Forum

Well, I won't get into a pointless argument, but I will respond to the main expert on everything™.

That's precisely the main flaw of democracy: you think about your own interests, but at the same time, you want to make decisions for the collective, whose interests may differ from yours.

What I wrote about – honesty – can only conflict with the interests of those in power, but not with the interests of the collective, i.e., ordinary citizens – and they are the majority.

Therefore, within the framework of the state, democracy in its original idea is completely inapplicable – 99% of the population does not realize the needs and capabilities of the state, and is also busy solving their petty problems.

I didn't write a word about democracy, where did you get that idea? Let it be totalitarianism, but have the courage to appear on television and say, "Comrades, we don't have a democracy here, there will be no more elections, we will adopt a new constitution ourselves, and we are not interested in your opinion." In this case, I will find it difficult to object to anything, because everything will be honest and open.

The task of the media in all states at all times has been and will be not to inform, but to engage in PR and propaganda – to form a point of view in the masses that is beneficial to the leadership.

As a qualified journalist, I must tell you that this has not been the case at all times and everywhere. You don't have to go too far for examples; you can look at television during the late perestroika period. That is, again, I understand that for a more or less far-sighted leadership of the country, this is unacceptable, but I have a professional bias, and I look at the problem from the perspective of the professional community.

In my understanding, opposition is good and necessary, especially if it is constructive. On this topic, Snoopy and Peterius are an example of constructive opposition; you can and should talk to them, while Ikhtiandr and Roger are an example of unconstructive opposition; they should either be ignored or ridiculed.

But in our country, no opposition is accepted. Its constructiveness does not matter. In Yekaterinburg, there was a figure named Leonid Volkov, who fought desperately by legal means, but even when one court satisfied his claim regarding his admission to the elections, and he was admitted, other circumstances immediately arose, and a higher court still did not allow him. 2011 or 2012.

And foreign sponsors should be dealt with harshly, regardless of what they say. Their interests are a priori at odds with the interests of the state, so in the event of any wrongdoing, the conversation will be short – pack your bags, go to the station, Washington.

Again, I'm approaching this from the point of view of a journalist who would like to remain honest. It doesn't matter whether they are Western sponsors or not – it's absolutely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that they don't interfere with doing my job honestly and efficiently. Well, the situation is such that without Western sponsors, this is almost impossible, as I wrote above. That is, I put myself in the place of some journalist from Novaya Gazeta (for example) and understand that I would write about abuses of power even without huge fees, as long as they don't interfere. Moreover, the motivation is purely patriotic: corrupt officials and thieves must be removed from positions of power; the country will be better off. Of course, you will say that others will come who will steal even more... Well, those too must be removed. And so on. Until honest people come.

And a few more personal observations. I work as a press analyst, and I read a lot of information in the media. There are quite a few negative reports about representatives of the authorities. But if it's a minor official, then he will even be punished in some way, a fine will be issued, but if it's someone more important, then some insignificant fine and a suspended sentence, and the abuses are considerable; the higher the official, the more.

The most revealing case for me was in November. One Mikhail Bunakov, an assistant to the deputy minister of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, a major, appeared in a video where he was using cocaine and having sex with men. In my opinion, both are not fatal and in any case better than stealing. But I'm not the authorities, and the authorities should be guided by the law, but there are no investigations. And there is a possibility that there were underage boys there (it is reported that these are cadets of the St. Petersburg Fire Institute, where Bunakov held some position), and it is not a fact that everything was voluntary. And no one has legalized drugs. Not to mention the fact that for law enforcement officers, homosexuality is a complete disgrace, but still, the major is "one of ours," so no... The system doesn't betray its own.

I understand that you will say that this is logical, and I will even agree, yes, it is logical, connections in Russia matter. It is logical, but it is wrong. I just want things to be right; that is my main complaint about the authorities.