List of Russian media receiving foreign funding. Who is the owner of the opposition media. Where is the media freer, in Russia or the USA? (the most objective comparison in the history of objective comparisons)
Recently, the Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Communications, information technologies and Mass Communications (Roskomnadzor) has published a list of media outlets with Russian jurisdiction that receive funding from foreign sources.
The official name of such a list is: "Notification of receipt by the editorial office of the mass media, broadcaster or publisher of funds from foreign sources"(there is a complete list).
The publication of such data is a new practice.
Previously, the media worked in the Russian Federation without providing data to the controlling agency about the sources of their funding.
However, in 2015 a decision was made that changed the situation. Thus, the media receiving cash from abroad, Roskomnadzor obliged to disclose information of this kind. This was done as a kind of analogy (for the media environment) to the legislative norm on NCO-foreign agents.
The point is that all non-profit organizations involved in political activities in one way or another, in Russia, the legislation is obliged to designate their status as an NPO-foreign agent.
As in the case of NGOs, not all media in Russia received such a legislative norm with a calm reaction. And what only after such an innovation did Roskomnadzor hear about it! .. First of all, from the “non-polite” media.
Apparently, the reason for the unrest on the part of certain media platforms is related to the fact that their management team tried in every possible way to hide from readers (viewers, listeners) the fact that the media is fed from the hands of representatives of foreign states. And if it feeds, then, therefore, in many respects it reflects (protects) the interests of the investor.
After all, it is naive to believe that if a newspaper, magazine, TV channel, radio station or Internet portal is financed, for example, by a Western fund, then in this media the reader (viewer, listener) will find something that sheds light on the real tasks of this kind of financing.
Although these real tasks sometimes reveal themselves too actively ... Simply, the leadership of individual media outlets is too zealously undertaking to master foreign funding, obviously counting on the fact that the flows (or at least streams) of foreign funds will not dry up in the future.
Liability for a one-time evasion from providing Roskomnadzor with information about the availability of foreign funding for the media entails liability in the form of a fine in the amount of 30 to 50 thousand rubles.
For a large media outlet, the funds are, to put it mildly, not the largest, and must be significantly lower than the volume of foreign funding. Repeated refusal to provide information about the availability of foreign funding from the media leads to the possibility of revocation of the registration certificate by the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media.
Here it is worth recalling that since January 2017, an amended norm has been introduced with respect to Russian media, limiting the share of foreign shareholders to a bar of 20%. In addition, from 2017, both foreign citizens and persons with dual citizenship will not be able to become media founders in Russia.
If we talk about the media that are associated with the publication of political and/or economic news or analytics on the same topics, then the latest list of media receiving foreign funding is as follows:
Newspaper "Vedomosti"(organization of ZAO Business News Media);
publications of the Publishing House of JSC "Kommersant", including the newspaper of the same name, as well as the Ogonyok magazine;
"Economic policy"(organization of the ANO Editorial Board of the journal "Economic Policy");
"Financial newspaper", Fingazeta.ru (an organization of MMG LLC);
Portal "SNOB"(SNOB) (an organization of Snob Media LLC);
"New Newspaper"(ZAO Publishing House "Novaya Gazeta");
Portal blocked by Roskomnadzor Grani.ru(LLC "Flavus").
There is also an unexpected representative of this list. Quite unexpected ... It turned out that foreign funding for information activities is also received by "Russian newspaper". The very combination of the words "Rossiyskaya Gazeta" (FGBU "Editorial Office of Rossiyskaya Gazeta") receives foreign funding, looks like an oxymoron. But it really does receive ... And it is unlikely from Astana or Minsk ...
Moreover, if with the mentioned Snob or Grany.ru, as they say, everything is clear, then the foreign funding of RG raises certain questions. One of them: why foreign funding was needed for the mass media, which is the official print organ Russian government? Or does the government of the Russian Federation do not consider it necessary to adequately finance its press organ?..
Information on the volume of foreign funding and "investors"-donors of the mentioned Russian media by Roskomnadzor, as it happened, is not yet published. And it seems that it is not customary to count other people's money, but ...
It seems that for many Russians it would still be useful to know which foreign state (foreign company) invests in a certain Russian mass media and how much. At least for citizens to understand to what extent objective data and Russian interests are actually reflected in such media.
Who is the boss opposition media
How many tubs of claims, compromising evidence, slander, accusations and other negativity poured out by our opposition media on the current leaders (of course, first of all, on Putin) for last years?
Tons? Megatons? MegaMegatons?
In short, dofiga.
Who owns the Russian media
The map is divided into squares, each of which is assigned an index indicated in the alphabetical list opposite the name of the individual
Do people in these media root for the people, are they really interested in the country's exit from the crisis, its development, or are their actions dictated by some other motives and they will pursue someone's custom-made interests?
Knowing who exactly our most ardent accusers belong to will help a lot to answer this question.
EchoMoscow- the owner (66% of shares) of Gazprom-Media Holding, owned by Gazprombank. D.A. was the Chairman of the Board of Directors for a long time (from 2000 to 2008, up to the moment when he went on a public promotion). Medvedev. Miller is currently the head of the gas monopoly. Both Medvedev and Miller have been Putin's associates since the 1990s. This is open information, available, in particular, on Wikipedia.
NTV- with the coming to power of Putin, the channel came under the wing of Gazprom.
RenTV, as well as Fifth and First channel, belong to the National Media Group, the main shareholder of which is Rossiya Bank, headed by a friend of Putin, Yuri Kovalchuk.
In addition, the company of Sindeeva’s husband and Slon’s co-owner, Vinokurov, who went bankrupt in 2008, KIT-Finance, was saved not by anyone, but by state-owned companies ALROSA and RZD hand in hand with Gazprombank.
The alternatively gifted Evgenia Albats.
Newspaper Newspaper (GZT.RU)- British editions of The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph.
As you can see, the bulk of seemingly opposition publications are directly connected with the Kremlin or oligarchic groups. The assumption that they say the publications determine their own policy and want to spit on their owners is not very tenable. And this was proved not so long ago in practice by Alisher Usmanov, dismissed the management of Kommersant.
A small part of the opposition media, apparently not directly connected with the Russian elite, are bright representatives of the fifth column and spokesmen for the aspirations of the overseas "regional committee".
Such are the fillers of the information field in Russia today.
Actually, it's logical. A country that loses the Cold War is automatically deprived of the right to its ideology and history ...
For a long time, I have been treated with a fair amount of skepticism about the media. Not a certain ideological direction, but in general to any media. I'll make a reservation right away, I mean the global media, the "Vestnik of the village of Kukuyevo" is not considered. So, in my opinion, they are all engaged in propaganda of one kind or another. It is high time to change the abbreviation to SMIP - Means of Mass Information Propaganda, where information is not a goal, but a means of introducing a certain message. Objective media is a unicorn, a mythical creature, wonderful, pleasing to the spirit and imagination, but not existing in nature.
However, I do not think that the fault lies solely with the media themselves, the matter is in the structure modern society generally. They simply cannot be different, such is the system.
Here are the features of this system:
1. There is a lot of information and it is becoming more and more, the ability of a person to cover it is limited. . In principle, it does not need a comment, but I will just give a couple of examples. Every year the size of the Internet doubles, repeating the trend of increasing computer performance (Moore's Law). The same is happening with scientific data, for example, the number of decoded genomes is growing exponentially with cheaper and faster gene-reading technologies.
2. The average layman is superficial in his assessments. He does not use a rational approach, does not think critically and, by and large, is not motivated to understand complex issues. Simply put, it is easy for the average person to be distracted and brainwashed, because he does not see the difference between objective and manipulated presentation of information (for example, he does not use ). People have almost no opportunity to directly ascertain the reality and correctness of the news they report.
3. The media needs financial injections to support their own existence . I emphasize that we are not talking about morality, venality and corruption. This is the law of thermodynamics in action. In order for an organized system to remain as such and not fall apart, an influx of energy is needed. In the capitalist world, energy is money.
4. Propaganda and brainwashing are highly sought after by the ruling elite. There are many political and economic players who have or are able to redirect financial flows, who are not interested in providing objective information about their activities and who want to use information to the detriment of their own competitors. No one is interested in providing objective information, everyone has their own interests that conflict with others.
5. Money increases media influence . Financial injections dramatically increase the competitiveness of the media, for example, by increasing circulation, attracting new viewers, etc. Conversely, the loss of financial support sharply reduces the vitality of the media.
These five points make the system what it is. Here are some more features of the media that you need to keep in mind:
The media idealize their image in themselves. Journalists portray themselves as magical creatures spreading truth, freedom, democracy and many other kind words everywhere. There is nothing surprising in the tactics of idealization, the media strive to improve their social status, as any other organizations and individuals would do, but, unlike the rest, the media has a platform from which they can broadcast about their infallibility. The media never report the negative aspects of their work (see below) and constantly promote the idea of their own untouchability. The idea is inflated in the media that belonging to the journalistic fraternity gives more rights and freedoms, indulgence and the ability to break the law with impunity. If, de, a journalist was attracted, therefore, this law is not a cake. The media immediately demonize anyone who stands for their control.
The thesis about the untouchability of the press is not conditioned by anything. First of all, journalists are the same people as everyone else, with the same rights and obligations as all other professions. No more no less. Like everyone else, they are capable of making mistakes, being unprofessional, and breaking the law. It would seem that it cannot be more obvious, but let's demonstrate the unequal relationship with an example. Let's analyze the phrase "The baker was put in jail." How does one feel about such a message? Does it cause a violent emotional reaction in the same liberal? Yes, somehow no, it all depends on whether the baker broke the law or not. Now let's replace the word "baker" with "journalist". Well, that's a completely different matter. In this case, innocence is not subject to any doubt. The story about the convicted journalist certainly smacks of trampling on freedom of speech, dictatorship and a police state. Here are just a few of the many clichés that stick to anyone trying to get some regulation in.
Journalism is basically not a positive, but rather a neutral phenomenon.. The same baker naturally gravitates towards the positive end of the spectrum. After all, his work directly depends on the quality of his product. His activity is obliged to benefit society, he cannot, say, take and sell poisoned rolls, he will be immediately noticed. Is a journalist capable of harming the information he provides? Easily. Let's take the most trivial case - the spread of outright disinformation. The media now can not only bring the truth to people, educate and inspire accomplishments, but also collapse the stock markets, destroy reputations and careers, unleash wars and revolutions.
In the same time, The media are not responsible for the accuracy of information disseminated. Of course, there are rare cases when the media can be involved in case of blatant hate speech. But in most cases, it's very easy for the media to evade responsibility. Ah, we spread the wrong information? Ah, so our anonymous source was wrong. Just. The career of an individual is destroyed "through a misunderstanding", another president is elected, a war is started. Imagine the same baker with the excuse "well, my anonymous supplier made a mistake and brought rat poison instead of flour, but I had nothing to do with it." A crazy situation, because there is a sanitary medical examination and other control systems. Any attempt to control the media causes a furious reaction from these same media and the demonization of their initiators, often by the spread of rumors and fabricated stories. No wonder media owners don't like competition (more on that below).
Furthermore, to deceive the public, the media does not have to lie. It is possible to speak the pure truth, while at the same time causing a reaction equivalent to a lie. Above is an illustration of one of the disinformation methods. By simply hiding part of the picture, the message can be reversed. Or, say, comparing an individual with Hitler is also not formally a lie. It's just a comparison... The media can make anyone guilty by association. Numerous propaganda techniques are described.
The media are not transparent and are not required to report on their work to the public. The state is a relatively transparent organization. Each voter is aware of their own party's president and some of the key politicians and knows at least some of their political agendas and activities. The state is obliged to report to its own people, it is also elected by them, the ways of financing its work are known, they are observed and monitored by the judicial system of power. Compared to him, the media is completely closed and opaque. Even devoted readers of one publication or another do not know its manual. Sources of funding are closed, there is no accountability. The media is the fourth branch of government that the people have not chosen and do not control.
The media are not democratic in their structure of organization and management. The idea of a democratic press is constantly exaggerated in the media. But the news company, like any other company, does not smell of democracy, if we mean the dictionary definition, not the propaganda cliché. The media, according to the laws of the capitalist world, have owners, investors, shareholders. As a rule, any successful publication is part of a larger media holding and works in its interests. There is no collective decision-making, taking into account the opinion of the majority, not to mention the minority. Media holdings are a rigid hierarchical structure with management at the head. The decision is made by the director or the board of directors, employees, at best, can express their opinion, and far from any. A journalist with a point of view that directly contradicts the guidelines of the leadership is simply thrown out into the street.
The absence of state control does not make the media independent. The press is easily controlled from the outside by the management of financial flows. For this, you don’t even need to bribe anyone, throw a stack of banknotes on the table with the phrase “Now you work for me.” Control is much easier and more inconspicuous. At every moment in time, the news field contains a full range of political opinions on the subject. Therefore, there is no need to specially bribe anyone, it is enough just to choose a publication from the set that is sincerely biased in a direction beneficial to the payer, start sponsoring it, increasing its competitive advantage over other publications. The illusion of independence is maintained due to the mistake of a survivor - the media that does not work for a particular media holding simply die out due to the lack of financial support and cannot compete with media giants. Small competing media can also be absorbed, made part of oneself. Thus, the absence of state control does not cancel the most severe (financial) control on the part of the heads of media holdings.
Media regulation can make the system more democratic. We have already figured out that the media are not democratic "inside themselves". And what about democracy "outside"? Depends on context. IMHO, some semblance of democracy can be achieved if there is competition between several media holdings of a similar size. But such an option is unlikely. Imagine a media monster, the same News Corporation. Operating profit - more than two trillion dollars, not bad, right? News Corp includes 20th Century Fox, the Wallstreet Journal, the Times, and a myriad of other assets. Due to its colossal size and coverage, News Corp is able to change public opinion in any way, according to its own policy, and not to the interests of the layman, simply due to its monopoly in the field of information. By actively imposing their opinion, they deprive a person of the opportunity to express their own point of view. Functionally, custom-made PR and anti-PR of politicians is no different from the direct throwing of ballots into the electoral baskets, with a small exception: when transnational media holdings are engaged in propaganda, the effect surpasses the "carousel" by a thousand times. In a democratic world, those media and those who own them are millions of times more democratic than everyone else. However, they are not transparent and are not required to report to voters. Nobody elected Rupert Murdoch, director of News Corp. By demanding their own independence from the state, the media are essentially lobbying for the elimination of the only transparent control mechanism.
The ones who run News Corp. The gray profiles somehow show the level of opacity of this organization. They are out of the public eye and even more - they are her eyes. The surnames listed in the diagram are able to exercise their suffrage and freedom of speech millions of times more efficiently than the average layman. These are the dictators of the information world, and they do not need carousels and riot police platoons to dictate.
The above does not mean that the author of the note is a malicious opponent of the media. I'm just asking to be critical of the media and realize that the lion's share of what they feed us is manipulated information, and that the media are not independent by nature, they are part of larger media holdings controlled by corporations and financial institutions (one of which is are states of individual countries) working in their interests and that regulation of the media in many cases promotes democracy, and not vice versa.
The truth can be invented if the real truth is not too comfortable. Some of the world's media think so. And in pursuit of a convenient picture, they present not only information, but also disinformation in a beautiful package. This aspect is considered in a special project called "As always - on the front line."
People still turn on the news to find out what happened. But in the pursuit of ratings, ambitions and something else, the media receive not only information, but also disinformation in a beautiful package. In such still American blockbusters in transitions sell.
Let's look into this "something else", without which it is impossible to imagine the Western media giants, whom it was once customary to look up to.
Jessica Lynch - 13 years ago every American and half the world knew this name. An ordinary US Army soldier was captured in Iraq, and special forces were sent to rescue her. The whole operation was beautifully filmed and shown on CNN. Filmed and edited so beautifully that smart people immediately suspected the production. But how could such claims be made against a respected TV channel at that time? And suddenly ... The story went to the seams, and the truth got out, destroying faith with CNN.
At first it turned out that Jessica was not wounded in battle, she did not have knife and bullet wounds, which were talked about on American TV. She suffered in a banal accident. Then it became known that she was not tortured or interrogated in captivity, but on the contrary, they provided maximum assistance and assigned a separate nurse to the girl. Moreover, after the Iraqi military left the hospital, they tried to transport Jessica to the location of the American troops, but they did not expect her there - the ambulance was fired upon and forced to return. After all, they were going to save the private with fanfare, her simple return was not included in the plans. Two days later, in the hospital, where there was no one but doctors and the wounded, special forces and CNN cameras appeared. The soldiers fired blanks, the cameramen filmed the liberation without five minutes of the national hero. And then ... Then there was also a book-biography of Jessica, from which she herself learned that she was in captivity ... raped. When she rebelled, CNN's beautiful story cracked.
Alas, the story is not unique.
Ten years later. Another war is now Syria. BBC uploads video of female doctor talking about chemical attack under Damascus. But suddenly, to the inconvenience of the British broadcaster, there were people who understand Arabic. In the original speech, the medic reports on the wounded who were admitted to the hospital, and suggests that there is heavy shelling in the suburbs of the Syrian capital. "Strong shelling" is too boring and insipid for the BBC, and they change it in the voice acting to a chemical attack.
There are now hundreds of such examples. Dozens of blogs have been written about the lies of information workers, hundreds of Wikipedia articles have been written. Donbass and South Ossetia, anti-government skirmishes in the US and the refugee crisis in Europe. And more, and more, and more.
Professor speaks high school Economics Oleg Matveychev:
"What has begun to happen is generally unthinkable. The Western media have become a source of fakes and use other people's invented fakes. That is, news that does not exist - when something is announced that no one has done, that has not happened. other shots are added to the news. We saw when they show rallies in Moscow, and there are palm trees in the background, because a picture of rallies in Greece was taken. That is, all these terribly unprofessional things, of course, are discredited by the media."
The truth can be invented if the real truth is inconvenient. Some people think so. And oh, those bad people who get to the bottom of the truth. One can only imagine how many nerve cells they have eaten and will eat from those who have made it their profession to invent news in order to captivate the viewer or listener, in order to put a picture that is convenient for them into his head.
And the struggle for a convenient picture is not only a war for ratings. It so happened that the independent policy of Russia has grown and dislike among Western media professionals to the Russian international media. This dislike manifests itself in different ways, but sometimes very aggressively - more on this in the next episodes of the Sputnik radio special project. Remaining objective at the forefront of the information front is our ambitious task.
- The legal field in which the media operate
- Restrictions on foreign media owners
- State media control
- Concentration of media owners
- Competition with foreign media
- Opinions of international organizations
1. Legal regulation
In Russia
More than 30 laws regulate and restrict media activities in Russia. Initially, media activity in Russia is only permitted under media law, which obliges media outlets to register and imposes significant restrictions and obligations. Also, in Russia, a number of laws have been adopted that allow restricting the actions of the media on the basis of such vague wordings and concepts as “incitement of hatred” or “insulting religious feelings” or “insulting representatives of the authorities” or “dissemination of information about private life” or “propaganda of homosexuality” or "distortion of history" or "contempt for society." Russian legislation contains a very broad definition of extremism, which is resorted toofficials to pacify government critics, including journalists. These laws are often used in practice against journalists, but the very fact of their existence and the threat of their applicationencourages self-censorship.
Like many other laws in Russia, these laws are applied selectively to suppress opinions objectionable to the government. For example, in state media they are quite allowed to incite hatred towards Americans, Ukrainians or Russian oppositionists, but Navalny’s video, which reminds United Russia of their unfulfilled promises, turns out to be an extremist video inciting hatred towards members of the United Russia party and falls into the stop list of Roskomnadzor. In the state media, one can say with impunity that gays are flawed people who should be imprisoned, but one cannot say that they are normal people who should be left alone. It is quite possible to distort history to whitewash the role of Stalin, but writing bad things about Stalin's role in World War II in the Russian media is quite dangerous, as it can lead to forced labor for up to five years.
Often comes to the point of absurdity. In June 2013, a court in Ulyanovsk closed access to kp.ru and gazeta.ru for publishing articles about bribery. According to the prosecutor’s office, with which the court agreed, the publication of articles on bribery contributes to “the formation of an opinion in society about the possibility of committing corruption crimes in order to satisfy their own needs with impunity, in addition, they undermine the authority of the state authorities of the Russian Federation and the current Russian laws.” In October 2014, Ekho Moskvy received a warning from Roskomnadzor,after airing eyewitness accounts of clashes between Ukrainianmilitary forces and pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine.Roskomnadzor will consider that the program contained “informationjustifying war crimes." I read the transcript of this banned program (which was removed from the Ekho Moskvy website), and in my opinion, it was just the Ukrainian military defending the Donetsk airport that was shown as ordinary people speaking Russian and doing their military duty.
Also, Russia has a whole series of defamation and insult laws. Article 128.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for criminal punishment for defamation, and Article 319 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation punishes for insulting representatives of the authorities. In addition to criminal punishment, Russia also has civil liability under Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation for damage to honor, dignity, and business reputation. It is noteworthy that in Russia, the defendant bears the burden of proof that the information disseminated is true, while in other countries, as a rule, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff.
Also, in Russia there are no exceptions for publishing information about government officials. In most other countries, it is understood that the media should criticize government officials, and therefore, in relation to government officials, journalists have more freedom to publish than in relation to private citizens. In Russia, on the contrary, more severe punishment is applied for the publication of information about government officials in the media. One gets the impression that the purpose of the law in Russia is to protect poor officials from the attacks of journalists.
If earlier, blocking Internet media required a court decision (which was not difficult to obtain) and there was at least the illusion of independent control, but now even this obstacle has been removed, and the decision of the prosecutor's office is enough.Federal Law No. 398,signed by President Vladimir Putin in December 2013,allowed the Attorney General to circumvent the judiciary andorder - through Roskomnadzor— block websites that spread calls for massriots, "extremist" activities and participation in illegal assemblies. Lawregularly used against independent and opposition websites in 2014.
In May, Putin signed Federal Law No. 97, dubbed the "bloggers law." Now the legislation effectively imposes on personal blogs and other sites thosethe same restrictions as official news media, including bans on anonymousauthorship and obscene language, and legal liability for comments,posted by users. Additionally, in accordance with Law No. 97 andsubsequent law passed in July, social networks and other internet companiesprocessing data of Russian users must store information onservers located in Russia, where they could be accessed by the authorities.
The lack of clear legal boundaries, and the threat of closure of the media if these fuzzy boundaries are violated, simply leads to severe self-censorship. The media, even if they are independent, simply repeat what they say on the first channel and do not risk adding anything of their own. Or the media simply avoid any controversial topics, and deal exclusively with entertainment programs. However, as practice shows, even purely musical programs can lead to insulting the feelings of believers ( events on Silver Rain).
Imagine if the rules of the road were vaguely introduced that you can’t drive with “clear disrespect for other drivers” or “too fast” and the punishment for violation would be confiscation of the car and 5 years of forced labor for violators. And for the confiscation of the car, simply the opinion of the traffic police that you have violated the law is enough. It is in such conditions that the Russian media live. Therefore, it is not surprising that even the supposedly oppositional Dozhd and Ekho Moskvy engage in self-sabotage and avoid direct criticism of the government.
IN THE USA
In the US, it's pretty simple. There is no media law that would require media registration. You just take and open the media, and you don’t even need to notify anyone about it.There are no laws that would restrict the actions of the media or the content of messages.
There is no analogue of Roskomnadzor in the USA. The US Federal Communications Commission regulates only broadcast television and radio broadcasting. And they can only regulate swear words and naked bodies, and the content of the programs itself is not regulated in any way. Also, they do not regulate cable television in any way or satellite channels(which 90% of Americans watch) and does not regulate the press, books, or the Internet in any way. That is why, on HBO shows, you can see naked bodies and genitals and any swear words (have you watched the Game of Thrones?), since no one regulates the HBO cable channel.
There are no criminal defamation laws in the US, as the Supreme Court has ruled that they are unconstitutional. Also, journalists are protected from civil liability for disseminating any (even false) information about public figures, which includes all civil servants. The only exception is that journalists can be subject to a civil defamation suit for disseminating obviously false information from intentionally cause harm. And the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. It is so difficult to prove that such civil suits against journalists almost never happen.
2. Restriction on foreign media owners
In Russia
The law, signed into law by Putin in October 2014, will limit foreign ownership of Russian media assets to 20 percent by early 2017. The law is expected to have the greatest impact on independent publications like Vedomosti and Forbes Russia, which are owned by US and European media. media groups.
IN THE USA
There are practically no restrictions on media owners in the US. When the law on limiting the share of foreign shareholders was passed in Russia, they, as usual, referred to world experience - "out in the USA, foreigners cannot own more than 25% of the media." And, as always, when tested, it turns out to be false. Russian restrictions apply to the ownership of all media (TV, radio, cable channels, print). In the US, there are no restrictions on media ownership, but there are restrictions only on the ownership of television and radio broadcast stations that broadcast on the air. In the US, there are no restrictions on cable networks and channels, satellite channels or printed matter. Then, in the US, the 25% limit does not apply to owners from countries that have joined the WTO (these are 160 countries, including Russia). And even for owners of non-WTO countries, it is quite easy to obtain permission to own over-the-air TV and radio stations. As you can see, Russian law bans innocuous channels like Animal Planet and Discovery, or newspapers like Forbes, while US law doesn't ban propaganda channels like Russia Today or Al-Jazeera at all, nor does it apply to print media.
3. State control of the media
In Russia
Russia is dominated by media outlets that are either directly owned by the government or owned by government-controlled companies. According to polls, the vast majority of Russians get their news from TV, and the vast majority of Russians watch state channels.
Where do you most often learn about the news in the country and in the world? (in %)
Do you watch the news on TV, and if so,
what news channels do you watch more or less regularly? (in Russia)
In Russia, the authorities have a significant impact on the information arena throughvast state media empire. State-owned, directly orthrough intermediaries, all fivemajor national broadcasters, as well asnational radio stations, important national newspapers and national news agencies. The government sets the editorial policy for state-run stations, and reshuffles them if the government doesn't like them. For example, the relatively independent RIA Novosti was disbanded by Putin's decree. According to the decree, instead of the liquidated RIA Novosti, the International Information Agency “Russia Today"under the leadership of Dmitry Kiselev and Margarita Simonyan. Now, almost all Russian-language news agencies (the main source of news for all media) are owned by the state -ITAR-TASS, Ruptly, Russia Today, Sputnik.
The main trusted owners include Gazprom-Media, a divisionthe state energy giant Gazprom, and the National Media Group,owned by Yuri Kovalchuk, a close ally of Putin, a member of the cooperative"Lake" and the chairman Board of the Bank Rossiya. The state also controls over 60percent of approximately 45,000 regional and local newspapers and periodicals publications of the country.
List of owners controlling major media outlets in Russia (surprisingly short)
Government of the Russian Federation: Channel 1, Russia-1, Russia-24, most of the regional TVC, and Culture, Radio Russia, Radio Mayak.Gazprom Media: NTV, NTV-Plus, TNT, TNT-Comedy, TNT International, Friday!, 2x2, TV3, 365 days TV, Europa Plus, TV, HD life, STV, Auto Plus, Fighter, India TV, Interesting TV, Comedy TV, Kitchen TV, A-minor, Many TV, Russian Night, Echo of Moscow, Comedy Radio, Relax FM, City-FM, Children's Radio, Radio Energy, Radio Romantika, Humor FM. Yes, Gazprom owns the "opposition" Echo of Moscow, so if necessary, they can quickly change its editors and change the policy of the station.
National Media Group: TV channels REN TV, "Fifth channel", Metro St. Petersburg,newspaper "Izvestiya"radio station "RussianNews Service"
Even the relative independent channels Dozhd, RBC and Euronews depend on cable and satellite operators. The largest of these operators areRostelecom (state),Tricolor TV (owners unknown), MTS (Yevtushenko, who is under investigation), NTV Plus (Gazprom). When the Rain channel became objectionable, all cable operators suddenly stopped broadcasting it, and when it became acceptable again, they just as suddenly resumed broadcasting.
More than 400 daily newspapers of the country remain relatively free and they offer content on a wide range of topics but rarely challenge the official line onimportant issues like corruption or foreign policy. Significant politicaldiscussion is mostly limited to weekly magazines, news websites,some radio broadcasts and a small number of newspapers, like Novaya Gazeta ordaily business publication Vedomosti, which generally covers a limitedaudience among the educated urban population of Russia (by the way, it is no coincidence that support for Putin is the lowest among this most educated urban population of Russia). These independent media operate under severe self-censorship withunderstanding that the government has the means to shut them down at any time
IN THE USA
In the US, it's very simple. The government does not own or control the media. There is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which receives about $500 million a year, and distributes it in the form of grants to various independent public broadcasting stations and radio stations that are part of the PBS and NPR systems. PBS receives about 15% of its funding from CPB grants, and NPR about 2%. Basically, they exist due to advertising and private donations. These stations have a very small share of the media market, and anyone who watches or listens to them knows that they do not promote any government point of view, and rather emphasize educational programs and programs for children. Although there is a Charile Rose program on PBS, where in June 2015, they showed an hour-long interview with Putin. I don't remember the last time they interviewed Obama or Carrie on Russian television.
The US government does not interfere in editorial policy in any way, and cannot appoint or remove the heads of these public stations. The government does not interfere in the advertising market in any way, it does not engage in Internet censorship, it cannot close the media, it cannot remove editors, it cannot cancel the registration, since media registration does not exist.
4. Concentration of media owners
In Russia
As described above, the Russian government is the largest owner and controls the majority of all media outlets. The National Media Group controls the remaining media. RBC TV channel belongs to Prokhorov. The rest of the independent media occupy an insignificant position in the market.
IN THE USA
There are about 10 large public corporations in the US which own the main TV channels, cable networks, newspapers, and radio stations. But these 10 corporations are not state controlled, are public companies, and are not controlled by any one oligarch (with the exception of News Corp).
5. Competition and access to foreign media
Competition from foreign media may be one of the factors that limits the effectiveness of propaganda. After all, if the national media lies too much, and foreign media are available to people, then they can simply watch foreign media. Therefore, in the presence of competition with foreign media, national media are forced not to deviate too much from international standards of coverage. Access to foreign media is limited by two factors - technical restrictions, and a language barrier.
In Russia
FROM language barrier, the Russians are bad enough (we consider the possession of the main international languages, and not in the languages of small nations). According to the 2010 census, only 7.5 million Russians reported speaking English, and only 2 million reported speaking German, 600,000 French, and 150,000 Spanish. True, the degree of proficiency in these languages is not yet known, and most likely the majority who indicated that they speak English do not speak it sufficiently to regularly read or listen to news in it. In total, significantly less than 10% of Russians can receive news in foreign languages.
With such a low degree of foreign language proficiency, 90% of Russians can only consume information in Russian. And there is a rather limited number of media in Russian in the world, and this market is largely dominated by Russian government media. The only news channel in Russian is Euronews, which is broadcast on the Kultura channel during very convenient morning hours from 6 am to 10 am.
About 60% of the Russian population has access to the Internet. Also, about 50% receive a TV signal through cable networks or a satellite dish. Those people who do not have access to the Internet and watch terrestrial television(about 40% of the population), almost completely cut off from foreign media. The remaining 50 percent have access that is limited by their lack of knowledge of foreign languages and a poor selection of Russian-language information.
Internet access does not guarantee freedom of speech either. Although almost everything is available on the Internet, most people perceive information through the filter of social sites, search engines, or news sites. Therefore, the Russian-speaking Internet user sees a completely different picture of the world. For example, if you search Google.ru for the keyword "American General", then the very first line will be the news from RIA Novosti about the Americans in Ukraine. State Russian propaganda always gets a more prominent place, and always gets to the top of the search engines, and other points of view must be specifically sought.
IN THE USA
In the US, more people speak foreign languages. It is known from the census that at least 37 million people use their homes Spanish, 2.8 million speak Chinese, 1.3 million speak French at home, 1 million speak German, and 900,000 speak Russian. This does not really take into account those people who speak English at home, but nevertheless know a foreign language well. According to a Gallup poll, 25% of Americans said they could hold a conversation in foreign language. In total, somewhere between 15% - 25% of Americans can consume information in a foreign language.
But, they don't even need to do this, since almost all the media in the world broadcast in English. At American viewers have access to many foreign channels in English. RT (Russia), CCTV (China), Press TV (Iran), Al Jazeera, Deutsche Welle, France 24, Euronews, HNK (Japan) and many others broadcast around the clock in English.
From a technical point of view, Americans have a lot more opportunities to access this information. More than 90% of the US population has access to the Internet. Also, about 90% of the population receives TV signal through cable or satellite systems, and have access to an almost unlimited number of foreign channels.
6. Opinions of international organizations
Russian Glasnost Defense Foundation previously published the Glasnost Map for different regions in Russia. In 2010, there was not a single region in Russia with a free press, and most regions were divided into not free and relatively not free.
7. Conclusion
Yes, you can criticize freedom of speech in the US for a long time. But when the people of Russia do it, it sounds something like a criticism of the taste of oysters from people who have never seen oysters. If in the US there are problems with freedom of speech and media independence, then in modern Russia freedom of speech is simply non-existent. The media in Russia have simply become into an instrument of state control over the population and manipulation of public opinion.
DOI: 10.18413/2075-4574-2018-37-1-113-120
OBJECTIVITY OF INFORMATION IN THE MEDIA: IS IT ACHIEVABLE?
OBJECTIVE INFORMATION IN MEDIA: IS IT REACHABLE?
A.A. Tertychny A.A. Tertychny
Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, 119991, Moscow, Leninskiye Gory, 1
Lomonosov Moscow State University, 1, Moscow, 119991, Russia
Email: [email protected]
annotation
This article analyzes the possibilities of objective reflection of reality in the media. The mechanisms of information transmission in the media space are studied in detail, the problems that prevent the objective reproduction and reflection of information in the media plane are identified. The methods of information verification in media texts are analyzed in detail, their typology is given. Each type is illustrated with examples from media texts published in Russia and abroad. Special attention in our work deserve such categories as facts and factoids. The article presents a typology of facts typical for coverage in journalistic texts. The impossibility of creating a "journalism formula" that automatically ensures the objectivity of published information is stated.
In this article, we analyze the possibilities of an objective representation of reality in the media. The mechanisms of information in the media space have been studied in detail, problems have been identified that prevent the transmission of objective reproduction and reflection of information in the media plane. The methods of information verification in media texts are analyzed in detail, their typology is given. Each type is illustrated by examples from media texts published in Russia and abroad. Particular attention in our work deserve such categories as facts and factoids. The article gives a typology of facts that are typical for coverage in journalistic texts. It is stated that it is impossible to create a "journalism formula" that automatically ensures the objectivity of published information.
Keywords Keywords: mass media, journalism, objectivity of information, reliability of information, principles of journalism, journalism of facts.
Keywords: media, journalism, the objectivity of the information, reliability of information, principles of journalism, journalism of facts.
Introduction
If it is expected that the journalistic information published in the media will be used in the practical or theoretical activities of the audience, then obviously the necessary efforts should be made to ensure that it is perceived by this audience as having an objective character. Under the objectivity of information in modern theory and the practice of journalism, its coincidence with the content of the display object is understood [Nikiforov: 2008, 27]. The fuller and deeper such information reflects the phenomenon of interest to us, the more objective it is. Moreover, first of all, the journalist needs to identify the essential features of the subject of display, since it is their knowledge that gives the most adequate idea of the essence
phenomena. But this does not mean that only the study of such features should be limited to the study of the object. Of course, the truth “extracted” by a journalist will always only partially (to a greater or lesser extent) represent objective knowledge [Komarov: 1986, 5]. Its absolute objectivity is unattainable, it is impossible to know the truth in full, it is only possible to approach it endlessly. The resulting knowledge will always be more or less incomplete. But this does not mean that incomplete knowledge is useless. It is quite possible that in the volume in which it is obtained, knowledge may be quite sufficient for solving some theoretical or practical problems.
Main part
The authors of journalistic publications do not always remember that even the most complete and accurate knowledge (not to mention the author's simple conviction of the correctness of his point of view) contained in them will not yet be automatically perceived by the audience as such. As a rule, a journalist needs not only to verify the accuracy of the information received, but also to convince his audience of this. Only when he achieves such a goal can we say that the audience will agree with his statements that the published text will be perceived by it to one degree or another as carrying objective knowledge that can be applied in their practical or theoretical activities.
The desire for the objectivity of publications, in the course of the development of journalism, led some of its representatives (from theory and practice) to the conviction that such objectivity can only be ensured at the level of “journalism of facts” or “precision journalism”, which is based on the theory of objective journalism William Rivers and the experience gained in this direction by the former war correspondent F. Meyer. According to supporters of this theory, presenting the audience with facts only, among other things, helps to put a serious barrier to the manipulation of the audience by the media.
This direction of journalism, which originated in the USA, was intended to replace the former “traditional journalism”, and opposed to “precision journalism”, the so-called “new journalism” [Karasik: 2015, 184], based on the use of techniques in creating journalistic texts fiction, artistic invention. Although such a replacement has not yet fully taken place (all three directions still exist in some proportion today).
In "journalism of facts" the accuracy of the reflection of reality can be achieved in different ways. Most often, on the pages of the media, the audience meets with two, one might say, “initial” options. The first is the facts that are the result of direct observation by the author of the phenomenon of interest to him. In this case, it is necessary for the journalist to have direct contact with the subject of observation, that is, the author must leave the office and make a “field search”, visit the scene of the event (preferably at the time of its completion). Such a search, for example, is typical for reporter work. The accuracy of the display in this case is "guaranteed" for the cognizing subject by the very nature of sensory cognition, which gives grounds for their further logical comprehension. The direct, personal display of the subject being studied, the visibility of this display and the resulting so-called “presence effect” are significant not only for the journalist, they become an important basis for the credibility of the publication on the part of the audience, which perceives the information contained in it as "obviousness". For example, Natalya Gladkaya's report "Eyes without a master" is designed for such an effect. How mutilated dogs and cats are cared for. Here is an excerpt from it:
“Cages here and there. Upstairs with cats, downstairs with dogs. Clean and poor: tray, bench, bowl. Animal eyes peer out from behind the bars. It turns out that the eyes of animals that live for months in a shelter-hospital are completely different - not the same as those of domestic animals. The latter have both nasty and vicious ones, but here ... emptiness. These are the eyes in which there is no owner. There are pets that are being treated here. And there are "no one's", more precisely - volunteers: beaten, mutilated cats and dogs, which were picked up on the street, and whose treatment is now paid for by caring people. Here is Murzik, he is lucky, homely. This is a brutal cat, to which the owner comes every day, strokes him, feeds him. Murzik despises women. [Smooth: 2016, 5].
The second option is the facts obtained as a result of the processing of statistical data. Here is an example of this kind, which is a diagram of the life expectancy of the population in Russia from 1963 to 2013: 74
1963 1967 1971 1975 1979 19wE 19B7 1991 1995 1999 2Sh 2007 2011 2015 1961 196E 1969 1973 1977 1931 193B 1939 199E 1997 202 202
Rice. 1. Diagram of life expectancy in Russia from 1963 to 2013
Fig. 1. Diagram of life expectancy in Russia from 1963 to 2013
The significance of such facts is seen in the fact that they are not a description of some individual cases, but a generalization of their representative totality.
In “opinion journalism”, a journalist creates a text based on a variety of information, overwhelmingly obtained from other people. For the main thing for him is not just to fix, describe the fact, or, for example, simply state their totality, but relying on them (to the required extent), determine certain trends in the development of the phenomenon under discussion, make assessments of it, establish the causes, etc. (that is, , to carry out, mainly, a logical reflection of reality). At the same time, he usually receives the data necessary for him not in the course of direct observation, but indirectly, referring to different sources. In this case, he has to largely not only use the data of his sensory knowledge or his own logical conclusions, but also rely on the qualifications of the source (witness, expert, etc.), his social responsibility, his desire and readiness to provide the journalist with the necessary accurate and complete data. But even this does not guarantee the reliability of the information received, especially if the information is received by the journalist "from third hands", or "from fourth hands". In the course of its transmission from an eyewitness of an event to a journalist, it may be (for various reasons) distorted. Because of this, the journalist must check the information received from various sources. Unfortunately, the author of a future publication is not always able to carry out such a check that can prevent him from using data that does not correspond to reality. This happens, insofar as he often does not have the necessary means, time, and competencies. It is not always possible to access necessary documents, witnesses are not always ready to share the information they have, and “sometimes they change their testimony for some reason. His personal
Average life expectancy in Russia
Soviet authority
confidence in the veracity of the information is not enough. Therefore, a journalist must obtain documentary confirmation of certain statements if he is going to use, perhaps, a false accusation or a false interpretation of events in his text” [Richter: 2011, 163]. This applies, first of all, to information sources located in the global network.
In an effort to obtain accurate and truthful information, the authors of publications in the media can apply certain methods of verifying it. Here, for example, what they can be:
1. The easiest way to verify is to directly compare the statement with real events. But this is most often impossible (the event has already ended and is fixed). This happens a lot in the media...
2. The second way is to compare the statement with other statements belonging to other participants, observers or interpreters of the event, which we consider objective and (or) competent.
3. The third way is proof, which consists in providing additional data that testifies to the truth of the statement. Such, for example, is the verification of its truth in the archives.
4. The fourth way is to compare information from several independent and unrelated sources. This, for example, is the principle of intelligence work: information is considered a fact if it is identical in reports from different sources” [Prikhodko: 2015, 27].
As can already be concluded from our discussions above about achieving objectivity of information in “journalism of facts”, the first way to ensure such objectivity involves the presence of a journalist at the scene of the event and his direct observation. But, as you know, in many cases a journalist cannot be present at the event, therefore, in such a situation, the use of this method of ensuring the objectivity of information is excluded. In this regard, the use of the second method becomes relevant, namely, obtaining the necessary information from witnesses or participants in this event, from other people who have significant information for us, confirming or refuting our assumptions about what happened. It goes without saying that there are events that are historically distant from us, when no witnesses or participants in it have survived. In such cases, a third method can help to restore the picture of what happened, namely, the study of archival materials. As for the fourth method, its use is especially important when it comes to a journalist investigating situations associated with dire consequences for certain people (such a method, described in the essay "The Multan Sacrifice", for example, was used by the great Russian publicist
V. G. Korolenko during the investigation of a case related to an allegedly ritual murder, for which a group of Udmurt peasants was accused). Of course, this method is also important in the preparation of critical speeches, and a number of other publications, usually referred to as “opinion journalism”.
Achievement of objectivity of information about the world can also be hindered by some other problems. One of the most important, it is believed, is that the objectivity of the information that journalists have does not guarantee the objectivity of publications and the formation of an objective picture of the world for the audience. And this happens allegedly due to the fact that journalists, wittingly or unwittingly, can present it to the audience in a distorted form, only because they seek to express their own opinion about the published facts in the texts.
Because of this, just as we mentioned above, “precision journalism” (“journalism of facts”) was born. Confidence that, by publishing only the facts, without imposing our opinions on the audience, we will leave the audience the opportunity to draw their own correct conclusions
about reality. As a result, the manipulative influence of the media on the audience will supposedly be put an end to. If you do not go into the essence of the issue, it seems that the emergence of such journalism will indeed fully ensure its objectivity. But is it really so? Far from it. The fact is that it is possible to manipulate the audience not only by expressing the opinions of authors, experts, etc. It is quite possible to achieve this by publishing facts alone. How can this be explained? The fact is that the mass media, for example, often publish facts that do not correspond to reality [Tretyakov: 2004].
Here, an example that has already become a classic, is a sensational series of fake publications about the “exploits” of American troops in Iraq and others, which were written by The New Republic (USA) reporter Stephen Glass. At first, when creating a documentary journalistic text, he came up with only some interesting details, and then he began to completely invent his articles. Oddly enough, but for his “successes” the journalist was even awarded a high journalistic award, which he was deprived of only after he was exposed. This case became possible primarily because the journalist proceeded in his work from the fact that journalism is a business, and in order to profitably sell such a product as a journalistic text, it, like any other product, must be packaged in a bright wrapper of fiction. . Such a “commercial” approach has become a trend not only in modern American journalism, journalism in other countries, but also in Russian media (especially on TV), which are engaged in creating a new, attractive to the audience, “reality”, for the sake of selling an information product or fulfilling the will of the owner . In the preparation of false publications, not only individual authors, but also entire publications and channels have been noticed. Thus, “U.S. President Donald Trump called several American television channels and The New York Times newspaper “enemies of the people”, accusing them of spreading false information. “The fake news media (NYTimes, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN) are not my enemies, they are the enemies of the American people,” he wrote on his Twitter page [Prikhodko: 2015]. Similar cases occur in our country. One of them, called "The lie of RIA Novosti," is reported on the RVS website:
“In an article dated January 27, 2017, and through the MIA Russia photobank, today RIA Novosti disseminates deliberately false statistics, while referring to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. One of the false data is the statement: "12,000 women die as a result of domestic violence every year: one woman every 40 minutes." According to the State Statistics Committee, in Russia, in total, 11 thousand women died, for example, in 2008 - 11 thousand women, in 2010 - 8.7 thousand, in 2013 - 9.1 thousand, in 2015 - 9, 8 thousand women. After all, it cannot be that more women die “as a result of domestic violence” than die at the hands of all criminals. And this is just one of the absurd figures in the RIA article.
Of course, there are quite a few cases like the one described.
In addition, one must understand that in journalism, a fact is often understood as something that in fact is a “factoid” [Beloyedova: 2015, 89], that is, information presented in the form of a fact, but not as such. And this is not only a fiction, a lie. Very often, for example, judgments are taken as facts, which are actually assumptions. The journalist writes: “In the near future, the weather in the region, somewhere, in early December, should change; I think that ice will be established on the reservoirs. Based on this fact, amateur fishermen need to prepare for underwater fishing right now.” It is hardly possible to agree with the author of this note. Since what he calls a fact is just an assumption and it is hardly worth it for readers to proceed from it in their actions.
It is also a mistake to define a message as a fact, which is a combination of a fact with “camouflaged” value judgments. Here is an example. The journalist writes: “Today our young people from Kursk returned from Artek. The children had a great time. Great weather, interesting tutorials
seminars, quizzes, excursions. The kids loved all of this. Now they have something to remember in the winter.” Is this a fact or not? Seems Yes. But in fact, in this text, only one sentence answers the questions that should be answered by a statement of fact (“what happened?”, “Where did it happen?”, “When did it happen?”): “Today our young chickens." Everything else is value judgments (they answer questions that reveal the quality of rest: “what?”, “what?”, “how?”)
Another circumstance that must be taken into account is that journalists cannot present all the facts of reality to the media, and the audience cannot get acquainted with all the facts, and even more so - comprehend them. Because of this, journalists carry out their selection, as a result of which some are taken into account, displayed in the media, while others are not accepted, remain unknown to the audience. As a result, the reader, TV viewer, radio listener, Internet user is supplied with information already evaluated by someone, selected information. And it is by these individual, selected facts that the audience has to judge the reality (of a situation) as a whole. If the authors (owners of publications) set themselves the task of somehow influencing the audience, then they can quite dispense with their publications without any expression of opinion, using only facts (but already pre-selected). In other words, the possibility of manipulating the audience does not disappear anywhere, it only acquires new form becomes more invisible to her. And if in the editorial office, for example, there is an attitude to publish only facts and reject any opinions, then this means one more thing: ordinary journalists lose the opportunity to express their attitude to what is happening, and the editors, on the contrary, get a greater opportunity to manipulate the opinion of the audience. Why? Yes, because they play the important role of “gatekeepers” [Beloyedova: 2015], practically censors, since some messages are released to the public, while others “slow down”, because in the editorial offices it is behind them” the last word in dealing with such issues.
Another possibility for a journalist or other communicator to express his opinion lies in the fact that you can not only select events, but also that you can reduce information about an event to one side of it. The fact is that each phenomenon has both positive, from the point of view of a person, properties, and negative ones that exist in a certain proportion. If you display some of them in your text, and do not report anything about others, then this will lead to a one-sided idea of the significance of such a phenomenon in the life of the audience. Unfortunately, such a display of facts in modern journalism is quite widespread. Of course, it cannot be ruled out that a text that reflects an event one-sidedly may appear, as they say, “not due to malicious intent” of a journalist, but due to his incompetence in the area to which the event he depicts belongs.
As for the moral side of the deliberate manipulation of the minds of the audience, for example, by selecting certain facts for publication, as well as one-sided display of events, in this regard, there is an opinion according to which the policy (including information) followed by certain Media and morality are incompatible things [Beloyedova: 2015]. Indeed, quite often moral values are sacrificed to politics. And yet, journalists should, as far as possible, strive for the objectivity of the information offered to the audience. In this regard, it is appropriate to quote the words of the Secretary General of the International Federation of Journalists Aidan White, who in his article “Ethical Challenges for a Changing Media Landscape” writes: “Is it normal that as the horizons of freedom of expression expand, the quality of information decreases. Not properly. But this will continue until we make a conscious effort to protect and nurture the values that define social welfare. And these values grow out of responsible, ethical journalism. She appeals to everyone working in the media: support and strengthen our commitment to the values
proclamation of truth, independence, professionalism” [Prikhodko: 2015]. We believe that this call should be a guideline in the activities of a modern journalist, regardless of his political and other preferences, and the impossibility of achieving absolute objectivity in depicting reality.
Conclusion
Journalistic texts of the media, of course, should reflect reality as fully as possible, as objectively as possible. The desire to achieve such a state of journalism encourages scholars and practitioners to reflect on the paths leading to this. One of the solutions was the creation in the United States of the so-called “precision journalism or journalism of facts”, which denies “journalism of opinions”, and is built on the conviction that it is possible to ensure the objectivity of the reflection of reality in journalism and avoid manipulative influence on the audience only by publishing "naked" facts and avoiding any interpretation of them. The fashion for such journalism came to Russia along with the market economy. However, our analysis, as well as the real state of Russian and foreign journalism, shows a high degree of illusoryness associated with "precision journalism" hopes. The media can distort reality and impose their opinion on the audience not only by publishing opinions, but also by resorting only to facts.
It can be argued that there is no point in looking for an automatically working formula of "objective journalism". It has always been and will be, as long as it exists, a subjective alloy of facts, estimates, assumptions, etc. appearing in the media in a variety of ways. The degree of its objectivity will depend to a decisive extent on journalists, editors, media owners, their interests, social position, competence and morality.
References References
1. Beloedova A.V. 2015. About facts and factoids in modern journalistic texts. Scientific statements of Belgorodsky state university. Series: Humanitarian sciences, 24 (221): 89-94.
Beloedova A.V. 2015. O faktah i faktoidah v sovremennyh zhurnalistskih tekstah. Nauchnye vedomosti Belgorodskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Humanitarian sciences, 24 (221): 89-94.
2. Wolf T. 2008. New Journalism and Anthology of New Journalism. M. Amphora, 2008.
Vulf T. 2008. Novaya zhurnalistika i Antologiya novoj zhurnalistiki. M. Amfora, 2008. 576.
3. Gladkaya N. 2016. “Eyes without a host.” How mutilated dogs and cats are cared for. .“Arguments and Facts” dated 11/21/2016.
Gladkaya N. 2016. "Glaza, v kotoryh net hozyaina". Kak vyhazhivayut izuvechennyh sobak i koshek ["Eyes in which there is no master." How to take care of mutilated dogs and cats]. «Argumenty i facty» ot 11/21/2016.
4. Karasik V.I. 2015. Language spiral: values, signs, motives. Volgograd: Paradigm. 2015.431.
Karasik V.I. 2015. YAzykovaya spiral": cennosti, znaki, motivy. Volgograd: Paradigma. 2015. 431.
5. Komarov V.G. 1986. Fact, truth and truth in journalism. Journalist, press, audience, Z. L. S. 88-89.
Komarov V.G. 1986. Fakt, istina i pravda v publicistike. Zhurnalist, pressa, auditoriya, 3. L. S. 88-89.
6. Nikiforov A.L. 2008. The concept of truth in the theory of knowledge. The concept of truth in socio-humanitarian knowledge. M. 212.
Nikiforov A.L. 2008. Ponyatie istiny v teorii poznaniya. Ponyatie istiny v sociogumanitarnom poznanii. M. 212.
7. Prikhodko A.I. 2015. Specific Features of Argumentation in Media. Scientific statements of the Belgorod State University. Series: Humanities, 18 (215): 24-30.
Prihod "ko A.I. 2015. Specificheskie cherty argumentacii v media. Nauchnye vedomosti Belgorodskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Humanitarnye nauki, 18 (215): 24-30.
8. Richter A. G. 2011. International standards and foreign practice of journalism regulation. M. 360.
Rihter A. G. 2011. Mezhdunarodnye standarty i zarubezhnaya praktika regulirovaniya zhurnalistiki. M. 360.
9. Tretyakov V. 2004. The false truth of journalism. Literary Gazette, 3-4.
Tret "yakov V. 2004. Lzhivaya pravda zhurnalistiki. Literaturnaya
10. White A. 2011. Ethical challenges for the changing media landscape. Journalist. Social Communications, 3:5-9.
Uajt A. 2011. EHticheskie vyzovy dlya menyayushchegosya landshafta SMI . Zhurnalist. Social "nye kommunikacii, 3: 5-9.
11. Brendel D., Grobe B. E. 1976. Yournalistisches Grundwissen. Munich - Dortmund. 257.
12. Damer T. Edward. 2008. Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-free Arguments. Cengage Learning. 209 .
13. Riwers W. 1984. News in Print/ Writing and Reporting. 320.