“And I turned and saw under the sun, that it is not the nimble ones who get a successful run, not the brave victory, not the wise - bread, and not the rational ones get wealth … but time and opportunity for all of them."
(Ecclesiastes 8.11)
“… And they worshiped the beast, saying: who is like this beast, and who can fight with them? And there was given him a mouth speaking proud and blasphemous … And it was given to him to wage war with the saints and to conquer them; and authority was given to him over every tribe and people and tongue and nation"
(Revelations of Saint John the Divine 4.7)
The material published on the pages of VO about the “poisoned pen” of Russian journalism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries aroused a lively response from readers who wished to develop the topic. However, before considering the time close to us, it makes sense to look, but where did it all start?
So, each person is a universe, and if he dies, then … the universe dies with him. Even though it really continues to exist, the deceased does not care a bit about it. All the information he had accumulated "went away" with him. But if this is so, then every historical event is also an extremely subjective thing. We have not seen the Battle of the Ice, but we know about it because someone once wrote about it! We have not seen Angel Falls, but we know about its existence, because, firstly, it was written about it - there is relevant information in magazines and on Wikipedia, and secondly - we saw it on TV.
But in the past, people were even more limited in their sources of information. It was delivered by "kaliki perekhozhny", messengers and priest, who called out decrees in the squares, and later they drew from the first newspapers and magazines. Of course, everything written in them was well, very subjective, and how this "reality" was subjectively reflected in the heads of people, and not very literate, needless to say. However, people appreciated the power of the printed word very early, almost from the very inception of book printing, which is why subsequently the number of newspapers and magazines around the world grew, literally, by leaps and bounds. In Russia, these were handwritten "Chimes", then printed "Vedomosti", which were edited by Peter himself, and did not even hesitate to reveal military secrets about the number of guns in them: let everyone know about the "Russian force"!
On the other hand, since the era of Peter the Great, Russian statehood has been constantly confronted with the information hostility of its neighbors and was forced to respond to them using the most modern PR techniques. For example, after the Battle of Poltava, the Western press began to publish materials about the terrible atrocities of Russian soldiers against captured Swedes. It was reported simply amazing things that, for example, our soldiers make holes in the sides of the prisoners, stuff them with gunpowder, set them on fire and so make them run until they fall. And someone is even given to be punished by hungry bears. It was then that our brown bear became the symbol of Russia in the eyes of Europeans, which, as the Prussian king Friedrich Wilhelm I said, should be kept tightly on a chain. So it is not surprising that the news of the death of Peter I was received in Europe with jubilation, about which the Russian ambassador to Denmark, future chancellor A. P. Bestuzhev-Ryumin reported to Russia, indignant at the libelous.
During the Russian-Swedish war of 1741-1743. the Swedes decided to use the power of the printed word in leaflets containing Levengaupt's appeal to the Russian troops that entered the territory of Sweden. They wrote that the Swedes want to save the Russian people from oppression by the Germans. Well, the enthronement of Elizabeth Petrovna on the Russian throne was facilitated not only by Lomonosov, who wrote his famous ode, but also by active actions in the form of a real information war, since Western "gazeteers" openly expressed their condemnation of what is happening in Russia. It was rather difficult to silence them, since European ministers pointed to freedom of speech in their states. And it was then that the Russian Ambassador to Holland A. G. Golovkin found a way out: to pay these "impudent gazetteers" annual pensions "to keep them from such reprehensibility." True, at the beginning, such a step in the government aroused fears that there was a lot of them and that there might not be enough money for everyone, someone, offended, would "rise" even more, but Golovkin insisted and it was decided to give out money "dachas".
The first such "pensioner" of the Russian Foreign Ministry was the Dutch journalist Jean Rousset de Missy. At one time, he wrote a lot of all sorts of "pashkvili", but he was sympathetic to the "subsidies" from us and immediately changed both the tone and content of his publications. And what about the readers? Throwed rotten eggs at him? No, it never happened, no one even noticed his "werewolf"! And the Russian government, which allocated 500 ducats to Dutch journalists a year, received publications “necessary” for a positive image of the empire. And if before that Western journalists called Elizabeth "parvenya on the throne", now they wrote together about how splendid Russia is under the control of Peter's daughter!
Having revealed the effectiveness of this method, the Russian, and later the Soviet government, successfully applied it, starting with paying for ordered articles to "their" journalists and up to organizing their tour of the country, where progressive (in our opinion) foreign writers and journalists were invited. showed only what the authorities wanted to show them.
The effectiveness of such actions in their influence on the minds and hearts of not only foreigners, but also the Russians themselves was very high due to such a feature of the psychology of Russians as their inactive attitude to power. Thus, one of the main ideologists of the Slavophiles, K. Aksakov, wrote in this regard that the patriarchal majority of the Russian people only expresses their own judgment about the government. But she herself does not want to rule, and is ready to entrust power over herself to any more or less legitimate ruler or even a bold impostor.
In any case, the authorities quickly realized that it was the press that allowed them to change the picture of the world around people at will and thus change public opinion, without the support on which it would not have lasted even a day. This is how the authorities acted in the West, and in the East, and, of course, in Russia. That is, a step has been taken everywhere from an extreme tyranny to a controlled public opinion. In Russia, this happened exactly when we had a massive, large-circulation press, but the trouble is to use this "weapon" really the then state power, unfortunately, did not know how.
Why are we writing about all this? Yes, simply because nothing simply does not arise from scratch. And the journalists who destroyed the USSR with their writings, too, were wound up in our country “not from dampness”, but by someone and when they were brought up, got an education somewhere, studied from books written once, absorbed the mentality of their people. Modern sociologists have proved that in order to radically change the views of people, it takes at least three generations of life, and three generations is a whole century. This means that if some events took place, say, in 1917, then their roots should be sought at least in 1817, and if in 1937, then … in 1837, respectively. And by the way, it was in this year that the authorities for the first time really realized the power of the printed word, addressed, first of all, to the inhabitants of the Russian province. Then the newspaper "Provincial Gazette" was established everywhere by the "Highest Command" dated June 3 of the same year. As early as January 1838, Vedomosti began to appear in 42 Russian provinces, i.e. the area of information coverage of the territory of the country by them turned out to be very extensive. That is, it was not the initiative of private individuals, their desire, and not the interest of local residents that gave rise to the provincial local press, but the will of the government. However, as, in general, everything that came out of the hands of the government in Russia, this seal came out somehow "unfinished".
So, for example, the editor of the unofficial part of "Nizhegorodskie provincial vedomosti" and at the same time an official for special assignments under the governor A. A. Odintsove A. S. Gatsisky wrote: “Provincial statements differ from all other statements in the world that they are not read by anyone of their own free will and of their own free will …” He complained about the poverty of content, poverty of style, then explained why they were not read. And how can you not believe him, if such “newspapers,” if I may say so, were published then practically everywhere, and they are in our archives!
For example, in the Penza province, the newspaper "Penza Provincial News" began to be published in 1838 on January 7, and, as elsewhere, consisted of two parts: the official one, in which the orders of the government and local authorities were printed, and the unofficial one, which gave mainly various announcements. … And … that's it! It did not even talk about any journalistic journalism at that time! The size was small, the font was small, which turned it not so much into a newspaper as into an information sheet, which could only be used by an extremely insignificant part of the provincial society. In 1845, Nicholas I also introduced the all-Russian part, which should appear in all provincial newspapers, as well as censorship "white spots" on the pages. On January 1, 1866, the Penza Diocesan Gazette began to be published in the province. As for the frequency of publication of "Penza Provincial Gazette", initially they were published once a week, then in 1873 twice, and, finally, only since 1878 this newspaper began to be published daily. However, we got a little ahead of ourselves. In the meantime, we should talk about what Russia was like at that moment, so that it would be easier for us to imagine to whom, how and why our domestic newspaper information was supplied in those years.
And we will do this based on the opinion of not someone from the famous Russians, but the opinion of a "person from the outside", namely, the French ambassador, Baron Prosper de Barant, who carried out his activities in Russia in the period from 1835 to 1841 and who left behind a note entitled "Notes on Russia", then published by his son-in-law in 1875. At the same time, it makes sense to limit ourselves to selectively citing an article by N. Tanshina, Doctor of Historical Sciences, which was devoted to his stay in our country and fully meets the utilitarian task: to give a kind of "preface" to where and why everything of interest to us began. In her opinion, Baron de Barant did not idealize Russia at all, but he saw the main thing in it: Russia had already embarked on the path of modernization and, albeit slowly but steadily, was moving in the same direction as Europe. In this regard, he distinguished between the time of the reign of Paul I and Nicholas Russia: "Between Russia in 1801 and Russia in 1837, between the era of Paul's follies and the reign of Emperor Nicholas, there were already important differences, although the form of government and social classes did not change outwardly." What are these differences? And in the power of public opinion, associated with what Russian soldiers and officers learned from their campaigns in Europe during the Napoleonic Wars. It can be added that the second time the same situation was repeated after the end of the Great Patriotic War. And, by the way, Russia of Nicholas I did not at all appear to Barant as a police state in which servility prevailed, and any free speech was subject to punishment. In his opinion, in Russia in those years between the absolute power of the monarch and his subjects, there was an unspoken agreement based on the opinion that power should act for the common good and act in justice. Russia was no longer in his eyes a symbol of "Eastern despotism and barbarism."
As for the abolition of serfdom, he believed that reason and justice did not allow demanding a sudden reform, which would become a real disaster … - the French diplomat emphasized.
He saw the Russian education system as a big drawback: the exclusively narrow-profile system of training specialists created by Peter I. Emperor Nicholas I was also a supporter of this system, which greatly saddened Barant: “Where there is no public education, there is no public; there is no power of public opinion …”But the people of Russia have also changed. "Every now and then I saw the coachmen of fiacre or men in rags holding a book in their hands." Printing houses opened, books were bought up, and publishing was a profitable business, and those who could not, for example, buy a popular magazine due to the scarcity of funds, copied them at home, taking bail from the library.
De Barant saw the reason that Russia is developing in a different way, unlike Western Europe, in the fact that it chose for itself the Eastern, Byzantine version of Christianity: “The Christian religion that came to Russia from Byzantium has something of the traditionalism of Eastern religions … It does not contain the idea of progress. " "Rationalizing" in Russia was not held in high esteem, and then Peter I, as already noted, limited himself to only that education, which gave the country only narrow specialists, nothing more.
Thus, speaking in the language of modernity, the emperor dreamed of "reforms without reforms" so that society would develop only in some directions chosen at his own discretion, and following the European fashion and lifestyle, on the contrary, considered almost the main cause of all troubles and the misfortunes of Russia.
As for the information support of the life of Russian society, during Baron de Barant's stay in Russia it was no better, but no worse, than in the countries of "enlightened" Europe, albeit with certain peculiarities generated by the gigantic expanses of the country. There was a telegraph, although still optical, not electrical, which, however, was replaced by a well-functioning courier connection. True, it happened that due to the remoteness of certain districts from the center, the news of the death of the sovereign and the accession of a new one could well arrive in the province a month or even more after these events, which automatically plunged the local clergy into a state of panic. For a whole month they served "for health", while they should have served "for the repose." And this was considered a terrible sin according to church concepts. There was a postal service. In the provinces there were printing houses, including state, private and synodal ones, newspapers and magazines were published. The development of society was also accompanied by an increase in the volume of periodicals, as well as an increase in the frequency of issuance of provincial newspapers, and, accordingly, all the same took place throughout Russia.
Then a step was taken in the field of freedom of information, because shortly after his accession to the throne, Alexander II abolished the censorship committee introduced by Nicholas I. And already in March 1856 he uttered the well-known phrase that “it is better to abolish serfdom from above, rather than waiting until it starts canceling itself from below”. Since he said this, speaking before the Moscow nobility, it can be assumed that this was done on purpose. After all, information about this statement of the Russian crown bearer has spread in the widest possible way, and not only in noble circles!
As you know, the preparation of the reform in Russia, right up to February 19, 1861 itself, was carried out in deep secrecy, on the preservation of which Alexander II himself insisted. And here - on you! Far from immediately and not everywhere were the provincial committees open to develop a draft regulation on the peasant reform, and the question of the wide coverage of their activities in the press did not even raise the question to the tsar.
Of course, “you can't hide an sewn in a sack”, and news of the upcoming reform nevertheless spread: both at the level of statements and rescripts of the emperor himself, and through popular rumor. Speaking in the language of modernity, we can say that a deliberate "information leak" took place here, organized in such a way as to say something, but essentially not to report anything! And, of course, the effect of the "leaks" was exactly what they had hoped for. So, on December 28, 1857 in Moscow, during a gala dinner at a merchant meeting, where 180 representatives of the creative intelligentsia and merchants gathered, the abolition of serfdom was openly spoken about in speeches, that is, the event turned out to be highly informational.
However, the position of the government is also understandable, which quite rightly believed that the peasants cannot be immediately transferred from a state of complete slavery to complete freedom, without causing a strong ferment of minds, or even a people's revolution. And in this case, she found the easiest way to completely conceal the truth from her people, in which any decision of the tsarist government had to fall on him like snow on his head. It was assumed that “the one who is forewarned is armed,” and tsarism clearly did not want to even in this way “arm” the numerous Russian peasantry against itself.
IN. Klyuchevsky wrote about the state that then took place in society, and that the reforms, although slow, were sufficiently prepared, but we were less prepared for their perception. At the same time, the result of this unpreparedness for changes affecting the entire society, in the first place, was distrust, and even outright hatred of the authorities. The fact is that the fundamental feature of Russian society for many centuries was legality, which was of a coercive nature. The laws in Russia were not the result of a compromise between the top and bottom. They were imposed on society by the state all the time. And the inhabitants of Russia could not fight for their rights and freedoms, if only because any protest against the government in Russia was automatically considered as an act against the Motherland and the people in general. The lack of developed concepts of the norms of public law and personal freedom of citizens led to the fact that it was easier for people to endure, as A. Herzen wrote, their forced slavery than the gift of excessive freedom. Social principles have always been strong in the mentality of Russians, but at the same time, active participation in public life for our citizens is more an exception than a rule, which does not contribute to public dialogue, similar to what is, at least, declared (and often is!) West. And this is today! What, then, can be said about 1861, when many of the above characteristics of modern society existed in their infancy?
However, the authorities also committed a great and obvious stupidity when they completely ignored their local press during the reform of 1861. The manifesto was sent to the localities by couriers, read from the pulpits of churches - that is, it had to be perceived by illiterate peasants by ear, and at the same time its text was not published in the "provincial vedomosti" !!!
That is, there was, of course, but … a month after its promulgation, and approximately with the same delay, all the other regulations and legalizations of the reform were published. Isn't this the greatest stupidity in the world? That is, on the one hand, the government allowed information leaks among the right people, but at the same time completely ignored the bulk of the population of Russia - the support of the tsarist throne. Meanwhile, it was in the newspapers that it was necessary, again for the "necessary people" (they would tell others later!) To write about what benefits the reform would give to everyone and how best to use its fruits for the landlords and peasants. It was necessary to write "reviews from the localities" about how gladly the peasant accepted the reform … the name of the Verkhne-Perdunkovaya volost, the village of Bolshaya Gryaz, and what he was going to do. There would be journalists for this and money - well, they would replace the silver and gold braids on the ceremonial uniform in the guard with a woolen thread, as Colbert did in his time, and the money would be found!
As a result, Gubernskiye Vedomosti began to write about the consequences of the Great Reform only in 1864, reporting that in many three-window outbuildings the middle window is cut down under the door and a sign is hung over it - in red and white: "Drinking and take away." That's all we have reforms! This was printed, but what should have been printed was not printed! It is from this that we got the traditions of the “poisoned feather” in post-reform Russia! That is, they wrote against the authorities even before that! But here the authorities themselves turned out to be guilty of not using the enormous opportunities of the official provincial press, and many of its journalists were essentially left to their own devices.
