Dugin’s Guideline – Russia’s information policy


Lately I rarely visit the political debate on the Federal channels, and that’s what I noticed. First, a little political talk show is becoming more and more and they last for hours. Maybe it’s a new trend may be the technological device before 2018. But it is striking. Previously dominated by pure entertainment. Now screaming at each other, most often elderly persons have filled in all the Federal ethers and compete with each other who barks louder.

Secondly, everywhere dominated by the Patriotic position – most likely on the order – the heads of Federal channels. Why under the order? Because it’s the same figure that was actively encouraged, and the opposite system of values – liberalism and Westernism, scoffing at patriotism during all of the 90s and a significant part of the 2000’s. So told them to do, and now the patriots win everywhere. A very good result.
Thirdly, well, talking about politics and arguing, but how is this done – here, everything is horrible. It is clear that the organizers of these shows, the agenda is not clear, do not close and interesting. Therefore, no truth screams of the patriots, the liberals, and the return of the howling liberals on the patriots not born. But all the channels still invite the clown Bohm, some insane square, which from time to time get it in the neck and completely anachronistic liberal crazy, stuck on a wave of “echo of Moscow” a decade ago.

I am under the impression that the leadership of the Russian media is something unnecessarily behind the times. It has absolutely not comprehended the factor of Trump. There is no analysis of the consequences of Brexit for the European policy and the sharp rise of Euro-skeptics, from yesterday’s marginals to a serious force. There is also no clear project regarding the political ideology of Russia itself – no endless cries on the Federal channels will not hide the huge gaping holes – in Russia there is no ideology, no strategy for the future. Everything is decided ad hoc, and no step in this direction, as there was no and no.

The impression is that the consciousness of the captains of the Russian Federal mass media is frozen. They came to a decisive – and correct – line, and treading water next to her spellbound. And it’s not in the experts and in the model. Doing tightly in recent years our TV channel “Tsargrad”, I practice are convinced that the most important thing in the initial installation of the program. If it is oriented to meaning, search for it or communicating (there are cases when the meaning is clear – at least to those who the TV does) is one thing.But if the program has a different purpose – testing order, the creation of a tool for the enforcement of any orders coming from the top, or just for fun and release steam is another matter. Try to understand, what are these political shows on the Federal programs. About the meaning, truth, depth of argumentation, the slimness of scenario thinking in the least, and, frankly, even in the last turn and not thinking. Maybe once, maybe nothing.

Here is an example. If in the Studio, two groups of opponents (probably to make it more noise and harder to hear what they are saying), then their number is almost always the same. six patriots and six liberals. Its not enough or in the black list, then write Bohm, beam and poles. But still should have six liberals. And that’s all. I understand why they need to piss off the patriots and not give them anything to say. Wall to wall one block to the other, and nothing is clear. A great result, you can rest, and the next day all over again: six to six. And again, BOM…

But neither in Russia, nor in Russian politics, nor even in the modern USA there is no such ratio of 50 % liberals and 50% of patriots. We have liberals in politics, in Parliament, not at all. On the screens there should be six, including spies. The proportion and the format of the Creek at the Creek, a tooth for a tooth was maybe relevant a decade ago. But today it’s just failure. Necessary and other combination, and other relations, and other forms of opposition.

For example: a dispute between the red and white nationalists and supporters of Empire, capitalism or socialism, traditionalism in the broadest sense or national-progressivism. It is necessary to define the contours of a post-liberal future, and the subject accordingly needs to be different. And further: why must be a dispute, cry, debate? Our audience are not clinical idiots involved only in petty squabbles, fighting, vulgarity or embarrassment. There’s such a crowd there, but she prefers other programs, and in abundance. Politics is very serious, meaningful, important, deep. From it because all depends. In short, political debates on our TV need serious conceptual upgrade.

All the best, have you watched the program “Directive Dugin” on political talk shows on the Russian channels.

The journalism profession is flexible. It requires a living sense of time. On Federal channels this feeling is clearly some problem.


See the archive transmission – http://tsargrad.tv

Stauffenberg was Right!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s