The article by journalist Viktor Shenderovich, in which he compared the Olympics in Sochi with 1936 Berlin Olympics, made a great impression even on the American Forbes magazine. Forbes columnist noted that the opus of the "leading Russian opposition" provided a more than ever clear explanation of why the liberal opposition in Russia was still in the backyard, unpopular, and irrelevant.
But this was a clear explanation for one journalist. In Russia Shenderovich's article had a certain resonance, but much smaller (at least for now) than the opinion poll conducted by "Dozhd" station about the possibility of surrendering Leningrad during the Great Patriotic War.
The reaction to the poll, apparently, was somewhat unexpected for the creators of the poll. The theory of "political pressure" did not emerge immediately after the disturbance caused by the poll became apparent. This is a sign of confusion. They admitted the mistake, apologized, and do not understand what else is expected of them.
Really, what is expected? The poll was not something completely new. The problem is that it has become commonplace. Some Russians do not see anything wrong here, and this is what is strongly promoted on the pages on social networks and blogs. They have a right to express their opinion
We can say with confidence that, for example, before Victory Day this year there will be ample posts on the topic "everyone is sick and tired of the parade," ambulances unable to get to dying old ladies because of the parade, and other, no less poignant messages that repeat year after year.
One could argue that blogs are one thing (people are all different and can write whatever they want), and TV is another thing. But it all started not in social networks, but in the printed media. Remember the statement that "if we surrendered to the Germans in 1941 we would be drinking Bavarian now"? It appeared on the pages of a popular Moscow newspaper, not in the blogs.
At the time there was no particular reaction. Of course, some expressed their indignation, but the idea of "Bavarian" became legendary.
At the same time it was clearly shown that one can talk about it without repercussions. Maybe someone will be berating such statements, maybe even using obscenities. But one cannot please everyone, and no one will drag anyone to court.
This is how Alexander Podrabinek and similar authors emerge with their statements about Bandera's heroic status, followed by numerous articles about rapes by Soviet soldiers, calls on Russia to divide into a dozen of states, and so on.
Any attempts to prevent such things are invariably presented as "political pressure," "harassment", "an attack on freedom of speech," etc.
Hypocrisy here is through the roof, for example, think back to the story with a journalist of "Komsomolskaya Pravda" Ulyana Skobeyda. Russian creative community is so skilled in terms of organization of harassment that any authority would pale in comparison.
Despite the "pressure" and "harassment," history repeats itself time and again, with varying degrees of resonance, of course. "Dozhd" was noticed more than Shenderovich.
Almost no one paid attention to the former assistant to the president, now patented opposition Andrei Illarionov. We are talking about his recent idea to bring a Wehrmacht veteran to the State Duma. He said that Leningrad siege veteran Daniel Granik visited Bundestag, why won't we hear what the Germans have to say about Soviet soldiers' behavior in Germany?
Obviously there will be people who, after reading it, will shrug their shoulders and say, "And so what?"
How do we explain that there is a huge gap between the front-line soldier who survived the siege and a soldier of Hitler's army?
Natalya Narochnitskaya, a historian and journalist believes that we are talking about the same people who repeatedly try to provoke the society.
"They are languishing with rage because they are not the ones running the show. They are enraged that the society in general, even the mood of protests in society, has a completely different direction. They are stewing in their own juice. Sooner or later it will transform into paranoia. I completely understood it, and it does not offend me in the least, "-said Natalia Narochnitskaya to a correspondent of Pravda.Ru.
"And then, if they are getting so crazy, it means that we are on the right path," she added.
In turn, Anton Korobkov - Zemlyanskiy, a blogger and journalist, noted spontaneity of the society's reaction. "Society is outraged instantly, begins to worry about it, - but just as quickly lets go and forgets it ever happened. Just a week later, no one remembers any details. "
He also believes that it is necessary "to develop a clear statutory limitation for journalists, some common rules, a code of some sort, or an amendment to the media law, or something similar."
"What we have are some one-time sanctions, measures. We punish some journalist. Or, like with "Dozhd" channel, ban their broadcast. This is bad because it does not give them an opportunity to correct the mistake, to make other journalists make conclusions that this is not how it should be done," said Anton Korobkov - Zemlyanskiy.
Secretary of the Union of Journalists Vladimir Kasyutin sees a problem in the fact that "today there is a large number of political strategists operating at different levels."
"They work in the media, "Vkontakte," somewhere in the government. Political scientists used to have a large enough business in the form of elections at different levels. They made pretty decent money, some of them are now in need to sell their services," he said.
"I understand that some people who are not very media literate, not very knowledgeable, fall for these things. Quite a lot of journalists very actively participate in some campaigns that they do not understand very clearly. They do not want to understand why they emerge. This is a little surprising, because after all a journalist should try to look at the root of why the events occur, who is behind them," said Vladimir Kasyutin to a correspondent of Pravda.Ru.