There are dozens of political talk shows on Russian television. Almost all of them broadcast the opinions of the same experts, running from one program to another. Among them, Ukrainian political scientists stand out: they are silenced, openly trolled, and even often beaten. Lenta.ru recalled the most striking episodes with the participation of Ukrainian experts and found out why, despite the humiliation, they remain frequent guests of Russian television studios.

Typical scenario

Ukraine continues to hold prime time slots on Russian TV channels. Despite the general fatigue of viewers from the information noise surrounding events in the neighboring state, they did not stop watching talk shows about Ukraine. It is Ukrainian experts who provide the lion's share of the ratings for such programs - without them, political programs would lose their intensity and element of the show.

The dramaturgy of the programs with their participation is based on a completely standard scenario. The presenter asks the political scientist a question (conventionally, about those responsible for the war in Donbass), he says a couple of sentences, after which he is bombarded with counterarguments from all sides. A hubbub begins, which sometimes even the presenters are unable to stop. However, they themselves do not hesitate to make sarcastic remarks about the speakers, and sometimes even shut them up.

Usually the host and guests associate the expert from Ukraine (the same principle applies to the American participants in the discussion) with the Poroshenko regime, and he has to answer for the entire state. Since in most cases they fail to finish their thoughts, they speak uninterruptedly and at the maximum density of words per second.

By opinion President of the Center for System Analysis and Forecasting Rostislav Ishchenko, this tradition in Ukraine was set by Yulia Tymoshenko.

The composition of experts from Ukraine on all Russian television broadcasts is approximately the same. Vadim Karasev, Olesya Yakhno and Vyacheslav Kovtun regularly attend the programs of Vladimir Solovyov, Andrei Norkin, Channel One, TV Center and Zvezda. Of these, only Karasev appears on Ukrainian TV from time to time. The other three are accused of being unpopular in Ukraine, so they want to make PR for themselves in Russia.

Scandals and fights

Vyacheslav Kovtun, the Ukrainian headliner of Russian political talk shows, was especially successful in this. He has repeatedly become the hero of scandals on Russian TV and outside television studios. The last time, during a break in the filming of the “Time Will Tell” program on Channel One, he was beaten in the dressing room. According to one of the broadcast participants, this was done by the former Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the DPR, Alexander Boroday, who could not stand the provocative behavior of the Ukrainian guest.

But this is not the first time Kovtun has been beaten up on Russian TV. During the conflict in Ukraine, the political scientist suffered at least four times. On the air of Zvezda, the head of the information department of the Committee for the Salvation of Ukraine, Yuri Kot, hit him several times in the face after Kovtun promised to check what his 17-year-old son, living in Ukraine, was doing.

In March 2016, Kovtun went outside after another filming and was preparing to get into a taxi, but he was prevented by unknown people who dipped his head into the cake.

However, the political scientist himself believes that the attacks on him are nothing more than a stage show. In the summer of 2015, during the filming of the Barrier program, Ukrainian deputy Vladimir Oleynik attacked him with fists. It seemed to him that Kovtun was grinning when he spoke about the starvation death of a seven-month-old child in Mariupol. Presenter Vladimir Solovyov separated the fighters and explained that Kovtun was not actually grinning - it was all due to the peculiarities of his facial expressions.

Kovtun is not the only one who was openly “pressed” on Russian TV. In 2015, it went to Kyiv lawyer Eduard Bagirov. He was not convinced by the arguments of the co-chairman of the Popular Front of Novorossiya, Konstantin Dolgov, who tried to prove with the help of photographs that fascist power had settled in Kyiv. Dolgov first promised to break Bagirov’s jaw, and then moved towards him.

TV presenters do not hesitate to show emotions in relation to Ukrainian experts. Thus, the new host of the talk show “Time will tell” Artem Sheinin openly mocks above them in front of the audience.

However, the most memorable incident was the September incident on NTV: the host of “Meeting Place” Andrei Norkin from the studio of visiting political scientist Sergei Zaporozhsky. The program discussed the details of the investigation into the crash of the Malaysian Boeing.

Norkin argued that the international community ignores Russia's opinion. According to him, for the first time the version that the plane was shot down by a Ukrainian bomber was put forward not by Russia, but by an American blogger. Zaporozhsky objected to him. Norkin thought that the political scientist was wrong, and then explained to the audience that he did not need the advice of “any sheep.”

Where to go to swear

An employee of the editorial office of a large talk show, who wished to remain anonymous, explained in a conversation with Lenta.ru that the pool of experts from Ukraine quoted on federal TV fully satisfies the formal needs of the channels to present the opinion of the Ukrainian side. On the other hand, participation in talk shows is a good opportunity for unknown political scientists to do PR for themselves. That is why, despite the spread of rot, they continue to invest in television studios.

VGTRK Lenta.ru was assured that the rumors that experts (including Ukrainian ones) are paid money for organizing extravagant performances on air are false - there are no rewards for guests in the show of the Rossiya 1 channel.

Lenta.ru asked Ukrainian Vadim Karasev why he agreed to participate in Russian programs. He complained that people are not always allowed to speak on air, but, according to him, everything depends on the preparation of the speaker: “If you try, if you have professional and emotional preparation, some thoughts can be conveyed. Well, that’s how I do it.” The political scientist notes that participation in Russian shows is “a kind of challenge, a test of professional suitability.”

“There is one more point. We (Ukrainian political scientists - approx. "Tapes.ru") in Russia we play the role of the opposition. Oppositionists, even if they go to shows, are very careful in their statements. We have no restrictions. We can say what we want and consider true about both Russia and Ukraine.”

Karasev is not embarrassed that in any Russian TV show he a priori looks like a loser. He even advises where a Ukrainian should not go: according to him, it is better not to appear on Zvezda (one of the reasons is that the channel belongs to the Ministry of Defense). But he freely goes to TV Center, but only if, as a specialist in global strategies, he is asked to discuss the development of Europe. According to his admission, he does not attend all of Vladimir Solovyov’s broadcasts, because sometimes he feels in advance that “there will be something muddy.”

Karasev explains his frequent appearance on federal TV by the fact that they want to hear him. “Even if this is a small group, I know that such people exist,” he concluded.

Political talk shows in Russia have become popular programs on modern television. Various channels show these programs, because a large number of viewers watch them, and this in turn increases the ratings of television companies and forces them to create new similar television projects. What attracts viewers to these TV shows? We will try to answer this question in this article.

The most popular talk shows

1. "Sunday Evening" (host Vladimir Solovyov).
2. "Politics" with Pyotr Tolstoy.
3. "Voting right".
4. “The Right to Know” with E. Satanovsky.

There are also a number of special politicized talk shows that also attract the attention of viewers, for example, the “Special Correspondent” program on the Rossiya TV channel.

What attracts viewers to these programs?

Political talk shows in Russia are a popular type of television today for many reasons. Firstly, this is due to the growing contradictions between Russia and the countries of the Western world, which declared our country persona non grata after the famous Crimean referendum.

Secondly, all countries feel the accumulated contradictions in relations that are associated with global changes on the geopolitical map of the world that occurred at the end of the last century. With the collapse of the USSR, the Yalta world order system, which had developed at the end of World War II, collapsed. The United States, having gained global dominance in the economic world, decided by military means to achieve the complete subjugation of countries that were not part of the aura of its deep influence. Therefore, the United States, using “soft power” tactics, seeks to create hotbeds of tension throughout the globe, including on the territory of our country.

Thirdly, it is already becoming obvious to many that the world is on the brink of a Third World War, which could end in the complete destruction of humanity, since many states have weapons for this.

Political TV programs on Channel Two

And yet, the ratings of political talk shows in Russia indicate that the greatest responses in the hearts and minds of television viewers are found in television programs on the second federal channel. These are programs hosted by journalist Vladimir Solovyov.

The success of the program is made by the invited people, usually of completely different political views, and smart, deep-thinking presenters.

Political talk shows in Russia - propagandists of peace or war

Events in the world are developing rapidly. There are a large number of threats to our country that it has to fight against in the context of Western sanctions and terrorist attacks, as well as the subordination of the Russian economy to the dollar system.

Experts invited to political talk shows, as a rule, present polar points of view on the current situation. Among them there are so-called statists who advocate for recreating the image of Great Russia, there are liberals who are ready to bow to the Western world for the sake of friendship with it, there are also those who make their political career on these shows. There are even representatives of the obvious enemy camp present: American journalists, trying to convey to our viewers the point of view of the leaders of Western countries, according to whom, Russia is taking the path of totalitarianism and poses a threat to the whole world.

It is difficult to say what the hosts of such shows are calling for: they are calling for peace or war. Passions are running high, but we should not forget that such programs are a propaganda tool and entertainment, which is why they frighten viewers, shape public opinion, and even provide pleasant viewing moments.

Therefore, the political talk show on the Russia channel is a program that is unlikely to lose its high popularity in the coming years.

Many people, especially women, love to watch talk shows online or live. They discuss many important life issues and ways out of situations. Viewers are especially attracted to Ukrainian talk shows. They really look at the problems of real people who found themselves in different life situations.

TV Experts' Opinion

Many experts agree that Ukrainian talk shows show real life in the country and examine important aspects. And ordinary people love to watch such programs and empathize with the participants.

Why do online views exist?

Let's imagine that a person is at work and there is no way to watch the live broadcast, but he really wants to. There are people who never miss a single episode of their favorite show. There are websites especially for them that allow you to watch talk shows online in recording. This way, you can review all the important points, as well as review again what was not clear. This is convenient, since the live broadcast cannot be rewinded. Now there are Ukrainian services that will allow you to watch talk shows online, both in Ukrainian and Russian.

In recent years, the format of political talk shows has become incredibly popular in Russia. The key to success is a vibrant discussion and heated debate. To ensure the intensity of passions, the authors and presenters invite experts to the programs who defend the American, European or Ukrainian position. The same people “from the other side of the ideological front” move from program to program. Sometimes participants in disputes evoke such strong emotions with their statements that they leave the studio with bruises. Ruposters recalls the most notable television "whipping boys".

Vyacheslav Kovtun

Vyacheslav Kovtun

One of the most recognizable “artists of the expert genre” is the director of the Kyiv Center for Research of Social Processes “Expert” and member of the presidium of the Liberal Party of Ukraine Vyacheslav Kovtun. Perhaps he came under attack more often than others because of his statements. The political scientist considers himself brave, almost every time he emphasizes that he is in a hostile atmosphere, nevertheless he does not stop going to the show.

Perhaps the most famous case of an attack on a Ukrainian occurred in the spring of 2016 in the “Process” program on the Zvezda TV channel. Then a member of the organization “Committee for the Salvation of Ukraine” Yuriy Kot took the remark “We will find out what kind of son you have” as a threat to the child and hit the political scientist on the head several times.

Before this, they had already tried to beat Kovtun for mentioning children. An expert from Ukraine, ex-deputy Vladimir Oleinik attacked his opponent in Solovyov’s “Sunday Evening”. He did not like the facial expression with which the political scientist commented on the death of a seven-month-old child in Mariupol from hunger.

Another high-profile case of an attack on Kovtun was a cake in the parking lot of the Ostankino television center. The victim claimed that his ill-wishers had with them the flag of Novorossiya. Journalist Vladimir Solovyov called the attack an abomination and called for the attackers to be punished. The SERB movement later took responsibility.

The last case of beating of Kovtun was in December. Then, in the dressing room of the “Time Will Tell” program during a break, none other than one of the founders of the DPR, Alexander Boroday, spoke to him. The host of the show, Artem Sheinin, eventually apologized to Kovtun for the incident, but there is no video of the fight itself online.

Jakub Koreyba

Jakub Koreyba

Another regular on the programs is the Polish publicist, known for his harsh statements on federal TV, a former employee of the MGIMO Center for Post-Soviet Studies, Jakub Koreyba. TV viewers call him an ardent Russophobe. He often accuses Russia of all sins, speaks confidently and emotionally, but does not provide evidence.

Excerpt from a typical speech

A notable episode in his television career was a conflict with political scientist Sergei Kurginyan. The latter defiantly left the studio after Koreyba said that in Russia they hold on to the past because “everything is bad in the present,” and in the future it may be even worse.

It is curious that for regular publications in the Russian media (and, in particular, for the article “Sabotage against Ukraine: the Polish trace”) Koreyba was fired from the Polish Newsweek.

Sergey Zaporozhsky (Kutsenko)

Sergey Zaporozhsky

Zaporozhsky, who calls himself a businessman and political scientist, has citizenship of the Russian Federation. At the same time, in Ukraine he is primarily known as the author of the popular political microblog on Twitter “Bandera Football”. In it, the TV show participant many times allowed himself harsh criticism of Russia and rejoiced at the successes of the neighboring country.

The speaker, who listed “President of Ukraine 2024-2034” as his profession on Facebook, does not attend Russian TV shows very often and does not appear very prominently on them. He became famous because of a conflict with TV presenter Norkin. During the live broadcast, he took Zaporozhsky out of the studio of the “Meeting Place” program with the words “Every other sheep will teach me.”

The TV show guest said that Norkin should be treated because he is deceiving. A Twitter troll managed to piss off a journalist and TV presenter with 26 years of experience. Later, Norkin publicly stated that he did not “break in” to his opponent.

Alexey Goncharenko

Alexey Goncharenko

Goncharenko is the son of the former mayor of Odessa and a deputy of the Verkhovna Rada. In the past, he was a member of the Party of Regions, but after the events on Maidan he left. Since 2014, he has already been the deputy head of the Petro Poroshenko Bloc faction. He became notorious after the tragedy in the House of Trade Unions. “We cleared the Kulikovo field of separatists,” Goncharenko said in Shuster’s program. He doesn't appear on Russian TV very often. But almost every appearance of his in a television studio causes a storm of emotions and an angry reaction on social networks.

Excerpt from a typical speech

Once Goncharenko almost caused a diplomatic scandal. He decided to take part in the Moscow march, his capital police. Soon, however, the holder of diplomatic immunity was released. Goncharenko is also known for the fact that he tried to present a symbolic order for a Russian plane shot down by the Turks, and also staged his own kidnapping.

Vadim Karasev

Vadim Karasev

A frequent guest of Russian television programs is the director of the private enterprise "Institute of Global Strategies" Vadim Karasev. He is remembered by the viewer first of all for his face, abundantly dotted with warts.

Excerpt from a typical speech

In recent months, Karasev has quite sharply changed his rhetoric from radical Ukrainian-patriotic to compromise-conciliatory. Now, in one form or another, he declares that Ukraine is obliged to reckon with Russia.

Michael Bohm

Michael Bohm

Of all the foreign opponents on talk shows, American Michael Bom is the most good-natured. He can even be called a favorite of TV viewers and presenters. In any case, it rarely comes to open flogging. Once he was given a dressing down on air by the head of Crimea, Sergei Aksenov, who “did not understand what such people were doing on Russian TV.”

Known for his manner of inserting (sometimes out of place) Russian proverbs and sayings, Bohm calls himself a “Russian scholar.” 18 years ago he came to Moscow to engage in the insurance business and later abandoned it in favor of journalism. Although the money in this area, as he admits, is not very good, he has achieved professional fulfillment. He even taught a course at the Faculty of Journalism of MGIMO. He was married to a Russian citizen (which was revealed recently on live television), and loves to confess his love for Russia.

Admitting that he is a “whipping boy” on Russian television, Bohm claims that he is closer to the role of a public diplomat.

Pavel Zhovnirenko

Pavel Zhovnirenko

Political strategist, political scientist and chairman of the board of the Center for Strategic Studies Pavlo Zhovnirenko stands out from other Ukrainian talking heads on Russian television in that he regularly leaves the film studios himself if he believes that the presenters are paying little attention and airtime to him.

He first tried this “knight move” in April 2016. Then the political scientist was offended by the NTV presenters and left the studio, citing a lack of attention. At the same time, Zhovnirenko received the right to speak during the program, and when leaving he tried to linger and continue the dialogue again.

He applied the already tested method of attracting attention six months later in the “60 Minutes” program on Russia-1. It seems that at some point he was simply tired of what was happening on the TV show, and he decided without a shadow of a doubt to leave.

Jiri Just

Jiri Just with his “colleague” Michael Bohm

Another lover of bow ties is the Czech Jiri Just. Former columnist for MK and Moscow correspondent for the Czech information portal. One of the few “whipping boys” who are aware of and publicly define their role as such.

"For me, going to these talk shows has two meanings, two incentives. The first is that before or after the program I can communicate with the politicians invited there. The second - yes, I, of course, understand that I am there as whipping boy. That even with my very presence I, to some extent, support the propaganda of Russian television. But I go to these talk shows in order to show that there is another point of view,” he said.

Excerpt from a typical speech

Yust defends a pro-European position, but he is quite objective in his statements, which earns him the respect of presenters and TV viewers, and his natural phlegmatism does not allow him to get involved in serious skirmishes.

Olesya Yakhno

Olesya Yakhno

One of the few “whipping girls” on the show is a native of the Vinnitsa region Olesya Yakhno, special correspondent of the official parliamentary newspaper “Voice of Ukraine” and director of the “Institute of National Strategy of Ukraine” (a branch of a similar Russian institution of her ex-husband, political strategist Stanislav Belkovsky).

Excerpt from a typical speech

A loud voice, systematically applied tactics of shouting at opponents and a truly unpredictable logic of argumentation (one gets the feeling that Yakhno herself does not know where her next phrase will lead) made Olesya one of the most prominent representatives of Ukraine on Russian talk shows.

Leonid Gozman

Leonid Gozman

An associate of Chubais, who was a member of many liberal parties from the Union of Right Forces to Right Cause, member of the Russian Jewish Congress Leonid Gozman was initially an almost ideal candidate for participating in Russian television shows on the “wrong” side. He began his trips to television almost earlier than everyone else: he held his first debate on January 26, 2009 with Vladimir Zhirinovsky, discussing the now distant conflict between Russia and Georgia.

Excerpt from a typical speech

He regularly comes under a barrage of criticism from opponents and is forced to listen to insults (sometimes open). The politician treats this part of his television activity with irony. In an interview, he admitted that he perfectly understands that it is impossible to convince someone. Gozman knows that he is being used only because he is “a Jew, a friend of Chubais, cross-eyed - as you know, God marks a scoundrel - and in general a complete scum.” He justifies his desire to participate in discussions by saying that someone must demonstrate to liberals without the Internet that there are people with a similar point of view.

According to open data, during all the visits to television programs, Gozman was not beaten. However, on December 1, 2016, a case was made public when a politician, following the example of Zhovnirenko, stood up and left the hall during the filming of one of the shows. Before that, he listened to an almost two-minute critical monologue by host Andrei Norkin.

Boris Nadezhdin

Boris Nadezhdin

Gozman’s colleague in the Union of Right Forces and former State Duma deputy, Nadezhdin is a regular participant in the TV show. He explained his frequent appearance on air by the fact that he was called very persistently. They say that the ratings of TV channels fell while debates on their airwaves took place without representatives of even the conditional opposition.

Excerpt from a typical speech

In addition, in this way the politician tries to increase his recognition. He needs this to further participate in the elections. However, numerous programs did not help him get into the State Duma of the next convocation. Nadezhdin called his political position moderate and admitted that he criticizes Putin only on economic issues. Recognizing Russia’s right to Crimea, the politician tries to defend pro-Ukrainian theses on TV shows.

Tomas Maciejczuk

Tomas Maciejczuk

A regular on political talk shows, Polish journalist Maciejczuk became widely known in the fall of 2016. On the set of one of the programs, he suggested that Russian people “live in shit.” A heated discussion with a TV presenter escalated into a fight with former Ukrainian MP Igor Markov.

Matseychuk admitted that he became a journalist thanks to the Euromaidan and for a long time supplied humanitarian aid to protesters and volunteer battalions of nationalists in eastern Ukraine. Later, the journalist witnessed atrocities committed by Ukrainian neo-Nazis and reconsidered his views. The publication in the Polish press of materials about the presence of real Nazis among the ATO fighters quickly spoiled the Pole’s relations with the Ukrainian authorities. The last straw was that Matseychuk prevented representatives of the Ukrainian authorities from hiding a photo of a neo-Nazi that accidentally ended up at an exhibition about “ATO heroes” in the European Parliament.

Excerpt from a typical speech

According to some reports, the expert who ardently defended Ukraine’s position was banned from entering this country. He also repeatedly received threats from radicals. After consulting with subscribers on social networks about the need to participate in Russian TV shows, Matseychuk left for Russia in October 2016 and has not left television screens since then.

Andrey Okara

Andrey Okara

One of Kovtun’s most famous colleagues is the Ukrainian political scientist Andrei Okara. Born and raised in Moscow, the ethnic Ukrainian studied the ideas of Russian conservatism of the 20th century, repeatedly criticized Ukraine in his publications and deprived it of its right to exist. On Russian television shows he gets the role of a Moscow Ukrainophile. According to some reports, the political scientist was deported from Ukraine in 2015. However, the small number of sources does not allow us to confirm or refute this information.

Excerpt from a typical speech

On Russian TV, he likes to speak in support of the actions of the Ukrainian authorities, almost always becoming the object of criticism from other guests of the TV show and its presenters. Okara did not escape the fate of being beaten. Back in 2014, on a live TV show, he got into a fight with the co-chairman of the Popular Front of Novorossiya, Konstantin Dolgov.

The audience will probably see most of the people mentioned more than once. They like to call pro-Western and pro-Ukrainian political experts on Russian channels. They give programs ratings and help opponents hone their arguments.

Follow us on Instagram:

Each of the major television channels broadcasts several talk shows where social and political topics are discussed. On “Russia 1” he hosts the programs “Duel” and “Evening with Vladimir Solovyov”, and the talk show “60 Minutes” with Olga Skabeeva and Evgeny Popov is also broadcast there. The flagship of the socio-political block of Channel One was the talk show “First Studio” with Artem Sheinin. He, along with Ekaterina Strizhenova and Anatoly Kuzichev, hosts the daytime talk show “Time will tell.” NTV airs “Meeting Place” with Andrei Norkin and Olga Belova during the day, and “The Right to Voice” with Roman Babayan is shown on the TV Center channel in the evenings, as well as “The Right to Know” with Dmitry Kulikov.

It is enough to look at these and other political shows to notice: the same people wander from program to program. Moreover, some of them act as experts on almost all issues. The structure of the show, themes, and techniques are also repeated. Afisha Daily decided to look into these and other features of discussions on Russian political talk shows.

Issue dated March 27, 2017. Topic: "At the crime scene." The program is dedicated to Ukraine. Presenter Artem Sheinin appeals to the reaction to the murder of Voronenkov by US Senator John McCain. After this, a discussion ensues.

Leonid Smekhov

Business coach, teacher of public speaking for an MBA at IBDA RANEPA, author of the book “Popular Rhetoric”

Thanks to the image of the presenter, a feeling is created: the program is being hosted by a “man of the people”, a kind of boorish and rude native of the proletarian environment. Sheinin, in rude terms, devalues ​​McCain as a speaker, citing the following argument: “I understand that McCain spent a long time in a cage in Vietnam, where he was regularly beaten.” This is labeling as “not a completely mentally healthy person.”

One of the program participants, Igor Drandin, agrees with McCain’s words about Russia’s involvement in the murder, recalling the example of Alexei Navalny: “As soon as you talk about Putin and corruption, you are immediately sent to jail.” Other speakers begin to interrupt him, arguing that in America Navalny would be imprisoned for 15 years for rallies. This is a manipulative, unverifiable statement - a trick called “imposed consequence”, when the chain of reasoning is hidden and the emphasis is placed on the conclusion. The presenter labels the interlocutor as “you now sound like McCain,” ignores counter questions and uses an authoritarian trick - repeating the same phrase until the interlocutor gets tired and falls silent. The presenter also uses other tools to control the dialogue: gives commands to speakers; lowers the rate of speech and increases emphasis on words, which makes his speech more significant; gets personal, directly accusing his opponent of lying.

When Drandin is already off balance, trying to shout down his opponents, he looks like a capricious child. At this point, the rest of the program participants begin to behave like educators who are trying to calm him down from the position of an “adult.”

Employee of a socio-political talk show of one of the central channels

The expert wishes to remain anonymous

Opposition speakers are the biggest problem for such talk shows. The leadership wants new faces, but at the same time they need to be absolutely sure that this very “liberal-lite” will not say too much. Especially if the program is broadcast live. Of course, there is a stop list, and it is periodically supplemented, in particular, for the reason “I’m tired of it, there’s too much on the air.” These “lite liberals” can be counted on one hand. They are all paid, that is, it is their job to go on TV channels and portray enemies in a mode that is safe for the channel.

Artem Sheinin is a strange character in general. He was still tolerable when he was the shadow head of the channel's political broadcasting. But after Peter Tolstoy left for the State Duma, Sheinin apparently decided to demonstrate the height of professionalism in running political talk shows. Well, in his opinion, of course. This style of broadcasting is generally Sheinin’s style of communication. The appearance of Anatoly Kuzichev as a co-host in the show “Time will Tell”, in general, fits into the concept. Under the leadership of Sheinin himself, they were looking for someone who would resemble Sheinin without overshadowing him.

Issue dated February 21, 2017. Topic: Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko called on Europe to tighten sanctions against Russia because it recognized the documents of the DPR and LPR. Conversation with Vyacheslav Kovtun, who is introduced as a Ukrainian political scientist.

Leonid Smekhov

The presenter sets in advance the framework within which viewers will perceive the video with Poroshenko. Immediately after watching, he once again points out the incompatibility of Poroshenko’s statements with his status and religious beliefs. It is important that the statement of the President of Ukraine is taken out of context: neither the situation, nor the identity of the interlocutor, nor the prerequisites are known. It is also impossible to say for sure that Poroshenko uttered the insult - it sounds from behind the scenes. Kovtun is trying to clumsily justify Poroshenko, instead of shifting the focus or even transferring the game to the enemy’s field (his favorite speech technique is “he’s a fool”). He does this belatedly, recalling the statements of Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov during a press conference with his colleague from Saudi Arabia.

“Evening with Vladimir Solovyov” on “Russia 1”

Issue dated May 16, 2017. Topic of the program: “Banning social networks in Ukraine. Medicine in Russia. Cultural extremism." Vladimir Solovyov and guests again oppose the Ukrainian political scientist Vyacheslav Kovtun.

Leonid Smekhov

Soloviev acts in the usual image of a cynic intellectual, increasing the persuasiveness of his statements by listing names and facts. He responds to Kovtun with manipulative tricks: he puts on a label, reducing the authority of his interlocutor; sometimes he appeals to other people - Shoigu, Zyuganov and Zhirinovsky and their expected reaction; then moves on to direct accusations. In the future, even antics are used against Kovtun in order to devalue his words and seize the initiative. He is eventually hammered again with a series of accusations. Under them he temporarily drowns.

TV show employee

The TV show really got into the themes of Ukraine and Poroshenko. This formulation of the question has long unnerved the viewer, because it resembles pouring from empty to empty. When the Ministry of Defense TV channel “Zvezda” prioritizes foreign policy topics, this is at least somehow understandable. In the case of the first button and “Russia” - no.

Topics for talk shows (especially daily ones) are formed from the current agenda. Editors regularly offer interesting moves and twists, but periodically this ends with the topic being canceled and the command: “Making Ukraine.” If some time ago this was interpreted as “Ukraine-actual”, then at the moment the current is not forged with such frequency. Therefore, the topic, as well as the program, turns out to be nothing.

Issue dated April 6, 2017. Topic: “What do they expect from Russia?” They are discussing “unsubstantiated” accusations from the West of Russian involvement in a chemical attack in Syria. Igor Korotchenko, a member of the Public Council under the Ministry of Defense, opposes the American journalist Michael Bohm.

Leonid Smekhov

Korotchenko’s statement is a typical sifting of facts: he omits something quite significant, but, on the contrary, brings something to the fore. He gives additional persuasiveness to his statement with a low tempo of speech, harsh vocal delivery, and emphasis. When Bom tries to interrupt Korotchenko, he immediately begins to insult him, as if he were insulting a criminal who has already been exposed, but is still trying to interfere with the progress of the investigation. In the end, everything negative is attached personally to Bom, as usually happens on such programs.

Here it is worth noting the imbalance of volume as an additional means of influencing the listener: in this dialogue, we hear Korotchenko’s remarks much more clearly and better than Bohm’s remarks. But could it be the other way around? The American's opinion is secondary here.

TV show employee

With Bom, as with Kovtun, the situation is the same as with the paid oppositionists. It’s just their job to go on talk shows and pretend to be enemies (NTV dedicated a series of programs to foreign stars of Russian television: here it is. - Note ed.). As for fees, Bohm, for example, two years ago received fifteen thousand rubles per broadcast. Kovtun was initially paid five, but soon the fee was increased to ten.

"First Studio" on Channel One

Issue dated March 29, 2017. Topic: “Protests: how society should react to them.” The guests talk about why young people came out to protest on March 26.

Leonid Smekhov

Putin recognized the collapse of the USSR as the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century, which means that this interpretation of the events of 1991 can be considered the official and main one. Gennady Zyuganov, for obvious reasons, develops this topic, linking events in Ukraine with it and using recognizable Soviet propaganda cliches: “orange provocateurs”, “under far-fetched slogans” and so on. But this does not sound archaic: modern media often use tools of speech influence from the past.

Navalny’s image is instantly transformed into that of an enemy thanks to the label “Führer.” In general, the event under discussion is presented by Zyuganov as something illegal, dangerous for the country and inexperienced youth who do not understand anything. But, thank God, there are law enforcement agencies that protect the country and prevent it from falling apart. They, according to the leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, are smarter than the protesters.

Next speaker is Olga Timofeeva (member of the Russian Federation Council Committee on International Affairs. - Note ed.) develops the image of a clueless young Russian who can be drawn into a dangerous game by conscription. There is an appeal to a probable future, the topic under discussion is inflated to a global scale, and the organizers of the rallies immediately become enemies of the country, encroaching on its future. Sergei Ivanenko (member of the Yabloko party) bursting into dialogue with pressing questions and claims. Note ed.) the presenter neutralizes with the following argument: “Are you a democrat? You say that you respect the laws? So respect the laws of our studio.” The presenter says this with a disdainful tone, which weakens Ivanenko’s statement and oratorical image.

TV show employee

Was the choice of topic influenced by the fact that the central channels were criticized on the Internet for hushing up the protest action? Usually, criticism on the Internet is responded to selectively; there is no system as such. It was rather the gravity of the presenter Sheinin. It cannot be said that program management is constantly offended by criticism of the Internet and they run to give “our answer to Chamberlain.”

The presenter appeals to the words of director Alexander Sokurov, without saying a word that this phrase was taken, and also without mentioning that Sokurov has repeatedly spoken critically about the actions of the Russian authorities.

Leonid Smekhov

The presenter undertakes to claim that on his program a decision is formed on the correct reaction of society to rallies. And again a statement about the lack of understanding and stupidity of young people: if they go to a rally, it means there is wind in their heads.

Look: they managed to involve even such worthy and recognized people as Sokurov. He proposes to divide the protesters into those who cannot be touched under any circumstances, and the rest who can be touched. And now we will prove that everyone needs to be touched. Here are the cute girls in the video. Here they are sitting. But a building is on fire in Odessa. This type of innuendo is called "sandwich". We take a well-known fact - girls at a rally, we take another well-known fact - the burned down trade union house in Odessa, and between them we put an unknown and unverifiable fact: the assertion that these girls also burned the house. The trick is usually convincing.

TV show employee

The system of taking phrases out of context, unfortunately, is constantly practiced. Those who make the program realize that the person whose statement was distorted will never come to the program. And if he wouldn’t go anyway, then his hands are completely untied.

“Time will tell” on Channel One

Issue dated July 21, 2017. Topic: “Why don’t we give birth?” The program about the decline in the birth rate in recent years begins with a discussion of the presenter’s recent vacation in Crimea.

Leonid Smekhov

Sifting through the facts again: we talk about one thing and leave out another. There is an interesting point in the discussion of Crimea: the presenters’ childhood memories of the taste of peaches. Firstly, these memories should evoke the same reaction among the target audience of the program - agreement, warm memories, nostalgia, and at the same time a desire to agree with the position of the presenters. And secondly, these memories are presented with an emphasis on the kinesthetic channel of perception: taste, the sensation of flowing juice from a ripe fruit. This is done so that the viewer’s imagination draws the correct pictures, and does not deal with issues of prices and congestion of the beaches.

Negative issues are minimized, although slightly outlined for the sake of verisimilitude. But in general, everyone is happy in Crimea, the region is bursting with fruits, tourists and people happy to join Russia. A very pleasant picture is created, from which the transition to a painful topic - the decline in the birth rate in the country - turns out to be quite soft. We are already talking about a global and serious problem, but the imagination still pictures a hand with peach juice flowing down it.