Talk show “Black Mirror” - the program starts at 21:00 (Kyiv) / 21:00 (Moscow). “Black Mirror” is a political talk show on the Inter TV channel, created by the editors of Podrobnosti. The host of the studio is Evgeniy Kiselev, who is helped by the stars of Ukrainian journalism to conduct the program: Olga Chervakova, Valery Kalnysh, Roman Bochkala and Petr Shuklinov. Guests of the studio are politicians, public figures and experts.
Talk show Black Mirror without Evgeny Kiselev Watch online
Broadcast at 21:00 (Kyiv) / 22:00 (Moscow) Watch online Live
Kiselev hosted the socio-political talk show “Big Politics” from September 2009 to the end of 2012. After the channel abandoned this program, Kiselev worked for some time as the head of the channel’s news production, but in October 2013 he left Inter and became a full-time adviser to Boris Krasnyansky, managing director of Dmitry Firtash’s company Group DF.
Since June 2008, he has been combining work for Ekho Moskvy and RTVi with the position of editor-in-chief and consultant of the Ukrainian TV channel TVi, one of the shareholders of which was Vladimir Gusinsky. From January to September 2009 - host of the weekly information and analytical program “At the Top” (TVi), similar to the Russian “Itogi”. In September 2009, a business conflict arose between the shareholders of the TVi channel, the cause of which was said to be Gusinsky’s sale of his own product to the TV channel at an inflated price. As a result, Gusinsky left the founders, and Kiselev decided to resign. On the air of the latest program “Upstairs,” Kiselyov announced the “suspension” of its broadcast, explaining that the shareholders of the TVi channel do not agree with his parallel work on the Inter TV channel (at that time, “Inter” had already aired one episode of the program “ Big politics").
From September 2009 to December 21, 2012 - host of the socio-political program “Big Politics with Evgeny Kiselyov” (“Inter”).
Since June 9, 2013, he has been the host of the Sunday program “Details of the Week with Evgeniy Kiselyov” (Inter) (previously the program called “Details of the Week” was hosted by Oleg Panyuta). The program has undergone significant changes. Much more attention was paid to the analysis of events in the world, Russian politics, and anniversaries of important events of the past. From September 1 to September 29, 2013, “Details of the Week” were published in a new format. The running time doubled and amounted to about an hour and a half, and the program, as its presenter had previously promised, became “more original.”
In March 2014, in an interview regarding the Crimean crisis, he sharply criticized Russia’s foreign policy towards Ukraine, stating the following: “... I don’t want to be involved in a country that commits aggression against Ukraine, I’m ashamed to be a Russian citizen...” .
Evgeny Kiselyov writes monthly columns for GQ magazine (Russia) and The Moscow Times newspaper. Author of numerous publications in the online publication Gazeta.Ru, in the Russian version of Forbes magazine and the weekly The New Times. He collects a collection of wines and writes a column in the magazine “Wine Mania”.
When will we see such programs in Russia again... Bring back Freedom of Speech to the country.
BLACK MIRROR
Evgeniy Alekseevich Kiselev is a Soviet, Russian and Ukrainian journalist and TV presenter. He was one of the founders of the NTV company, and also led several Russian television channels and other media. The journalist is known for his opposition views, which forced him to leave his homeland and settle in Ukraine. Kiselev is open to everything new and today is ready to expand his professional niche using new media resources.
Childhood and youth
Evgeniy was born in Moscow into the family of metallurgist and Stalin Prize winner Alexei Alexandrovich Kiselev. The boy did well at school with in-depth study of the English language. Zhenya was equally attracted to geography, history, foreign languages, literature, economics and politics.
FacebookAfter school, the young man entered the Faculty of History and Philology of the Institute of Asian and African Countries at Moscow State University, from which he graduated with honors.
Evgeniy traveled around Asian countries during his studies, when he completed an internship in Iran. And after graduating from high school, he was called up for military service and sent to Afghanistan as a translator in the Group of Soviet Military Advisors.
After the army, Evgeny Kiselev became a teacher of Persian at the KGB Higher School and taught lectures until 1984.
Already in his youth, Evgeniy became interested in journalism, and he plunged headlong into the world of television, which predetermined the further development of his biography.
A television
Evgeny Kiselev appeared on television in 1984. At first the journalist was not the presenter. The first responsibility was editing texts intended for broadcasting to the countries of the Near and Middle East.
The man got into the leading chair with the beginning of perestroika. At first, Evgeniy was the main character of the “90 Minutes” program, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union he became the announcer of the news programs “Vremya” and “Vesti”. In 1992, Evgeniy organized the information and analytical program “Itogi”, which brought him widespread fame.
Facebook When a change in leadership began at NTV, a number of employees left the channel in protest. Kiselev turned out to be one of them. First of all, Evgeniy moved to TNT and TV-6, in 2002 he became editor-in-chief of Channel Six (TVS).
Soon, Evgeny Kiselev was invited to the position of editor-in-chief of the Moscow News newspaper, where the journalist worked until 2005. Evgeniy devoted four years to the radio station “Echo of Moscow”, where he initially took up the position of presenter of the program “Debriefing”, and then the program “Power with Evgeniy Kiselyov” and the project “Our Everything”.
In 2008, the journalist moved to Kyiv to work as a consulting editor for the Ukrainian TV channel. A year later, Kiselev began hosting the socio-political show “Big Politics with Evgeny Kiselev” on the central channel “Inter”. Then the journalist replaced the presenter Oleg Panyuta in the Sunday program “Details of the Week.”
In addition to collaborating with Ukrainian television channels, Evgeniy Kiselev remains a columnist for Russian publications GQ, Forbes, The New Times and The Moscow Times, and continues to work on the Ekho Moskvy radio. The journalist also publishes in the online publication Gazeta.ru. Thanks to his passion for collecting expensive alcohol, Evgeny Kiselev acts as an expert in the magazine “Wine Mania”.
Facebook In 2016, the television journalist made an official request to the Ukrainian presidential administration for political asylum, since in Russia a case was opened against Kiselev under Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Evgeniy spoke out against accusations of calls for terrorism, for which he himself came under persecution.
At the beginning of 2017, Kiselev teamed up with producer Alexey Semenov and TV presenter to create a new media resource. The plan was realized only by the end of summer, when the information channel “Direct” was launched, where Evgeny Kiselev took the place of TV presenter. With his participation, the programs “Results of the Day”, “Results of the Week”, “Kiselev. Copyright" and MEM. The channel has become one of the mouthpieces of the current president's propaganda.
Personal life
The TV presenter does not comment on his personal life. In September 1973, Evgeny Kiselev married former classmate Marina Shakhova. The wife is also a journalist, known as the presenter under the pseudonym Masha Shakhova of the educational program “Summer Residents,” for which she received the prestigious “TEFI” award in 2002.
Global Sib Kiselev and Shakhova had a son, Alexey, in 1983. There are no other children in the family. The man did not follow in his parents' footsteps. He went to get higher education in London, from where he later transferred to the USA. Together with his first wife, he founded a fashion brand, then went into the restaurant business and producing. Evgeniy is already a grandfather; his son gave his father a grandson, George, and a daughter, Anna, from his third marriage to actress Maria Fomina. Family photos of the Kiselevs do not often appear in the media.
Evgeny Kiselev is a workaholic. The TV journalist rarely rests, but if this happens, he prefers walking or watching a match of his favorite sport - tennis. The man is also considered a gourmet and connoisseur of world cuisines.
Evgeny Kiselev now
In August 2019, Kiselev announced that he was ending his career on the Direct information channel. So far, the journalist has accepted an offer to collaborate with Radio NV, where he became the host of an analytical program. Now Evgeniy Alekseevich’s plans include working on his own literary work.
© RIA Novosti
Evgeniy Kiselev: There is not a single living soul left in my circle who would say “I’ll break for Putin”
In an exclusive interview, journalist and TV presenter of the political talk show “Black Mirror” on the Inter TV channel, Evgeniy Kiselev, spoke about why he needs Russian citizenship, who the “Russian Europeans” are, and where they could move to escape from Putin, about working with ex -shareholder of the TV channel Valery Khoroshkovsky, his reaction to criticism of the program, relationship with his son and acquaintance with the Prince of Monaco.
Evgeniy Kiselev asks to be called a Ukrainian journalist, but is not ready to give up his Russian passport. He willingly and in detail shares his vision of Ukrainian and Russian politics, explains that we should not wait for the collapse of the Russian Federation, and why Donbass and Crimea will not soon return to Ukraine. He tells us who in Russian journalism is grandfather Mazai and who are hares, what happened to Dmitry Kiselev’s stable in Ukraine, and why he does not consider the Russian propagandist to be his namesake.
— How do you assess the past local elections?
“I am quite calm and, if you like, philosophical about what happened in these elections and around them. Elections are like elections. Politics is also a struggle for power: people fight for mandates, portfolios, chairs. In fact, there is nothing shameful in this, this happens in all countries - candidates make promises and then do not fulfill them.
Based on the results, it is clear that the pro-presidential Solidarity party showed good results, but did not win a crushing victory. It doesn’t matter how I feel about the parties, but it is clear that administrative resources worked in favor of those in power. The opposition bloc did not show the results it expected. In the southeast, I think they expected more. I would give Tymoshenko credit. It seemed to me that it would not get such a high result, but “Batkivshchyna” is in second place. The result of Lyashko’s Radical Party was also a surprise for me - it is in the top five according to the Voters Committee. The demand for populism is far from exhausted.
In general, this campaign did not talk about local problems, but about basic issues of domestic and foreign policy. Some politicians admitted to me that they were preparing the basis for parliamentary elections. But now another election campaign is a deadly thing for Ukraine, it means several more months of raging populism and no reforms that would prevent politicians from being re-elected.
“But people often say that again, there was a choice without a choice.” This is evidenced by the turnout figures - 46.62% of voters came to the polling stations.
— Elections are like football championships: the people view the presidential elections as the World Cup, the parliamentary elections as the European Championship or the Champions League, but the local elections are treated like the Ukrainian Cup. This is fine.
A skeptical attitude towards power, as I have long understood, is a national character trait, it is in the genes. First of all, Ukrainians rely on themselves, on their hands, on their farm, on what is behind your fence and on your farm. And last of all, they rely on the gentlemen, from whom they do not expect anything good. All the historical wisdom of the people, perhaps, lies in this healthy skepticism. After all, no one has yet managed to establish either a vertical power structure or an authoritarian regime. Even Yanukovych was anything but a brutal autocrat. Cunning, greedy, narrow-minded, in the end he outwitted himself and became greedy. But, honestly, under him the opposition gained almost half of the mandates in the Verkhovna Rada, as under other presidents.
In this whole story, I am saddened that the system does not change - power still belongs to some clans. There were some, other clans came. There is a system of behind-the-scenes agreements, there are incomprehensible gray cardinals who get together and decide something, replacing transparent political procedures. When the understanding comes that institutions and procedures are most important, then the system will begin to break down. The patience of Western partners is already at the limit; they were waiting for reforms after the Orange Revolution - but they did not come. It’s the same now - when the cameras are turned off, serious conversations begin. Remember the photo of Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who lit a cigarette after his meeting with Obama.
— Last fall, the border guards did not allow you into Ukraine, confusing you with the Russian journalist Dmitry Kiselyov. But lately you have not been traveling to Russia; you openly support Ukraine’s position on Crimea and Donbass. Aren't you afraid of losing your Russian citizenship? Maybe you want to change it to Ukrainian?
— There was a pure misunderstanding with the border guards. I don’t think I was confused with Dmitry Kiselev. Five to ten minutes later it was already on the news feeds, and after another five to ten minutes Valentin Nalyvaichenko (at that time the head of the SBU - editor's note) called me with an apology. After that, he invited me to his place and gave me some unique coffee, brought from somewhere as a gift to him. He demonstrated his affection in every possible way in order to further convince me that this was not someone’s intrigue. I was flying from London then. But I don’t go to Russia for two reasons: I feel uncomfortable there and it’s unsafe. These are not suspicions, but very firm knowledge - the Russian special services can plant some kind of pig on me.
According to the Russian Constitution, no one can deprive me of citizenship; this happens only by personal application. Putin did not give me citizenship, and I am not going to ask him to take it away from me. Russia and Putin are two big differences. I prefer to say “Russian leadership”, “Putin’s regime”, “Kremlin”. It is wrong to put an equal sign, even if the Russians allegedly provide Putin with 90% support. Maybe all my Moscow friends and acquaintances belong to this 10%, but there is not a single living soul left who would say “I’ll break for Putin.” But the circle of these Westerners and intellectuals is small, especially in post-Soviet Russia, where the middle class has not yet risen from its knees.
After all, a Russian passport is a way to travel around the world. In this passport I have multiple-entry visas to America, Schengen, and Britain for many years to come. Politically, my soul is with Ukraine. I always insist that I am a Ukrainian journalist, I live here, this is the center of my vital interests. You will not find a single publication or public statement where I would say anything anti-Ukrainian. Even more, even during the Orange Revolution, I said that the success of democratic, European-oriented reforms in Ukraine would be a colossal argument for citizens of the Russian Federation, that, it turns out, it is possible to improve the life of the country without any vertical power structure, without limiting democratic rights and freedoms, without actual abolition freedom of the press, the introduction of censorship and the omnipotence of the intelligence services. Putin and the pillars of his regime understand this very well, and therefore they started this hybrid war in Ukraine. They felt that now there would be a second attempt and if it remained successful, then they would be screwed.
— What will happen to Crimea and Donbass in the near future? Are we expecting a conflict frozen for many years, like in Transnistria, Abkhazia, Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh? Or are you an optimist and, as a trained historian, believe that Ukraine will be able to defeat separatism in the Donbass, just as Croatia defeated Serbian separatism in the 90s?
— Unfortunately, I am a pessimist. I look at Transnistria - a tiny piece of land that has no common borders with Russia, sandwiched between Ukraine and Moldova, where there is now European influence. The Moldovans cannot transport troops across the Dniester and end this story, as they once did in Croatia with the Republika Srpska. But the example of Croatia is not very appropriate, because the Republika Srpska, besides Serbia, did not have any other allies at that moment - no one was ready to sign for it. And Russia is ready to sign for Transnistria. As for Crimea and the occupied third of Donbass, Russia is not just ready to sign. She talks about Crimea as if it had always been “ours”. Actually, now this is the signature style of Russian diplomacy - to behave like street hooligans and thugs, as Zhvanetsky said: “It’s easy to switch to “you”, take the button and say “it’s none of your business.”
I have heard more than once from ardent supporters of Ukraine that it would be necessary to abandon Donbass, but recognize that it is Ukrainian territory. After the war, German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer gave up on the Soviet occupation sector in Germany, and as a result, the GDR emerged there. On one side there was socialist squalor, on the other - the German economic miracle, which later absorbed the GDR. Yes, it took many decades, but it still happened.
Or look at South Korea - at some point they accepted as a bitter medical fact that the northern territory was under the control of frostbitten communists and the country began to live on its own! Look at Israel - at one time they lost half of Jerusalem. For the first decades, the country lived in a much more hostile environment of Arab states, and Jews could not even approach their main religious shrine - the Western Wall. At best, they could look at it from afar, from a tower in the western part of Jerusalem. And there was a queue for 20 years for the tower. And then Israel grew stronger and won.
— Why do you think the Donbass political and business elites did not react to separatism in the region? We all know the “owners” of these areas. They had all the powers, full influence.
— As far as I understand, a significant part of the Donetsk elite does not live in the occupied part of Donbass, but moved to Kyiv. Business remained only nominal - enterprises do not work or are controlled by someone unknown. The richest man in Ukraine has moved to Kyiv, this already says something. As for me, this is one of the lessons for everyone. Many people thought that the Donetsk tycoons really controlled everything there, but as soon as a dozen dashing people appeared, relying on the political, economic and military support of Russia - all sorts of Borodai, Pushilin, Strelkov, Zakharchenko, Givi, Motorola - and, it turns out, not so much these tycoons are influential. Compare with the events of almost a hundred years ago - Tereshchenko, Khanenko, Kharitonenko and other Ukrainian landowners, sugar producers... They also thought that they controlled everything, and then it turned out that all sorts of atamans began to rule Ukraine. So there is a limit to power.
I do not believe that Putin and his inner circle will soon abandon the temptation to have the territory of the “LPR/DPR” as some kind of planted needle that they stuck into the “body” of Ukraine. Putin will want to be able to tug at it, move it, and instantly cause acute pain and inflammation. It is possible that as a result of pressure from the West, for which it is important that a settlement takes place, the conditional Victoria Nuland will appear again. And with his presence in the Verkhovna Rada he will force deputies to vote for the next amendments and laws that will allow elections to be held in this part of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions as soon as possible. Recently, there have been calls in the West in this regard - to hold elections there as soon as possible. As a result, a legally elected government will appear, and we will have to deal with this power. On the other hand, we will understand that this government is controlled by Moscow. But it may not come to that - I can hardly imagine how Ukrainian politicians sitting in the Verkhovna Rada will be able to vote for laws that de facto legitimize the power of Zakharchenko-Plotnitsky.
— How to return Crimea? How can the youth of Crimea get along with the paternalistic part of the population, for whom Crimea is “originally Russian land”?
— I don’t understand the problems of Crimea deeply enough to give recipes. But the peninsula is not homogeneous. The resort areas along the Black Sea coast are one planet. Northern Crimea, where many Ukrainian villages and towns were and remain, is another planet. And there are also Crimean Tatar villages. There is a part of the population that imitates the regime because there is no other way out. We need to work with everyone, and Russia understands this too. It is clear that they are buying up sympathy - they are working in a targeted manner with pensioners and state employees. Colonization is also underway - the resettlement of Russians, including their appointment to government positions in Crimea.
Ukraine needs to think now what to do in order to return the peninsula. Crimea is not mentioned in the Minsk agreements - and this is a big mistake of Ukrainian diplomacy. Russia is working every day to consolidate the occupation. Decades will pass - a new generation will be born and will associate itself with Russia. The Kerch Bridge will be built, despite the fact that it is technically difficult and expensive. Putin will not spare money for this: if it turns out that 30 billion are needed, he will spend 30; if it turns out that the bridge costs 50 billion, he will spend 50; for him this is a matter of principle. And when Crimea has a land connection with Russia, this will also not be in favor of Ukraine.
I have more than once heard from smart, respected people blatant statements: you, they say, read what smart people write about the Russian economy - it is in a severe crisis, inflation, prices are rising, production is falling, consumption is declining, investments are leaving, and so on. They say you understand that Putin’s regime will collapse today or tomorrow, and Crimea will return to us? These statements are due to ignorance of the current state of affairs; they disorient public opinion. In fact, Russia’s safety margin will last for about four years, unless, of course, oil prices fall even further. All the self-respecting Russian economists I interviewed agree on this. Russia still sells a lot of oil and gas for export, which allows it to stay afloat.
— And from the West it sounds: wait, be patient until Russia falls apart...
— I don’t think that America, NATO or the EU would like the collapse of Russia. The collapse of a nuclear power is a thing that threatens world security. Any responsible leader understands this. What if, during global instability, some field commander gets his hands on nuclear weapons? The decision to clamp down on the regime has been made. Including economically. Strategically, the leaders of the West have long understood that they can’t cook porridge with this Russian leadership. Their ultimate dream is for other political forces to come to power that are ready for a reasonable dialogue with the West, forces that will abandon crazy plans that will save Russia from this new imperial paranoia.
Sometimes it seems to me that Russian leaders themselves have begun to believe in their own anti-Western propaganda; this is a syndrome of self-hypnosis. Almost all senior Russian leaders are former intelligence officers. These are people who were socialized in the special services - growing up, understanding how the world works - this was in the 70s, when few people believed in Marxism-Leninism and it was replaced by newfangled conspiracy theories of a global conspiracy.
I remember once speaking at a lecture at one of the best universities in Russia - in St. Petersburg, Yakunin said in all seriousness that once a year in New York, in the Empire State Building, all the richest people in the world gather to choose a world government and decide how we will continue to live. However, he left power with a scandal, apparently, he was a completely odious person even for Putin’s circle. Or take Putin, who insists that there is no difference between Russians and Ukrainians. After all, someone inspired him that Ukraine is a myth, there is no such country, such a people, such a language, history, mentality, but there is a single Orthodox Russian people and the peoples of Little and White Russia.
- Russia is a multinational country. Does separatism threaten the Caucasus, Tatarstan, Buryatia and other republics and autonomies?
— The differences between the regions are not so serious - there are different levels of economic development, there are a small number of rich donor regions and a huge number of subsidized ones. There are, of course, colossal geographical distances. People living in the Far East almost staged armed uprisings whenever the central government of Russia tried to ban them from driving right-hand drive cars. All attempts to ban it have failed. The situation in neighboring Japan and China is sometimes more important to them than in distant central Russia, despite the fact that capital investments and subsidies come from there, from Moscow.
You see, in Russia there really are “spiritual bonds” - there is a common history, the Russian language, which is spoken in the North Caucasus, Tatarstan, Buryatia, Bashkiria and even in the north of the European part of the country, where people who speak Finno-Ugric languages live.
In addition, there is the dominant Orthodox faith. Yes, in the Caucasus and the Volga region they profess Islam, but Muslims live compactly. A country as diverse as Russia needs a new system of relations between regions, perhaps built in the image and likeness of the United States, which is a federation on paper, but in reality is a typical confederation. Yeltsin once said, take as much sovereignty as you can swallow. Giving everything to the regions, leaving only the functions of foreign policy, finance, defense, counterintelligence to the center, as in the United States - this is correct. Each state has gigantic budgets, some even spend as much on infrastructure as other EU countries. But for this, the regime in Russia needs to change; when this will happen, I don’t know. But it is clear that this will not happen tomorrow.
In fact, there are two Russias: Russians who are for Putin, and Russian Europeans who profess liberal values. And there are millions of them, despite Putin’s 90% support. By some miracle they have survived in Russia and live in the traditions of European humanism of the Renaissance. Alas, they are in the minority. Look how many Russians have left for Europe and America today. Of course, not all of them emigrated for political reasons; many feel with a sixth sense that it is better to live in another country, but there is no future for their children and grandchildren in this one.
I sometimes think that we - Russian Europeans - live like Jews in the Russian Empire. Maybe we need to start a movement to create our own state, like they did in their time? Theodor Herzl's book The Jewish State was published in 1896, and the State of Israel was proclaimed in May 1948. Maybe we, Russian Europeans, shouldn’t wait 50 years, but should start calling now to move, for example, to the Kaliningrad region? We’ll form a majority there, win the local elections, and then we’ll see what to do next.
— Russian television has now changed course from “Novorossiya” to “NovoSyria”, but there is no such hysteria towards Syria as there was towards Ukraine a year ago. Why do you think? Did they ask for less bile from above or did they understand that nothing good would come of either this or that story?
— It’s difficult for me to comment on Russian television - I haven’t lived in Russia for a long time, and I haven’t even visited, and I don’t watch the news. What is there to see, exactly? What manipulations will be used again? To do this, it is much easier to read the column of professional television critics - Igor Yakovenko, Arina Borodina. I will spend 20-30 minutes and all the trends will be clear to me. There is a wonderful program on “Echo of Moscow” - “The Man from TV”, hosted by Ksenia Larina and Irina Petrovskaya. On Saturday, usually, after sleeping off my program, I listen to their program - and then I know everything that is happening on Russian television. But I don’t want to watch it and waste my precious time. I know how it’s done: what to broadcast comes on command. At some point, the vocabulary began to change - “LPR/DPR” was replaced with “Lugansk and Donetsk regions”, the words “junta” and “Novorossiya” disappeared, and people stopped talking about Poroshenko in derogatory terms.
There is no need to say that the journalists themselves thought and decided something there. There are almost no journalists left - these are officials who serve in the television department, for them Putin is generally an incredible figure, as are his entourage. These are the bosses of their bosses. The Kremlin regularly holds briefing meetings for media managers, where they receive basic instructions. I know that for sure. Previously, these meetings were held on Fridays and it was no coincidence - after all, the main final analytical programs are published on Sunday. Responsible for this is Alexey Alekseevich Gromov, the deputy head of the presidential administration, who oversees issues related to federal television channels, as well as the first deputy head of the Presidential Administration, Vyacheslav Volodin, who is responsible for internal political issues. These two people rule all the media.
This began back in Yeltsin’s times, under the most liberal head of the Presidential Administration, Anatoly Borisovich Chubais, who introduced the practice of such meetings. At first these were friendly tea parties. For example, I was on friendly terms with some in the Kremlin, and Yeltsin’s assistants at that time remained my good friends. But we went to these tea parties a couple of times, tensed up internally and realized that this was the first step to transfer the relations between the authorities and the media into manual control, a friendly exchange of opinions would not today or tomorrow turn into something tougher, invective and imperative. And we stopped going there. Anatoly Borisovich was offended, although there were some who continued to come to meetings. When the president became different, the authorities' attitude towards the media only became tougher.
I don’t want to say that there are no independent media left in Russia. This is a story about grandfather Mazai and hares. In the role of Grandfather Mazai are the chief editors of the five or six remaining more or less independent media outlets - the chief editor of Novaya Gazeta Dmitry Muratov, the chief editor of Ekho Moskvy Alexey Venediktov, the chief editor of New Times magazine Evgenia Albats, the chief editor of the Dozhd TV channel Mikhail Zygar. Here they act in the role of some such old Mazaevs, saving drowning hares - journalists who, for hygienic reasons, can no longer work in the Russian media. And this is no longer the media, they should be called SMPA - mass media of propaganda and agitation, but not information.
One caveat - at the same time, very high-quality entertainment television is preserved in Russia, where this poisoned propaganda is served as a sauce for a completely edible product. I can watch Channel One several times during the season - I’m sometimes interested in something non-political. For example, Malakhov’s talk show - they discuss some completely scandalous stories with a yellowish tint. It is clear that the TV presenter is professional, talented, and reactive. Yes, it’s yellowish and boulevard-y, but it’s fun to watch. And then the “Time” program, after which there are quite good non-propaganda films and TV series that sometimes expose Stalinism and show the horrors of Soviet history and camps. And again news glorifying their spiritual heirs in power, the neo-Stanilists.
This is an amazing vinaigrette, this is its strength: propaganda is served between two pieces of a completely edible television product. Although there is a completely logical explanation for this - the person was tired and came home after two jobs. The ruble has fallen in value by half, everyone works two or three jobs. Russia lives by the principle “if you want to live, know how to move around.” He doesn’t need anything anymore - he dropped his tongue out of fatigue, plopped down in front of the TV, watched something entertaining, and in the meantime received a targeted dose of information and propaganda poison.
— The radio station “Echo of Moscow,” on whose website you blog, is part of the Gazprom-Media holding, along with NTV and other propaganda channels. On what principles does Echo exist? Are they allowed to tell some truth?
— In the Soviet Union there was Literaturnaya Gazeta, a large, thick weekly publication, which was allowed to do a lot. The materials were designed for the confronting intelligentsia; it was a window, a valve for releasing steam. And a showcase of some pseudo-glasnost for Western visitors. Good journalists and professionals worked at Literaturka, some of them became opinion leaders during Perestroika. I remember that somewhere in the late 70s, only Literaturka was allowed to write an expose about the corruption of the then mayor of Sochi, who was later arrested. Likewise, “Echo of Moscow”: it exists because the authorities believe that it is not dangerous, but useful. Let there be at least one valve to release steam.
Nicholas I once told Pushkin that he would be his censor - if the sovereign ordered to print, then they printed. To some extent, Putin took on such a role in relation to Echo of Moscow. Last year, the head of Gazprom Media, Vladimir Lesin, tried to remove Venediktov, but then he resigned. According to one version, it was precisely because he took things out of rank and tried to get involved in matters that were beyond his authority.
I don’t envy Venediktov - he has to constantly balance. He is often scolded, sometimes for good reason. But he does an amazing thing - for 14 years he heads the journalistic editorial office, which managed to maintain the status of an independent media. Sometimes the pluralism is excessive, especially on the website. For example, I am annoyed by the appearance of Tsarev’s blog there. And there are characters on air who do not evoke any sympathy among the liberal-democratic part of the population. But this is the price for the fact that your humble servant and Andrei Illarionov, Sergei Aleksashenko, Vladimir Milov and many others who represent another Russia are present there.
— The political talk show “Black Mirror,” like all news programs for “Inter,” is produced by a separate production company — “National Information Systems” (NIS). He signed a non-interference agreement with the TV channel. But rumors appeared about a conflict between the managements of Firtash and Levochkin, which included the management of NIS. Have you managed to maintain the independence of the program?
— I am not ready to comment on the internal affairs of the Inter channel and the National Information Systems company. There are no comments and cannot be.
- Of course, you will stop me if I go too far. But two years ago you headed NIS for several months. After your departure, a month before the Maidan, they said that Firtash was put under pressure by his Russian business partners, who asked to remove you.
- Let's do it this way. Everything related to shareholders or relations between them is without comment. I suggest you don’t even waste time on this. Corporate ethics dictates that while I work on the channel, I cannot comment on anything.
- It's a pity of course. Apparently, not much time has passed... Your friend - Igor Shuvalov - Russian political strategist of Sergei Levochkin and one of the managers of NIS.
- Let's throw this into the “no comment” basket too.
- Okay, let's talk about ratings. There is a pattern - all political talk shows collect a very high percentage of electorally attractive pensioners - at least they make up half of the audience. But all TV channels strive to satisfy a younger audience, aged 18-54, which is what advertisers like so much. As a result, the production of political talk shows is not very profitable, but since there are no fewer of them every year, perhaps the owners have some other goals?
— We are all getting old, and political programs on television have always been interesting to older people. This audience is not decreasing - people are moving from one category to another. When a person is 20 years old, he has no time for politics, talk shows, final programs, he should run after girls. When he gets married, starts a family, his range of interests changes. Then he becomes quite an adult and full responsibility for the family falls on him; life itself makes him interested in everything. There are politicians who are popular among young people, but these young voters do not come to the polls, and older people are more disciplined - almost 100% turnout. Therefore, if you look at political programs as instruments of influence, of course, they are effective. The main voter is a pensioner, they go to vote in friendly rows. Therefore, the program that pensioners watch is more influential as a political and electoral tool than entertainment projects.
There is also a reputational consideration - there is such a tradition that on Friday large channels broadcast political talk shows, and on Sunday - summative programs. In the USA, for example, final programs on major TV channels are shown on weekend mornings, mainly at 11 am on Sunday, when they collect high ratings - this is their custom there. Format: round table with experts and journalists. On post-Soviet TV, in a sense, this tradition was laid by your humble servant at the end of 1991. It was decided that from January 1992 on Channel One on Sundays instead of the Vremya program, Itogi would be broadcast. Then the final programs began to multiply throughout the post-Soviet space - for you it was “Pislyamova”.
As a viewer, I would watch the final programs at the time they are shown in the United States. As a working person, sometimes on Friday I would like to just relax - go to a restaurant with friends, relax, switch off, and get a good night's sleep on Saturday. And on Sunday the mood is so thoughtful and you don’t want to go anywhere anymore. But try gathering politicians on Sunday! Sometimes on Friday it’s hard for us to collect them, especially if there is some kind of day off ahead, which is postponed to Monday - half of the political scientists, deputies have been licked by a cow since Wednesday evening - there is no one in Kyiv. They arrange a vacation for five days.
— You said that you read Russian television critics. And the Ukrainian ones? After all, they don’t spare you at all - they say that the program is biased, plays along with the Opposition bloc, there are too many Sergei Kaplin, Borislav Bereza, whom the press likes to call Lyovochkin’s projects - they are your frequent guests. How do you generally deal with criticism?
“I’ll say right away, the answer is “no.” I looked a couple of times at what materials Ukrainian TV critics were writing - the diagnosis was on the verge of professionalism and unprofessionalism, simply helpless. Then some girls from the site of the same name called me and asked some questions, from which it became clear that they did not understand how television works in principle. After that I lost all interest. A sense of tact and a sense of proportion is a great thing in journalism. If this feeling is absent, the journalist looks like a complete fool in his revealing speech. It’s always funny and sad to look at a person who doesn’t even understand this.
When I worked in Russia, there were several very professional, serious television critics who understood not only television, but also understood politics. Their professional weight - initial goodwill, sense of proportion - also earned them moral authority. They balanced the severity of their assessments with journalistic solidarity - they understood that they were writing about colleagues who may have their own problems, and they do something on the screen not because they want to, but because they are forced to. Here are Arina Borodina, Irina Petrovskaya - I understand and read them. Here, in Ukraine, I don’t even remember my last name. Well, maybe Mrs. Ligacheva (Natalia Ligacheva, editor-in-chief of the public organization “Telekritika.” — editor’s note)— it was thanks to her that the genre of irresponsible and unprofessional television criticism flourished here. Although I would not like to offend Mrs. Ligacheva, I can only sympathize with her, she is an absolutely exaggerated figure.
— How do you feel about your competitors? Are you looking? For example, everyone wanted to lure Savik Shuster. Andrei Kulikov, who once replaced Shuster at ICTV, apparently is not there. Why isn't anyone luring you away? Or are there still offers coming in?
— I do not comment on the work of my colleagues - this is the basic principle of old-fashioned journalistic solidarity, which does not exist either in Ukraine or in Russia. If I tell you that no one has ever lured me away, I will be telling a lie. If I say that I was lured away and made various tempting offers, many will think that I am overselling myself. It happened as it happened - I work on the Inter channel.
— But you always supported Shuster in his wars with television channels, with the Presidential Administration. Now he has his own satellite channel 3S TV - a journalist’s dream. Is it right to create your own news channel and broadcast your programs there for 10 years?
- It's his decision. At one time I was one of the creators, founders of the NTV channel - although I had a very small share there. This is fine. Perhaps, with the current development of technology, with the improvement of existing delivery systems, a satellite TV channel will turn out to be as effective a carrier of television content as traditional broadcasters. I can only wish him success. It is no secret to me that Shuster has many ill-wishers. Moreover, I know influential people who openly say that they do not like Shuster. But in order to please everyone, you need to engage in another profession.
By the way, Valery Ivanovich Khoroshkovsky at the beginning of 2012, at the suggestion of Vladimir Zelensky, was very keen on the idea of merging me and Shuster into one program. This was absolutely, in my opinion, a crazy idea. We even met with Savik and discussed it. “How will it be? - I don’t know. How do you imagine this? - I don’t know. - How can I share roles with you? It will be so artificial and unmotivated.”
Khoroshkovsky was initially enthusiastic about this idea, but I immediately said that it looked strange. Because I don’t understand why there are two presenters? If you don't like me, take Shuster. To which I received the answer: “No, no, we need you too!” I said that I talked to Schuster, but we never came up with what it should look like, and then the idea fizzled out. I think Valery Ivanovich’s political partners told him that he was wrong, and the more political talk shows there are on different channels, the better.
— When Valery Khoroshkovsky sold the Inter group at the end of January 2013, he gave an interview and explained why he removed your program from the air two months before the sale of the channel. He said that she had become boring and uninteresting. I knew that the channel would be sold, but still replaced it with Anna Bezulyk’s program. It turns out that for a journalist it is also important to please the owner?
— I very much doubt that Mr. Khoroshkovsky often and carefully watched the “Big Politics” program. It was an extremely interesting program, in my opinion, we had the opportunity to do not just a talk show, there were also journalistic materials, sometimes large reports, one-on-one interviews. I remember this time with pleasure. They even made one musical release, which was the last. I recently rewatched it and really enjoyed it. I think Valery Ivanovich was being disingenuous when he said that he was not interested.
He was playing some kind of game, and then he suddenly wanted to be perceived as an oppositionist. The reasons were purely personal. Remember - he was then unexpectedly appointed Minister of Finance. I know that he really sought this appointment and had the support of his business partners. Although there were people, including Alexander Yanukovych, who wanted Kolobov for this place (Yuriy Kolobov was the Minister of Finance of Ukraine from December 2012 to the end of February 2014. He fled from Ukraine and was put on the wanted list by Interpol. - Ed.). Then they managed to turn the situation in their favor and the president removed Khoroshkovsky, who had not spent even a month in this position. From a reputation point of view, this was, of course, a painful blow. He was made first deputy prime minister without any special powers.
As far as I know, in this position he tried to fight with Azarov, becoming his enemy No. 1, but he overestimated his capabilities. When Azarov had the opportunity to settle accounts with him, he did exactly that. At this moment, Inter had a kind of Supervisory Board headed by Victoria Syumar, who today heads the relevant committee in the Verkhovna Rada.
Khoroshkovsky made a very belated, clumsy and hasty attempt to pretend that he was an oppositionist and an opposition channel, but no one bought it. And then he sold the channel. Why he suddenly decided to sell is a question for him. It is possible that this was due to the fact that the political repainting project was unsuccessful. I don’t want to speak badly about Khoroshkovsky; he has the right, like any owner, to fire a person.
— Did he talk to you like he did when he lured you to Inter?
— I am grateful to him that he invited me to Inter to host the “Big Politics” program in September 2009. It was a personal conversation - one on one. And the decision to close was announced through the then head of the channel, Yaroslav Porokhnyak. I remember we met after the Christmas holidays in 2013. He even admitted that he was embarrassed to say this, he wasn’t the one who should have told me this, Valery Ivanovich supposedly asked me to tell... The funny thing in this story is that immediately when I returned to Kiev after the holidays, I found out that the channel was for sale, and that the new owners want me to continue working there. And then I meet with Porokhnyak, who says that I no longer work for him, and at that moment I know that I will continue to work. Inside, of course, I laughed.
Khoroshkovsky almost never interfered in editorial policy. I don’t remember a single case where he called me, demanded something, put pressure on me, told me what I should or shouldn’t do - we saw each other extremely rarely. They talked mainly about general topics, and it seemed to me that he was interested in communicating with me. He asked about the history of Russian media in the 90s, and about Russian history, which he did not know well, because in those years he was a very young man. It turned out that we had mutual acquaintances in Moscow - he worked there for several years. It was always a one-on-one relationship with him. Until he became a big boss - he headed the SBU. Then he stopped appearing on the channel, even his office in the channel’s office on Dmitrievskaya was converted into a meeting room.
I worked with him from the fall of 2009 to December 2012 - that's three and a half seasons. If at first he showed at least some interest in the channel and my program, then after the presidential elections and new appointment he reduced this interest to a minimum. The principle was this: if the rating and share were “nothing like that” - do what you did. When Vladimir Zelensky became the general producer of the channel, we had a lot of contact with him - he offered a lot, some were implemented, some were not. I always discussed the television part with Zelensky. Perhaps he was upset that the project with Shuster was not implemented. Don't know. In a word, I can only say a big thank you to Valery Ivanovich for his “happy childhood.”
— Your career in Ukraine began with the TVi channel. You “left” from there in the spring of 2010, after a corporate conflict, when Konstantin Kagalovsky diluted the share of Vladimir Gusinsky with the participation of then director Nikolai Knyazhitsky. You were on Gusinsky's team. Three years later, a corporate conflict occurred on TVi again - Kagalovsky lost his share, they say, also with the participation of Knyazhitsky, already a people’s deputy at that time. Did you get satisfaction when you saw that the channel's license was cancelled?
— The TVi channel is a long-turned page in my professional life. It was a good project, but some mistakes were made in it, in particular personnel errors - I mean the appointment of a director. There is a court decision publicly available on the Internet, which describes in accessible language the story of how Vladimir Alexandrovich and Konstantin Grigorievich quarreled, and what role Nikolai Leonidovich played in this.
I don’t know everything, I wasn’t very interested in some of the details, but I’ll tell you this - TVi didn’t even exist for a year when shareholders began to have big questions about the organizational and leadership abilities of the general director, Nikolai Knyazhitsky. Gusinsky sent his confidant, Evgeny Yakovich, who received all the real power on the channel, and Knyazhitsky found himself in the role of “sic chairman,” which did not suit him and offended him. He began to seek satisfaction and in the end, apparently, played a fatal role by pitting Kagalovsky against Gusinsky.
Kagalovsky trusted him, restored his rights, and a raider takeover of the channel took place. This was Kagalovsky’s mistake, which he later admitted. As a result, in court he had to pay Gusinsky about $30 million - and this does not count the investments that were made in the channel. I think the people who worked on the channel at that time - Pavel Sheremet, Mustafa Nayem and others - can tell more about this.
— Your son got married early, you have an adult grandson. Where do they live today, when was the last time you saw each other?
— My son Alexei got married when he was not yet 18 years old. The unplanned pregnancy of his beloved girlfriend was the reason. He became a father when he was not yet 18 years old. This happens, you know, in life. By the way, I also got married very early - I was a little older - 18 years old. In this sense, he is all like me. I’m already laughing that I’ll soon become a great-grandfather if this family tradition continues, because my grandson Georgy will be 15 in the spring. I haven’t seen them for a long time, we only talk on the phone, we correspond on the Internet, I invite them to come to Kyiv to see them. They are living in Moscow. Alexey actually studied abroad - in America, and then in England. George spent his childhood there. Then life turned out so well that they returned home to Moscow and have been living, working and studying there for the last few years.
Alexey tried to do business in the field of high fashion, but, unfortunately, it did not work out. Nothing worked out with the restaurant business either. I once predicted to him that he would remember my words - sooner or later he would do what I do. As a result, the father was right. The son works as a producer in the Sky company of his childhood friend, director Revaz Gigineishvili, who directed the films Love with an Accent and Heat. Revaz is married to Mikhalkov's youngest daughter. On October 22, he had the premiere of his new film “Without Borders.” Lesha also works for L"OFFICIEL magazine - also in a producing role. We recently went to Paris for Fashion Week with Ksenia Sobchak, filmed something there. He has a lot of international acquaintances in this area, he helped her with contacts .
I don’t want to brag, but sometimes I’m blown away by the level of my son’s acquaintances. He actually has both Monegasque princes as friends - Pierre and Andrea Casiraghi. Some of them were even discovered by me at my home in Moscow - they flew to hang out for one evening and night, and ended up coming to our home. I look in the morning, and some young guy is sleeping on my sofa in the living room. Then it turned out that this was the Monegasque prince.
—Are you satisfied with your son’s life?
— As a normal father, I am, of course, dissatisfied with my children and grandchildren. I grumble, I say that they do everything wrong, and they don’t live like that. My son, unfortunately, has already been divorced twice. By the way, he is a good groom. Marriageable.
— Does he listen to your advice?
“The older and smarter he becomes, the more he listens.”
— Help me figure it out, do you have a stable in Pushcha-Voditsa?
- No, it's a damaged phone. You are confusing him with Dmitry Kiselev, whom I like to call “He’s not even my namesake.” By the way, a journalist who worked with him here in Kyiv told me one very sad story connected with this stable. I always suspected that he was not a very good person, and I kept my distance from him when I lived in Moscow. It was more intuition than knowledge. This story with the stable shocked me at the time; it characterizes his essence very well. “Not even the namesake,” when he went back to Moscow, he simply abandoned his horses here. I know what it's like when animals are abandoned. When people leave their dachas in the fall, they leave them there. This journalist now supports one of his horses out of her own pocket.
— Do you know that Ukrainians are jokingly tested by how they pronounce the word “palyanitsya”?
- I like this word. Palyanitsya.
- A little bit hard...
- I know. When I took Ukrainian language lessons, my teacher said that I needed to say “tsia” more softly. But, unfortunately, I never spoke. There are people for whom knowledge of another similar language greatly helps to learn it, and there are those for whom it hinders. As a person who knows several foreign languages, I can tell you what bothers me. It is very difficult for me to learn correct Ukrainian pronunciation. I understand well, I read - I read. I know Persian and English, which I use constantly. I can also say that I know the Dari language - it’s the same Persian, only in the Afghan version, where you need to know an additional two or three grammatical structures. What can I say if in Russia they still believe that there is no Ukrainian language - it is only a dialect of Russian.
