About the site
Oasis online magazine
news
Analytical journalism
Guest book
Analytics
Rules of "Oasis"
Library
Site Directory
LIBRARY
Golyshev V. Transitional Analytics
Analytical journalism, most likely, never existed in our pure form. In the heyday of this genre in the 90s of the twentieth century, it was more like journalism and even propaganda, mimicking analytics. The “analyst” with some degree of certainty masked a bare sermon as an analysis of current events. The clear predominance of supporters of Yeltsin's transformation in the printed and electronic Russian media provided their sermons with an almost monopoly on the right to be considered the benchmark of analytics. In turn, the so-called “patriotic opposition” leading a semi-underground lifestyle had the opportunity to preach its credo only in rare print media (Den's Day - Tomorrow, in part Our Contemporary, Soviet Russia, Limonka). Moreover, it cannot be said that the “patriotic analyst” forced into the marginal niche was inferior to the “democratic” one in quality (I remember that the only television connection between the teams of Nezavisimaya Gazeta and Den was a convincing victory of the latter). However, a long stay in the dungeon was not in vain for her. When you now come across still relics (like General N. Leonov from the Russian House program), you catch yourself thinking that the past years had no effect on his vocabulary, not on the approach to analyzing current events. The most dynamic people from that environment either left it safely or mutated so much that now they are not amenable to any classification at all (for example, A. Prokhanov).

The first suspicions of the inadequacy of the "analysts of the dominant religion" began to creep in the period when the "oligarchic wars" began. In the post-Yeltsin period, when the entire political landscape was deeply plowed, and the usual system of political coordinates flew to all hell, the analytical genre (deserving of the “ersatz” prefix) gradually lost its former positions, giving way to a fusion of pure expertise and bare journalism (with a noticeable predominance of the latter ). The last bastion for the time being is kept by the team Leontiev-Sokolov-Privalov, who saw a chance for a new “modus vivendi” in search of a “new meaning”. These searches have somehow not been set, therefore their existence as analysts is more and more like a protracted coma.

The most eloquent illustration of the deepest crisis that hit the analytical genre seems to me to be the current block of information and analytical broadcasting of NTV (the former leader in the field of television analytics). The vacant analytical niche there is now filled by A. Gerasimov and L. Parfenov, whose olibach “default” style is recognized on the channel as a model for universal imitation. Parfenov's "The other day" is interesting as a classic, in some cases even brilliant, example of a "double ersatz". Taking the place of Kiselev's "Itogov", L. Parfenov retained the shell of the traditional Sunday analytical program, filling it up with merry TV-capers, in which the eventual outline of the political week is used to keep it as far as possible from its contents. In fact, specific political topics - there is nothing more than a reason to demonstrate purely journalistic tyranny and distance, as well as sophisticated technological methods, commonly referred to as "baubles" and "gadgets". The quintessence of "Parfenovism" (which in itself is the quintessence), in my opinion, are the "trips" (ethnographic studies) by A. Loshak. From week to week, from month to month in “The other day” (and in “Country and the World”), any political news is “analyzed” using the same straightforward reception. The correspondent goes to the settlement of "white savages" (usually a village or urban-type settlement) in order to: poke a microphone in the face of confused saleswomen, take a close-up pig in peace in a puddle and sum up the whole thing with some kind of pun intended. For some reason, I remember more than others the endlessly repeated plots about border settlements. For example, V.Putin met with L.Kuchma. The "analysts" of NTV are already there. "There, they say. - See the hut? There is already Ukraine. And here, where I am standing, there is still Russia. Is it really cool?" A month later, V.Putin meets with N.Nazarbayev. The same correspondent walks through the locality under the resounding name "Fireproof" and says that there is already Kazakhstan behind that tree, and where it stands now - more ... etc.

In principle, the new is not enough here - this frayed cliché of L. Parfenov has already managed to podnadoest order in his endless tele-memoirs (about 2.20 sausage and Gagarin's flight to the moon). It is noteworthy that this recycled material easily takes the place of the TV analytics that once caused the most intense interest of the audience (or what was once considered to be it). The TV people themselves for any attempt to be surprised by this circumstance usually respond with the magic word “rating”. At this conversation ends.

Apparently realizing that something traditional is missing in the transmission schedule, NTV made a desperate attempt to entrust the role of the "new Kiselev" to A. Gerasimov. But analysts and he failed. A.Gerasimov with caustic sarcasm shoots phrases into the camera, vaguely reminiscent of the headlines "Kommersant" a decade ago (moving cartoons of A. Bilzho reinforce the similarities), and from time to time gives close-ups of people who have proven themselves as experts in the blessed Yeltsin's time. The rest - like Parfenov, however, without his trademark "reckless."

In principle, it is a sin to blame L. Parfenov, A. Gerasimov, the new management of NTV, or someone else. The genre of TV analytics died suddenly, so any attempts to ignore this fact inevitably turn into a simulation.

Meanwhile, the demand for an analytical genre, of course, is. This, in particular, is indicated by the high rating of the Pazner’s Vremeny - at first glance, the most boring program, which in its format is as close as possible to the information and analytical programs of Yeltsin's times (its real rating, by the way, leaves far behind the allegedly super-rated “Days”) . Thus, it can be stated that there is a steady demand for analytics with almost no supply.

Unlike television, there is almost nothing to say about print media. In terms of audience reach, and in terms of efficiency and attractiveness to consumers, they are notorious outsiders. Russia, as is known, is rapidly ceasing to be a reading country (in the "paper" sense of the word). Electronic media (TV and the Internet) as disseminators of information (and, consequently, analysts) are leading now and continue to increase the gap from the “paper”. This circumstance, by the way, at different times drove on TV writing analysts - M. Leontyev, O. Romanov, M. Sokolov, A. Privalov, and others. And what remains to be done? The most respectable paper media has in fact already turned into a morning coffee dessert in the offices of several thousand chosen, more interested in expertise than analytics (they are themselves analysts). As for the optimal distance for analysis, practice has shown that it is still impossible to invent anything better than a political week. Thus, if anyone gets "pregnant" with new analytics, these are tele- "weekends" and the corresponding sites with a weekly update. The presence of a significant demand for a balanced, responsible analyst suggests that the only restraining gateway for its appearance is the prejudice of the management of electronic media (preferring to rely on the time-tested CK). Although, on the other hand, if these gateways are open, it is not quite clear what will rush through them ...

It is no secret that the current "analytical timelessness" is closely linked to political timelessness. The Yeltsin system of political coordinates is almost completely dismantled. Today, only very strong people (such as General N. Leonov) can afford the luxury of believing that this is not the case (that the “anti-people Yeltsin regime” smoothly flowed into the “anti-people Putin regime”, and the traditional “threat of red revenge” is as red and threatening , as always). The rest clearly see the ruins of the Yeltsin political barracks and so far indistinct swarming of political players among the piles of construction debris. Meanwhile, world experience shows that analytical journalism, capable of supplying society with adequate interpretations of events (and in some ways even defining a political agenda), arises only with a stable structure of the national political field. If the analyst of Yeltsin's times can be recognized as such only with a certain degree of conditionality (approximately to the same extent that the Window of Growth can be recognized as painting), then the current political disorientation makes normal analytics impossible in principle. After all, an analytical text cannot arise from the solar wind, it is born within a certain tradition. Under normal conditions, any analyst (and hence its text) is simply labeled in accordance with the traditional political predispositions of "the intellectual environment of its habitat." The combination of multi-oriented analysts, and especially the controversy between them, is an integral part of the normal political process. However, this does not mean that Russia, which found itself at the beginning of the 21st century on the "political building site", is doomed to be content with what it has today, until a stable political system crystallizes in it. "Transitional Analytics" is quite possible, but it should be a "non-traditional" analyst.

It is rather difficult to name the criteria that this new analytics must meet in order to validly claim viability. But you can easily name some obvious "taboos". The new analyst will have to part forever with the "damned legacy of the past": "figurines in the pocket," a mandatory front in relation to the current government, dividing into "our a priori" and "a priori ours" (in terms of past merits or "merits"). Any criteria of truth, any "generally accepted" standards, transferred from the Yeltsin's past, must undergo a fine sieve of critical assessment. It is necessary to constantly realize that the subject of the "new analysis" is not a static object, but a process. No finished model (from its own past or from someone else’s present) should be recognized as a reference. In fact, we should talk about analytical support for the creative process of creating a new political system of the country. No more, no less.