding from its viewers. And now everything depends on whether the Kremlin stops putting pressure on Dozhd: it may seem strange but the future of my TV channel will be decided in the same place that everything else in Russia is decided.
All this happened within two months. From a successful business, Rain turned into a project on the edge of oblivion, existing only on funding from its viewers. And now everything depends on whether the Kremlin stops putting pressure on Rain: it may seem strange but the future of my TV channel will be decided in the same place that everything else in Russia is decided.
Whether they close Dozhd is unclear. What is clear is that the campaign against us is one element of the new information agenda of the Kremlin. As the current Russian leadership understands it, the main aim of the media should be propaganda. Propaganda that must find the right words to explain those complicated matters such as the events in Ukraine or the inevitable economic crisis. Dmitry Kiselev, who was named last year as the leader of the powerful information group Russia Today, says his main task is bringing the state point of view to the public. He is a symbol of the new Russian journalism, or rather the new Russian propaganda that does not assume positions at odds with those of the state. Today this is most clearly visible in the example of how Russian media has covered the Ukrainian situation. Thousands of peace protesters marching through Moscow are branded as "fifth column", fascists, traitors. This is not exaggeration – it is direct quotation.
As the current Russian leadership understands it, the main aim of the media should be propaganda. Propaganda that must find the right words to explain those complicated matters such as the events in Ukraine or the inevitable economic crisis. In this system, there is no room for independent media groups like Rain, or for me and my colleagues. And so the independent media which appeared in recent years, and which can ask awkward questions about all this, has become inappropriate. One recent poll found that more than 70% of Russians are prepared to accept censorship in the interests of the state.
In this system, there is no room for independent media groups like Dozhd, or for me and my colleagues.
And so in recent months, Russia has also got rid of several other independent publishers, for example the internet site Lenta.ru, whose editor-in-chief and editorial policy were both changed.
This has already happened once in Russia – at the start of the noughties, when Putin became president for the first time. Then he enjoyed unprecedented public support and the Russian people entered into an unspoken contract with him under which they would close their eyes to the destruction of independent media in exchange for promises of the restoration of Russia's former power. Now history is repeating itself: and, as state television channels declare, Russia has already restored its former power along with Crimea.
And so the independent media which appeared in recent years, and which can ask awkward questions about all this, has become inappropriate. One recent poll found that more than 70% of Russians are prepared to accept censorship in the interests of the state.
Tikhon Dzyadko is deputy editor of Russian independent television channel Dozhd
Tikhon Dzyadko is deputy editor of Russian independent television channel Dozhd
