« | Home | »

Kissing the Crocodile’s Arse

Tags: |

Last week the internet group Anonymous hacked into the emails of Nashi, the pro-Putin youth organisation often compared to the Hitler Jugend. It turns out that Nashi keeps lists of ‘enemies’ – including writers, bloggers, activists and politicians – alongside allegations to smear them with, such as ‘gave a blow job to a black man’ or ‘sleeps with prostitutes who say he has a small penis’. Top of the list of exploitable ‘weak spots’ is a Jewish background.

But the biggest stir has been caused by allegations that Ilya Varlamov, a photographer and blogger thought to be anti-Putin, received large payments from Nashi. Varlamov, who denies the charges, is said to have been given 400,000 rubles (around £8400) for two photo blogs which, if not blatant propaganda, did make Putin look rather smart. The revelations have opened up an old debate in Russia: what are the limits of co-operation with an unsavoury state? When is it OK, if ever, to take money from Kremlin Inc?

Take the case of the actress Chulpan Khamatova, who has just released a cringe-making ad saying she will vote for Putin because ‘he always keeps his word.’ Putin has supported the charity Khamatova set up a few years ago, to help children with leukemia, and was instrumental in opening a new clinic. Sources at the charity have said that Khamatova was blackmailed into making the ad: if she didn’t do it, the charity would be destroyed. But even if the blackmail charge isn’t true and she was simply returning a favour, most commentators – though some have called it shameful – seem to agree that when it comes to saving children’s lives it’s OK, in the words of a famous magazine editor, to ‘kiss the crocodile’s arse’.

But what about when it comes to working in the media? The boldest opposition broadcaster, radio Ekho Moskvy, is owned by Gazprom Media, which is state-controlled. Ren TV, a relatively independent-minded news outlet, is controlled by Putin’s ally Yury Kovalchuk. The Kremlin has made it its business to control every part of the media landscape: there is little way to avoid it. During the years I worked in Russian television (2006-10) many of the brightest minds fled from news and political analysis into entertainment and glossy magazines, much as many creative types in the Soviet Union chose to make children’s movies or work as literary translators to avoid making propaganda. But what if your vocation is proper journalism and you don’t get one of the few jobs at Ekho Moskvy or Novaya Gazeta? I remember being told about a young graduate who took a job at the Kremlin TV news channel Russia Today. They worked on several stories with no editorial constraints, but resigned when asked to do a piece dirtying Anna Politkovskaya’s reputation. The general rule of thumb was: as long as you don’t directly work on stories you are ashamed of, it’s basically OK.

But even that seemingly simple rule is often hard to judge. After several years working for smallish entertainment networks I was offered my dream project, a feature history drama-doc. I would have a large budget. I could pick my own team. But the offer came from the Putin-adoring Channel 1, by far the biggest network in the country (and the only one that could afford to do a production on this scale). The drama-doc had a story I liked: about a Second World War admiral who stood up to Stalin. It would, however, be part of a season that would be maximally exploited by the Kremlin for PR purposes, so my film could easily be scheduled right next to a programme portraying Stalin as a great war leader who saved Russia and proving the need for ‘strong’ leaders (i.e. Putin). After much soul-searching I refused. The network made it clear that having turned down the offer I had blown my chances of ever working for them. But I had a career in England to fall back on. Would I have turned the job down if I was tethered to a career in Moscow? I doubt it.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • mideastzebra on Swedish-Israeli Tensions: Avigdor Liberman was not foreign minister November 2015.
    • lars hakanson on Exit Cameron: Europe will for good reason rejoice when the UK elects to leave. The country has over the years provided nothing but obstacles to European integration...
    • Michael Schuller on Immigration Scandals: The Home Office is keen to be seen to be acting tough on immigration, although I'm not sure that the wider project has anything to do with real number...
    • Geoff Roberts on What happened in Cologne?: The most surprising thing about the events in Cologne (and the most disturbing) is that some 600 incidents of theft, harrasment and rape were reported...
    • EmilyEmily on What happened in Cologne?: The author's argument is straightforward: Sexual violence is one beast; fears about migrants is another - let's not confuse the two. Alfalfa's poin...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement