home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
CNN Newsroom: Global View
/
CNN Newsroom: Global View.iso
/
txt
/
jpr
/
jpr0391.001
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-05-02
|
17KB
|
355 lines
<text>
<title>
Television's Course Reversal During Peristroika
</title>
<article>
<hdr>
Joint Publications Research Service, March 20, 1991
Media and Journalism: Television's Reversed Course During
Perestroyka Examined
</hdr>
<body>
<p>By Yuriy Bogomolov, "Back and Forth: Television Before and After
Perestroyka" [Moscow, Literaturnaya Gazeta in Russian, No. 9,
6 Mar 91, p. 14].
</p>
<p> It was noticed a long time ago that the mass media is the
first one to wake up from the lethargic sleep at the beginning
of the society's upturn, and it is the first one to be attacked
by the putschists.
</p>
<p> The attack may be conducted directly, with weapons, shots
and blood (as in Vilnius), or it may be a peaceful, gradual
process that utilizes routine bureaucratic actions (as in
Ostankino, when the Gosteleradio [State Committee on Radio and
Television] leadership was changed--from Nenashev to
Kravchenko).
</p>
<p> With the shuffling of the components in the equation, the
process of shrinking the democratic space in the airwaves has
become noticeable. News programs ("Vremya" to a larger degree,
Television News programs to a lesser) not so much broadcast the
information they receive as filter and distribute it. "ATV"
["Author's Television"]--a series of programs that earned a
certain authority among the viewers in the [sic] 1990--has
been moved to the second channel. "Vzglyad" is being urged to
bring its political outlook closer to the government officials'
views. Reports from the parliamentary forum are becoming
increasingly terse. There are increasingly fewer live programs.
The circle of independently thinking anchors has shrunk.
</p>
<p> We are moving down the up staircase. Let us recall, though,
how we went up the down staircase.
</p>
<p> We were not going up--we were flying up as if he had wings,
jumping several steps at a time. Somehow, all of a sudden, the
broadcasting network dropped the program "With All Our Heart"--a perfection of its kind, an ideal sample of social
narcissism. Yuriy Zhukov, with his crushing rebukes of Ronald
Reagan, vanished into some netherworld. We were reminded less
and less often of Genrikh Borovik's "Position." On the other
hand, the "World and Youth" shows were becoming increasingly
irreverent and dynamic. Like thunder from a clear sky came the
"12th Floor" program--a prototype for the rally actions and
parliamentary debates.
</p>
<p> Political shows, later played out at the congresses and
sessions in Moscow and then duplicated in all cities and
republics, were being rehearsed at the "12th Floor." This is
where they played out scenarios with the participation of those
who came from the streets and from the stairs, those leaving
the offices and those moving in. It was there that they defined
the roles and images of heroes and antiheroes in the play with
a working title of "Perestroyka."
</p>
<p> All of that was touching and endearing because the script was
being written (and the play was being staged) in front of our
own eyes, with the participation of television viewers.
</p>
<p> Real-life personae playing democratization had acquired even
more verisimilitude with the beginning of preelection
television debates. During the first congress, with its live
gavel-to-gavel broadcasts, it also turned out to be extremely
absorbing. It went so far as to be on the verge of becoming a
real-life thing.
</p>
<p> Life itself, something truly genuine started to emanate from
the new invention of Central Television's Youth Programming
Department--an information-and-music program called "Vzglyad."
</p>
<p> In the beginning, "Vzglyad" did not make much claim to being
a political opposition, it differed from other public affairs
programs by its informality. Its anchors-informals were young
people. But the most important achievement of this program was
in something else--it acquired viewers-informals. The role
functions of both sides in the communications chain has changed.
</p>
<p> Totalitarian television had always rested on the following
unshakable principle: He who is on the screen is the boss, and
he who is in front of the screen is the subordinate. Therefore,
information coming from the screen is not really information,
not the news per se; it is a command camouflaged as
information, and put together in such a way as it is with an
order, it need not be discussed, or mulled over, but does need
to be accepted for real or pretended execution.
</p>
<p> "Vremya" had become, in essence, an all-Union instruction in
how the whole working population should feel and think.
Watching it by itself had become, over many years, a sort of
ritual. For the television viewers it was a ritual of obedience.
</p>
<p> For the power-holders it was a ritual of self-assertion.
</p>
<p> Two examples that indirectly confirm this argument.
</p>
<p> As is known, Brezhnev loved to watch "Vremya." Some say he
loved it as much as he loved hunting. Maybe even more because,
even when hunting he was always in a hurry to get back in time
for the program. One would think: What news could Central
Television's anchors present to their general secretary, when
the most important information was delivered to him through
much speedier and authoritative channels? But it looks like the
general secretary wanted something from "Vremya" that was not
the news. He was exorcising his subconscious complex of not
being elected, and therefore, not being legitimate. "Vremya"
testified not only to state and rank status of the First
Person, but also to the unshakability and immovability of the
entire hierarchical construction of the lawless state.
</p>
<p> Thus, an information program had entirely lost its original
function and had acquired the one of an emblem, a state symbol.
</p>
<p> This is the first example. The second was provided by Polish
history. One of the Polish people's actions in protest against
the introduction of martial law in 1981 was the television
viewers' demonstrative refusal to watch a Polish equivalent of
"Vremya." It is possible that this kind of boycott is in the
cards for us in the future. But let us not deceive ourselves
from the every beginning: the crux of the matter is not the
mistrust in the official source of information, but the lack of
trust in the government itself.
</p>
<p> This kind of viewer rebellion means the most radical
rejection by the viewer of the subordinate role imposed on him
by the totalitarian communications system.
</p>
<p> From the very beginning, "Vzglyad" offered the viewer a
different role--that of an interlocutor, a friend in the same
social circle. The program itself had nothing antigovernment or
even antiparty in mind. Its entire role as an opposition to
orthodox broadcasting was the democratic form of communication.
</p>
<p> It is a different matter that this personal, informal
communication started to gradually define the democratic
contents of this communication. It was the independent viewer
that had brought to life the image of an independent anchor.
</p>
<p> "Vzglyad" anchors, being led by their audience, could not
help but arrive at a very definite political choice. And, just
like the informal movement gradually acquired the role of a
democratic alternative to the totalitarian regime, informal
programs "Vzglyad" and "The Fifth Wheel" came to be accepted as
an alternative to state broadcasting.
</p>
<p> The paradox--or, to be precise, the abnormality of the
situation--was that at some moment television air waves
became far more democratic than the structure of television. The
latter was of a command administrative type under Lapin, and
remained the same under Nenashev.
</p>
<p> Along with the perestroyka, this even increasing gap between
what was on the screens and what was in the functionaries'
offices could only remain unnoticed as long as the temperature
of democratic changes kept a stable trend towards the increase.
As soon as the stagnation and the decrease in this temperature
started to register, it became obvious