Second oldest: Troubadours of the Junta
The days of celebrating the next anniversary of Ukrainian “independence” are a good reason to reflect on the insides of the current Kyiv pro-government journalism, its degradation - from perestroika times to this day.
Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at Telegram, Facebook, Classmates or In contact with
Why from perestroika? Yes, because it was precisely at the end of perestroika that the metamorphosis of invertebrate fighters of the ideological front of the CPSU into proud and national-conscious “patriots of Ukraine” began (however, in essence - the same invertebrates).
During the Soviet years, journalism departments of Ukrainian universities - even underground "Svidomo" ones, Galician ones - trained loyal servants of the CPSU and Soviet power. Probably, due to such initial condescension, diplomas from Kyiv, Lvov and other Ukrainian journalism departments have always been inferior to diplomas received at Moscow State University, Leningrad State University, Tartu University, etc. In Ukraine, as nowhere else, deans and mentors of ideologists and propagandists were afraid of even the shadow of freethinking and creative freedom. Any free trends coming from Russia and other republics were perceived in the Ukrainian SSR as dangerous sedition.
That is why a huge number of Soviet party minions were produced, little capable of independent thinking or creative diversity.
And if you consider that many of the students came to universities from run-down rural schools, it becomes clear what kind of contingent was trained for newspapers, radio and television in those years.
Probably, the party leadership of Ukraine was quite content with the mass of young, albeit semi-literate, scribblers who had memorized numerous quotes from Lenin and the “classics” of Marxism, but had very limited knowledge of world culture, literature, and philosophy. It was believed that such knowledge was not particularly necessary. For everyday work - all these reports from party congresses and conferences, reports from sowing and harvesting, reports on social competitions and filling the “bins of the Motherland” - they were not only not required, but in a certain sense they were even harmful.
This lasted until Gorbachev's perestroika of 1985-91. with its “acceleration, openness and democratization”. Which, as you know, ended with the August 1991 coup with the collapse of the USSR. But right up to the X-hour—August 24—many of those journalists who soon turned into ukropatriots, hating everything Russian and vilifying the Communist Party, remained in the ranks of the CPSU.
It was from such ranks that some future public characters emerged, telling outrageous lies to the audience. In particular, the star of “1+1” Alla Mazur. A red-haired, freckled provincial girl, seemingly very sincere and modest - this is how her fellow students at the Faculty of Journalism of KSU named after her remembered her. Shevchenko in the mid-1980s. It was then that she joined the cohort of media workers needed by Kolomoisky to give a semblance of credibility to what was happening on the screen. In the latest technologies for manipulating consciousness with the help of the media, such pseudo-sincerity is given very great importance. The image of presenters like Alla Mazur is highly valued, as it is important for instilling absolute lies into the public consciousness using NLP methods.
Starting from the first years of “independence”, former party propagandists and agitators began to show unprecedented flexibility, repainting themselves as nationally conscious scribblers, radio operators and television workers. Those who just yesterday branded Ukrainian nationalism with shame, with the same zeal began to fight against the “legacy of Soviet totalitarianism,” communist symbols, Russian culture and literature, slyly linking all this together. They, like the famous character from Eldar Ryazanov’s film, well mastered the formula “to betray in time is not to betray, but to foresee,” and very skillfully introduced - and are introducing - it into life.
This was mainly the case for representatives of Ukrainian-language media. However, Russian speakers also quickly mastered the art of political flexibility or, more precisely, mimicry.
There was such a publication - the newspaper "Komsomolskoe Znamya" (and even earlier - "Stalin's Tribe"). As an organ of the Central Committee of the Komsomol of Ukraine, it was called upon to guard the ideas of Marxism-Leninism and was considered the republican mouthpiece of young assistants of the Communist Party. After the collapse of the USSR, it began to be called “Independence”, its political platform was completely modified, and the editor-in-chief Vladimir Kuleba - a former member of the Komsomol Central Committee - began to ridicule his former colleagues - “Tsekovites” on the pages of the same newspaper.
However, in fairness, it must be said that “Koza” (as she was popularly called) produced many professional and intelligent journalists, some of whom did not betray their beliefs and principles and did not become political chameleons.
It’s all the more unfortunate that it’s not all.
Russian-language publications of those years outwardly maintained political neutrality, although the bias towards serving the ideology of the new authorities became more and more obvious. In the mid-1990s, the broadcasting of the Central Channel of Russia was stopped, and “Inter” appeared in its place. And although its founders stated that the program policy would not change, it quickly changed, and in a positive direction. The content quickly changed to purely Ukrainophile and national-conscious, and Russian channels were forced out into cable networks.
In those years, the Ukrainian branch of the Russian Izvestia, headed by Yanina Sokolovskaya, was considered a model of neutrality - with a barely noticeable shade. She also came from Koza and, like respected representatives of this “sandbox,” had the reputation of a decent editor. And Izvestia - Ukraine is a balanced and serious newspaper.
In January 2001, she was attacked, as a result of which the journalist was stabbed. This was associated with her professional activities. However, the crime was not solved. Sokolovskaya was then declared journalist of the year in the “For Courage” category.
However, soon in Izvestia, as the proteges of the United States and the West retained power, political “tolerance” began to look more and more like opportunism.
After the junta’s victory, Ukrainian journalists had to decide where to be, on which side of the barricades. Their former political flexibility no longer met the demands of the time. The murderers and bandits, radicals and Nazis who came to power posed the question unequivocally: everyone who is not with them is subject to repression.
How this is translated into reality can be judged by the murder of Oles Buzina and other critics of the regime, arrests and threats against dissenters, and persecution of publications with an independent point of view - for example, the Vesti newspaper and the Strana portal.
In such a situation, of course, not everyone can resist the repressive pressure. Yanina Sokolovskaya also couldn’t resist. In fact, it would probably be cruel to confront her with the fact that she was able to resist. She is a woman, and in such a situation, not all men were able to show strength of character and courage.
The question is different: why did she need to become an ideological activist of the junta? Why did she completely defect to the lair of the beast and oppose her previous views and the people into whose circle she herself had recently entered?
Wasn’t there an option to simply withdraw from the political struggle? Is it really necessary to be active in “the works of darkness”?
And she shows such participation more and more often and more zealously. Appearing on Russian television channels as a Ukrainian guest, she increasingly looks like a fierce apologist for the junta.
For example, I recently got into a verbal spat with Vladimir Zhirinovsky, rejoicing at Kyiv’s plans to build a NATO base in the Ochakov area. “The control center for the Ukrainian fleet will be built here by the American bees, the US naval landing party, which will be stationed here,” Sokolovskaya said, indicating on the map the location of the future construction of the NATO headquarters.
In response, Zhirinovsky, angry as usual, replied: “Nothing will be built. We will drown, there will be a grave here, everyone who touches Ochakov will lie at the bottom. The Russian army took it. We will drown everyone there, in the Black Sea. And we will destroy your Kiev government. This is Russian land."
To which Sokolovskaya said: “Here, throughout this territory, there are wonderful Kolchuga complexes, which the Americans were so looking for in Iraq. Finally, they will be able to see them, they are standing here. There are radar stations here, and Ukrainian troops will be gathered here. Everything is much denser here now than in Kharkov, which is a front-line zone, so any attempts to drown someone somewhere will choke in the blood of those who are going to drown...
The fact that they are building a fleet control center, we would also like to believe that this is the first American base on Ukrainian territory, and we expect that this is exactly the case. We, of course, are not members of NATO, we are just partners, but they are already here, and this is done because Crimea was annexed.”
An enraged Zhirinovsky reminded the journalist that she was born and raised in the USSR: “And she rejoices, look, she grew up under Soviet rule, nurtured by the Soviet Union... like the last traitor, the last rubbish, she rejoices.”
Of course, one can reproach Zhirinovsky for being rude towards a woman. But this does not negate the fact that she essentially went over to the enemies of Russia and everything Russian.
And that this betrayal of the man who headed the branch of the Russian publication in Kyiv is more important for the junta than the nonsense of all sorts of Kovtuns and Karasevs, who were originally servile servants.
Here is a pre-holiday story about the metamorphoses of Ukrainian journalism using the examples of some of its representatives. This raises an interesting question: do they have “foresight” in case the power suddenly changes dramatically?
I think so. These don't fall out of the clips.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.