Little liars from the RBC channel. Igor Vittel? Igor Vittel Social, scientific and creative activities

Although Igor Vittel is undoubtedly my favorite, I still wanted to dedicate my first post about petty liars on the RBC channel to Andrei Sapunov and even began preparing material. But I came across an article onWikipedia about Igorka and could not resist. This little man turned out to be very entertaining! Studying the biography, creativity and achievements of such a grandee promised true pleasure and promised to significantly prolong life, because every minute of sincere laughter, as is known, prolongs life by an hour. The fact that there would be something to laugh at became clear from the first lines of the article I read. And even a quick glance at the selection of photographs of puffed-up posing turkeys, returned by Yandex for the request “Igor Vittel,” clearly confirmed that the laughter would be both boisterous, sincere, and long.

And I couldn’t resist...

So, meet:

A star of Russian and world economic journalism, a charismatic (is it really from the word “harya”?) TV and radio presenter, consultant and producer Vittel, who combines his heavy educational and other activities directly aimed at making money with open sympathy for Ernesto Che Guevara and, second , ...to Hugo Chavez!

Yes, it was the passionate Colonel Chavez, who gave the Venezuelans, among other similar joys, a line for toilet paper, that is his idol.
I must admit right away that the holistic image of this multifaceted character It didn’t work out for me right away.

Who is he, Igor Stanislavovich Vittel: a petty liar, a clown, a narcissistic baboon, or a bile-spewing loser, angry at constant failures with women? Or does it contain a little bit of all the poop of matter?
I had to spend a lot of time to come to a very definite conclusion:

Vittel is not a petty liar. And he’s not even a joke, as it often seems when you see what funny faces he makes on his shows and what outright nonsense he says, keeping a serious face on his comical face. Remember stories of Abramovich's arrest in the USA and a live telephone interview with "Dorenko"?

But he is not a buffoon or a petty liar, he is just a loser , who by chance ended up on a third-rate TV channel. Mother Nature joked, combining in his body and character a funny appearance and narcissism, an average mind and a painful conceit, abundantly flavoring this mixture with hatred of people in general, women and more fortunate men in particular. And the passing years have added a whole bunch of complexes.

I'm sorry, but Igor Vittel does not fall into the category of petty liars and is not of interest for relevant research. Characters like him are entertaining precisely as a set of hidden psychological problems and phobias. We'll get back to them a little later.

Transcript of an online conference with TV journalist Igor Vittel. Part 1.

During the online conference, Igor Vittel amazed me with the irony of his statements and the peremptory nature of his views. In the first half hour of the meeting, we managed to talk with the famous TV journalist and interview master about the “fate of Russia”, and about patriotism, and about bloggers who were previously not allowed to clean toilets, and about the Internet in a madhouse, and about Boris Berezovsky, and about Alexander Bashlachev, and fleeing to become janitors and stokers.

• Igor Vittel- TV journalist, RBC journalist
• Albert Bikbov- moderator, analyst of the online newspaper Realnoe Vremya

“The cashier in the GUM toilet says to me: “I used to be on your air often, but now here I am.”

Hello dear audience of Realnoe Vremya. Today we have a rare case: usually people come to Vittel, but now Vittel came to us on Realnoe Vremya. The famous Vittel is a master of journalism...

Still, a meter is 63 cm.

Master of television. Meter 63, but what kind? My friends, I am pleased to introduce you to our interlocutor. You've probably all seen for 12 years now that Igor Stanislavovich has been leading...

Why did he lead? I'm still talking, sorry for interrupting. I'm still on the air.

- But there were...

There were, but you can't wait.

Igor Stanislavovich hosted, hosts and will host this absolutely gorgeous program “Vittel Observer”. I want to ask you this question: for so many years, so many people - what are the brightest people who came to your show?

You know, the program, of course, changed, it was not always called “Vittel-Observer”, and before it went on RBC, it was called “Branch”, then it was called “In Focus”, then I don’t remember. Now it is simply called "Vittel". I won’t say who is the brightest, not because I can’t remember them, but because there were a lot of bright ones. I can remember some bright moments, some funny, tragic, but I can say that the brightest people... They are all special to me.

Of course, there are anecdotal situations, you’ll forgive me for talking about this on air, but in GUM I had to run into a paid toilet, and the cashier who was sitting there said: “Igor Stanislavovich, don’t you remember me?” I say: “No, I don’t remember.” She: “I used to be on your air often, but now here I am.” Therefore, I now say that when you are on my programs, remember where everything can end. But in fact, I remember some tragic moments, bright moments, but bright people - they are all bright.

Propaganda is, in fact, not when they broadcast to you from behind the Kremlin wall what to say and what not to say, it is when you begin to broadcast your own beliefs, passing them off as the ultimate truth, or you start there as a pro-government journalist to sincerely believe in what you do not believe outside the frame

- So there were so many of them? They're all equal...

I can’t say that they are equivalent, but, for mercy’s sake, you say 12, in fact, almost 14 years, several times a day, every day, now once a week. And people came, and I remember not because the person was bright, but because the moment was either funny or particularly touching. The President did not come, and neither did the Prime Minister.

- I thought you would call Stepan Demura.

Stepan is my co-host, my comrade. This is one of the most scandalous, but I can’t say the brightest. It's far from the brightest.

“People who previously would not have been allowed to clean toilets now believe that they are outstanding bloggers.”

We're looking at journalism now, and I've seen a lot of your articles talking about the crisis in journalism. They say that the crisis is in journalism, and the prosperity is in propaganda. This is such an eternal topic and eternal confrontation.

For me, propaganda is not state propaganda. Many people who don’t know what television is, what journalism is, believe that in the morning, instructions are somehow immediately broadcast into our brains directly from the presidential administration. To be honest, I'm tired of making excuses. Propaganda is, in fact, not when they broadcast to you from behind the Kremlin wall what to say and what not to say, it is when you begin to broadcast your own beliefs, passing them off as the ultimate truth, or you start there as a pro-government journalist to sincerely believe in what you do not believe outside the frame. This is propaganda.

As for journalism, its flourishing or decline, this is connected not only with ideologization, it is connected with the general decline in the quality of education in the country and the world, with the general level of intelligence. Social networks have brought a lot of decline to the profession, because people who previously would not have been allowed to clean toilets now believe that they are outstanding bloggers and at the same time gather a certain audience precisely by promoting accessibility and broadcasting accessible ideas.

“When the BBC releases a film about Putin, I rub my eyes - is that really the BBC logo?”

- You correctly said that erosion occurs not only in journalism...

This erosion... Nowadays people turn on TV, the Internet, magazines, newspapers, not to learn something new, but to hear an opinion that coincides with your personal opinion or, on the contrary, the opposite, to say: “I told you so, that they are like this.” Unfortunately, analysis and intelligence are replaced by such simple chewing gum. This is, in fact, not a Russian problem. This is a problem in the world, but there it is a long-passed stage: in the evening they flick through channels, jumping from one mindless show to another. In our country, unfortunately, they don’t jump from some everyday shows (I have a very good attitude towards Andrei Malakhov, he is my friend, he does his profession well), but all these shows ala Malakhov. It would be nice if there were 20 of them on television, but instead of them there are socio-political programs. When people discuss someone else's bed, it is certainly unpleasant, but it is not fatal. When people discuss politics in the same way and think that they are experts: here we all understand politics and football... This light chewing gum, when you think: here are your own, here are strangers, you chew it endlessly, it’s a disaster.

When the BBC releases a film about Putin, I rub my eyes - is that really the BBC logo? And the next day I see a film about Obama, which is being produced by the Rossiya TV channel, I understand that both channels and, in general, both Western and Russian journalism are now competing not in who is better and more professional, but in the decline in the standards of the profession

It's horrible. And it’s hard for a person to navigate when there is such a multipolar... Even now television cannot be called narrowly focused propaganda: if you want to watch Channel One, if you want - Dozhd...

And again, you compare: “Channel One” is “Channel One”, “Rain” is a channel that can only be seen by searching and paying, and not on television. I’m not a big supporter of Dozhd, but let’s at least compare... If you want, compare “First” with RBC, but these are different things, and comparing the audience of RBC with “First” is difficult, but possible. But “Rain” has nothing to do with it at all. And then, all the same, there are not only no different opinions left, but there are fewer and fewer of them. Yes, this is not what scares me: if there were only opinions, but with a good level of journalism, I would still be ready to put up with it, but analysis is being replaced by cheap journalism. This is scary, this is scary.

- Is it different abroad? You lived there for a long time...

No. How it was... This is my third interview today in my beloved city of Kazan, and I can repeat what I already said: abroad I encountered and worked with many foreign media, but understand, the BBC has always had such a brand book: what it is possible and it is not possible. There is a standard, there is a level of profession. And when the BBC releases a film about Putin, I rub my eyes - is that really the BBC logo? And the next day I see a film about Obama, which is being produced by the Rossiya TV channel, I understand that both channels and, in general, both Western and Russian journalism are now competing not in who is better and more professional (and there are many challenges: new technologies , new media, with the advent of the Internet everything has changed and continues to change daily), and in the fall of the standards of the profession, not in the rise, but in the fall, they are simply deepening the bottom. And I don’t know which is worse today: the Rossiya channel or the BBC.

If earlier it was possible to say: we have a free press, in the West - not very free, now everywhere is free - now everything is worse. As Comrade Stalin said when they brought him the Moscow Hotel with two versions of the facade: “Both are worse.” What can you do?

- I don’t have any other writers for you.

This is another story, but no, yes, you have to live with these.

“The Internet has now been taken to a madhouse”

The Internet has made information accessible; it has revolutionized all work in journalism. What challenges are you seeing now in relation to what is crazy? a large number of new media emerges based on the Internet?

Where do new media appear?

- The Huffington Post, for example.

Sorry, but The Huffington Post is not about Russia and not about now. He certainly definitely changed the world. And I believe that Russia should have its own The Huffington Post and The Huffington live television, but it is not appearing. And now come to the investor and say: “I want a new The Huffington Post. He: “What is this? Crazy?". Who will open media outlets in Russia now?

For The Huffington Post, formats have long since changed, and 115 new ones have already appeared. And we are all sitting, as in the 17th century: “The Internet has appeared”... The fact is that with the advent of the Internet... My good friend Dima and I, from such a great Soviet, now Russian group “Blue Bird”, were discussing the deeds of our youth long ago: many ran away from the army, lay in a madhouse. And we came to the conclusion that the Internet has now been taken to a madhouse, because with the advent of the Internet people appeared who should not have been allowed to do anything at all, but now any person who can press the button to go online... Previously, even though the modem had to be pressed, someone had to figure it out, but now the high-speed Internet was taken to a madhouse. And everyone has an opinion, everyone sits, clicks their fingers, writes all sorts of garbage and thinks that they are expressing an opinion. What is professional journalism? Professional journalism with the advent of the Internet did not raise its standards, but fell to the standard of people who consider themselves bloggers. Do you know a lot of bloggers who actually broadcast something interesting?

I come to meet with students or teach them, my eyes burn, and my mouth begins to open - I feel scared. At least go read some books at school

- On the fingers of one hand.

How many journalists are there left? More on the fingers of one hand.

- They are dying out.

Where are the youth? So I come to meet with students or teach them, my eyes burn, and my mouth begins to open - I feel scared. At least we could read some books at school. Previously, under Soviet rule, there was no Internet, what did people do? They went to the library. Everyone had a basic set of intellectual concepts; Now everyone has arrived.

“People who are serious analysts sit deep underground and work for secret structures”

And there was a desire to study. And there are even jokes that now the quality of analytics has sharply decreased, since the new school year has begun, now schoolchildren have gone to school, and, accordingly, there is no time: there are fewer experts on geopolitics and economics. You worked face to face with real analysts and experts; Now the level of analytics, I mean mature, advanced analytics, is the level of analytics falling?

What kind of face to face are you talking about with real analysts? Real analysts don't go on TV. And the fact that people are running, you understand that they come to show off: “This guy came and said something, but we need someone like him, let’s pay him.” Yes, even media capital, so that another official would say: “Listen, we need to create an institute for studying the geopolitics of Tatarstan and deepening oil refining. I saw Vasya on Vittel’s air, he’s probably a normal dude, since he was with Vittel. Let's take it. And people who are truly serious analysts, with rare exceptions (I don’t want to offend all my guests), sit deep underground and work for deeply secret structures, and do not go on TV channels.

I’m like that too, I watch all the TV channels. I, too, in addition to television, have my own politics and security, I firmly know what people who know more than me give, they do not go on television. This is not the point, because serious analysts cannot even utter two words on air. In most cases, they are tongue-tied, downtrodden people. And there are media people, the TV needs a picture. They need Zhirinovsky: he’ll cause a scandal, throw a mug - that’s all, he’s already a good media character. They also need to collect ratings. And the fact that they sit at Malakhov’s place and swear, let it be about geopolitics in the same way as at Malakhov’s. So much for the level of gears.

“What interests me most is the fork in the road where I think we went wrong.”

It's hard to add anything here. There has been information that you are currently preparing a book about recent economic history.

Now - this is said loudly, I haven’t been able to finish writing it for 10 years. When I started working on it, it seemed to me that it would take two months. When I take on a documentary, they tell me: “You can’t make it in a year.” I say: “Come on, stop it. Let’s bet that I’ll take it off by April?” And it’s a shame: now I still can’t finish editing my latest film, because I promised it by April, but two years have passed and it’s not working out at all. And it’s exactly the same with the book, because it turned out not so much material as a general awareness of what was happening. It turned out that it was much deeper, and first I myself had to realize how it would all end. That is, there were a lot of questions, and I naively tried to ask them to my friends, with whom we started together in the late 80s, and I thought that in a month or two, there would be a book. But then I decided that it wouldn’t be fair to make unfinished material.

Have you concluded that I am fascinated by him? I wrote several of them, and you are apparently talking about the obituary. No, I was never fascinated by this character. But you know, against the backdrop of today's ghouls, Berezovsky looks no worse, and even better

- What is the book about, about the 90s?

No, about the 80s and 90s. But what interests me most is the fork where, it seems to me, we went the wrong way. It’s hard to say where it is: 87th...

- 93rd they usually say: the shooting of parliament, everything went wrong...

No no no. For me it's much earlier. The shooting of parliament is rather political for me, but I am more interested in economics. It's somewhere there: from 87 to 92. In 1993, this was no longer a fork in the road, but a bold point, just as in 1991 there was a bold political point, in 1992 - an economic one. Then everything went from there.

“Against the background of today’s ghouls, Berezovsky looks no worse, but even better”

- I saw your brilliant article about Berezovsky. Are you fascinated by this character?

I? No. Have you concluded that I am fascinated by him? I wrote several of them, and you are apparently talking about the obituary. No, I was never fascinated by this character. But you know, against the backdrop of today's ghouls, Berezovsky looks no worse, and even better.

- Brilliant scientist.

Which scientist?

- So how? Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences.

You know, there is such a thing as a “trickster” - a jack-in-the-box who knows how to perform tricks and does it brilliantly. Of course, I’m not a mathematician, but those people who understood... I don’t want to speak badly about Boris Abramovich: about the deceased, either nothing, or on the air, as I once said on the air. I won't say bad things, but I've never been fascinated in my life. It’s women who can be fascinated by such shiny little devils, but I’m not a woman to be fascinated by such things. Yes, it seems to me that we are burying him early, he must be alive somewhere. I still don't believe in his death.

- Yes, he’s probably lying in the Bahamas, watching our program and giggling.

If he has nothing else to do in the Bahamas except watch our program, then I should only feel sorry for him, then it’s better to go to hell.

“Sasha (Bashlachev) was a genius, Sasha was, forgive the blasphemy, Sasha was God”

- And in the 90s, you still... You have such a hypostasis, quite unexpected: you were a producer and director...

More like the 80s than the 90s.

- Yes, this is the 80s turning into the 90s. You were...

Why unexpected? Now, looking back, this is unexpected, but then it was quite natural.

Such a hypostasis, I still want to tell our viewers: you were the producer, the director of such extraordinary bright figures who left a significant mark on Russian rock, Alexander Bashlachov alone is worth it. You worked close. How would Bashlachov live now?

I wouldn't live. It was surprising for me; people have been interviewing me a lot lately, and often the first question they ask is how Bashlachov would live now. I cannot answer for Sasha and cannot imagine now that he would somehow live in our time, just as I cannot imagine Vysotsky in our time. Sasha was probably the last Russian genius. A person who is so incompatible with all carrion that it is, no, impossible to imagine Sasha now. And to imagine him in general with the whole era, which just ended in February of that year, when Sasha jumped out of the window, because real life and what began after are incompatible.

This generation of young people, who (Bashlachev says little to them) grew up in such fat years, they cannot withdraw into themselves. They are already accustomed to living, as it seems to them, in an amicable way. They won’t go back to the basements, but it’s easy for us: stew and a machine gun, as Stepan Demura says

- Is it now or was it the time of the bells?

I don't know what he meant then. You see, I don’t remember who, in my opinion, Tema Troitsky, when they asked him a question in an interview, said: “Leave me alone, I saw a living Bashlachov, I saw a living genius, I don’t need anything else in this life.” Sasha was a genius, Sasha was, forgive the blasphemy, Sasha was God. What he meant by talking about the time of the bells is not for me to judge. Unfortunately, I spent very little time with this man, but lately I have been trying to be close, and I consider myself to blame for his death. I don’t know what he meant by the time of the bells, but it certainly isn’t now.

- Now...

Now we are calling completely different people, I can’t say this on the air. It's ringing time.

People now hear this ringing, and many go into internal emigration. There is a rejection of politics, economics, a kind of apathy, many simply, excuse the expression, simply give up on everything. They withdraw into themselves and live by culture.

What's wrong with withdrawing into yourself and living in culture? You know, I feel sorry for those... I’m just from that generation, from stokers, from janitors, like there was a generation of janitors and watchmen - it’s easy for us to go back. I have a bad attitude towards Alexander Abramovich Kabakov, but once he wrote, as it seemed to us then, a stupid and artificial dystopian book, and when we read it, it seemed to us that the USSR could not collapse like that. And then everything went according to this book. It’s easy for us: we always manage, as it is written in this book, to hug the ground, and we managed to catch little good. And this generation of young people, who (Bashlachev says little to them) grew up in such fat years, they cannot withdraw into themselves. They are already accustomed to living, as it seems to them, in an amicable way. They won’t go back to the basements, but it’s easy for us: stew and a machine gun, as Stepan Demura says.

“If those people who brought the country to the brink of economic disaster remain in charge, then things will really be bad.”

And here’s the question: returning to the topic of today’s economic situation, we see that the reserve fund is being depleted, the budget situation is very difficult (1.5 trillion rubles deficit), privatization is being delayed with the same Bashneft. The time is coming to make truly difficult decisions, and now they are openly saying that they will raise taxes. Your vision - everything will be bad?

If you don't change anything, everything will be bad. Our government, at the very least, could not perform its duties very well in an economy that was growing. But when the economy experiences such disruptions as are happening now... I don’t know why Bashneft was mentioned here, this is not the worst thing that is happening to our country, this is not the biggest problem. It is obvious that the country is on the brink of economic disaster and has been for a long time. If those people who brought it to the brink of economic catastrophe remain to govern the country, understanding that this economic catastrophe must be solved by some other people, if these cannot cope (I’m talking about the government, without touching the supreme power, there is another sad story), then everything will really be bad. But we always go to basements, and we can work as janitors.

- But not everyone agrees with this.

- Work as janitors.

But that's their problem. If you are not ready to work as janitors, then you don’t have to work at all.

“But I want to live like a human being, like they live in good countries.”

Why aren't janitors people? In good countries, then? People should go to what they think is a good country. I prefer to live in my homeland and make the country more and more livable. In principle, I’m still happy with it now. In the end, we have vast Siberia, I have a lot of friends there, we’ll hide there. We'll live in the taiga.

I somehow don’t want to believe that my country will fall into a hole again. To be honest, I hoped that perestroika and the subsequent years were the worst thing we experienced

- You have your optimism in assessing the situation.

Do you call this optimism? I have no optimism in assessing the situation. I have some hope that we... You know, we have a very lucky president, he, as they say in the cards, is lucky, and if he gets lucky again, it means that we will slip by a short distance. If he doesn’t get lucky, and the country comes to its senses (both the government and he), then we will live well for a long time, we will somehow get out. I somehow don’t want to believe that my country will fall into a hole again. To be honest, I hoped that perestroika and the subsequent years were the worst thing we experienced (1992 - 1998). It seemed to me that we had gotten out, if we fell into this hole again, it means that this was not what we were experiencing in the end, but I wouldn’t want to.

“This is not patriotism, this is faith in the country”

- Should I take up Glazyev or Kudrin?

I always say, probably repeating this phrase for the hundredth time lately, and I think all the people who listen to my interviews are already tired of this phrase: the saying that the devil has two hands, and if one hand is Kudrin, and the other - Glazyev, then please give me another devil. I have a very good, friendly, warm, human attitude towards Kudrin, and I have a good attitude towards Sergei Yuryevich, but please, I don’t want to choose an economic program between Glazyev and Kudrin and a political one, by the way. Both are worse. Comrade Stalin simply said: “Let’s have another devil then.”

- What kind of angel should you have?

Listen, there can be no angels in politics or economics. There may be some consensus. 30 years. How many years have we had since perestroika? From the April plenum, it was in 1985. If in 31 years we have not developed a new concept for the development of the country, we have not sat down and thought: that’s it - there is no USSR, let’s build a different world. What should it be like? Not this world of robbery, when: “Oh, cool, the USSR collapsed - this plant was left unattended, we’ll take it away, there’s a factory left, but here we’ll make a road, but here we’d rather steal the road.” This was the concept of our development. Nobody said: “Guys, there is no USSR, but let’s think about where we are now in the global division of labor? What we can? What can't we do? How we can? Why can we? Was it? Did not have.

No one has yet realized where we are. And when McCain says that we are a gas station country, on the one hand I want to punch him in the face, but on the other hand I realize the correctness of his words: yes, we have done a lot, but we still remain a gas station country. I don't want McCain to make fun of our country. I don't want to be a gas station country. I want to be a country that supplies high technologies, we have amazing human resources in the country, that’s enough already.

- Well, where did he go?

This means we need to return it... He hasn’t gone anywhere, listen, I was just in Altai. They bring me to the garage at night and show me: people are making small aircraft with their own hands in the garage. In every city, Kulibins sit in the garage. These people remain with us, alive, nothing has gone anywhere. We have amazing human capital, our country was killed and ruined for centuries. Everyone is alive, stop burying yourself. Just because we have idiots in our government does not mean that we are idiots. In every city, in every garage, we have great people with hands and brains. Yes, perestroika broke us, yes, the hungry post-perestroika years broke us, but we are still alive, thank God, we are alive. Yes, Fursenko and Livanov buried education, but they didn’t, and we will live - stop burying the country.

- You can’t strangle this song, you can’t kill it...

You won’t kill, that’s absolutely, I promise you that.

- This patriotism of yours...

This is not patriotism, this is faith in the country.

- This admiration for your people - isn’t this patriotism?

But I don’t have another country and never will. I really like other countries, I love to travel, I love to live in them for a long time, but I don’t have and never will have another country. This is my country, here I always have time to hug the ground. By the way, Kabakov’s book is called “The Defector.”

Dilyara Akhmetzyanova, photo by Maxim Platonov

Alexander Plyushchev: Today is the end or not the end of the story around Magnitsky. 34 thousand euros in compensation – decision of the ECHR. Is this a point in history? The story is so noisy...

Igor Vittel, TV and radio presenter, head of the information and analytical center “Politics and Security”: What could be the point in this story. This is a terrible story, just like everything connected with the Russian penitentiary system. Like everything related to the execution of punishment in Russia. By the way, in many other countries. But now we are talking about Russia. This is a scary story. A man is tortured to death in prison. And any compensation to his family and friends...

A.Plyushchev: It won't cover it at all.

I. Vittel: She won't cover it in any way. Therefore, I think that it is very cynical to say when, God forbid, they say about the victims of plane crashes: a million is enough. Is 30 thousand enough? Nothing is enough. In general, this story is one of the most vile in Russian history, forgive the tautology. And talking about the amount of compensation in this situation is pointless. Well, I don’t know what motivated the ECHR; for me, of course, everything that relates to this story is cynicism. Although the story itself is dirty and how Magnitsky was framed, and how he found himself between two fires. I do not want to talk about it. Although recently a story came up again completely by accident. The name of a famous English intelligence officer, more precisely a Soviet one, has surfaced, who was once married to the founder of the Communist Party of America, Browder. Who is this Browder's grandfather. And again I began to read all these moments and it all stirred up with renewed vigor. The whole story, the only thing that, rereading all this, the tragic history of the 20th and 21st centuries, in general, can only be said with a phrase from a famous film: in general, everyone died. Tragically so. Because when you look at the fates of these people, and the fate of Magnitsky against their background does not seem so terrible.

A.Plyushchev: But we remember what is also connected with thefts from the Russian budget. The whole story.

I. Vittel: We don’t know who stole, but we know very well who later laundered this money, and in any case, even without going into these details, a person should not be tortured in prison, even if he is guilty. And even more so the innocent ones. I don’t know the degree of Magnitsky’s guilt in this case, but any attitude towards a person like this in the penitentiary system is a crime. It shouldn't be this way. Therefore, the first thing that needs to be reformed in Russia is the correctional system. And the judicial system. You can't go anywhere without this. Nothing will move further. Because we hear about torture every day. Yesterday I read an absolutely terrible story about how a maniac was arrested in Abakan, who had been arrested several times before. The investigators simply laughed in the eyes of the victims and survivors. And they said: okay, what do you want? Cases were closed and evidence was thrown away. For, in my opinion, either 5 or 15 years. During this time, the man killed four people and simply raped the rest. And this is the attitude of our law enforcement agencies, of course, without reform nothing will move.

A.Plyushchev: But such a reform is possible without, relatively speaking, harming the entire system. Because in many ways, it seems to me, he is supported by this unfair judicial system.

I. Vittel: Yes, definitely. This is based on an unfair judicial system. Unfortunately, we had only this unfair judicial system with all the power. And, unfortunately, it has, let me say this, become even worse in post-perestroika times. In Brezhnev’s times, it seems to me, there were high-profile cases. Remember, there was the famous murder on Zhdanovskaya. When the police took a drunken security officer and killed him. But these were still some, as it seems to me, rarer cases. And as for reforming the system, this is a terrible question, because over the years, with all its reforms, the system has thrown out almost all professionals. And the insignificance and cattle raised everything higher and higher. And when the system is reformed, remember Saakashvili, they still applauded how well he got rid of crime. How did it end? Rape with brooms in the central prison of Tbilisi. So much for system reform. This is sweeping trash under the rug. I don't know how to reform. Honestly. I won't answer you here.

A.Plyushchev: We are here with Igor Vittel, a journalist and analyst, one might say.

I. Vittel: I’ll literally say one more phrase now. An interesting story happened yesterday. More precisely, it surfaced yesterday. When we talked, I think, last time or with another presenter, I don’t remember now, on one of the broadcasts. Regarding the fact that after the Golunov case, heads rolled up to a certain point, but no higher. So yesterday the famous Maratik Medoev, his nickname is... Marat Medoev, he was removed, but he was not sent into retirement. They were simply moved to other places not related to law enforcement agencies. And this is a very sad story.

A.Plyushchev: I actually saw a publication today that this is not even very related to the Golunov case. And supposedly with foreign citizenship his second.

I. Vittel: A lot has come up. Something needs to be done about this. It is impossible to endlessly turn a blind eye to how even less senior officials in law enforcement agencies behave.

A.Plyushchev: Returning even to the Magnitsky case, there were no high-ranking officials there either. As far as I remember in this story.

I. Vittel: And this is the worst thing.

A.Plyushchev: And the system actually covers them. Inexplicably. Either because they are somehow connected with big people, or because she considers them her own.

I. Vittel: And this, and another, and a third.

Today it became known about personnel changes in the RBC holding. Alexander Lyubimov, who led RBC-TV since 2011, has been relieved of his position as general director and will begin building relationships with government agencies. In addition, he will join the board of directors of the media holding. The place of manager on the channel was taken by his longtime colleague Gleb Shagun, who worked as the general producer of the channel. They worked together at the VID television company, and together they came to RBC-TV. Gleb Shagun told Izvestia about why Lyubimov left the TV channel and for what reason the presenters quit RBC-TV.

- Why did Alexander Lyubimov leave the channel?

Some time ago we realized that Lyubimov needed to move on, that he had completed all the necessary tasks that the TV channel was facing and such a person should work at the holding level. It was important for us to complete the projects related to the Paralympics (the television channel was the general partner), after which Sasha took up more important issues.

- Why was the post of general director given to you?

Sasha [Lyubimov] and I have been working for a very long time, more than 15 years, starting with the VID television company. We also came to RBC together as a single team. We had a single goal - to bring the channel to profit, which we succeeded in. I have always been in operational management.

- Did Lyubimov coordinate your appointment with the owners of the channel?

Honestly, I don’t know anything about this, so I can’t say anything about the agreement between Lyubimov and Derk Sauer (Chairman of the Board of Directors of RBC OJSC).

- Who will fill the vacant position of general producer?

I don't know yet. We have identified 2-3 months as a transition period, during which time I will think about candidates. We also have our own personnel, but if there are bright people in the market, I will call them. I want this to be a bright person, independent of me, with his own point of view, so that I can be in constant discussion with him, and not just a fulfiller of my desires.

- How will RBC-TV change with your arrival?

There will be more variety, more interesting programs. I will also continue to work on projects related to business, in the style of “leisure”, “luxury”, “entertainment”.

- Will RBC cease to be a TV channel about money?

Let's move away from the fact that the RBC TV channel is only about money. We don't stick to sudden movements. Even when Lyubimov and I came “on TV,” for the first year we didn’t fire anyone. We will continue to develop the concept of a channel for the business community, the middle class and those who earn slightly more than average. Financial projects will remain.

- But there will still be more programs about lifestyle.

Our weekends have already become sports and entertainment. Of course, we will strive not to lose our audience who are interested in finance and markets; there will be news every half hour. Plus, we want to invite bright people who are authorities in the business community. So, we have a project with Sergei Lisovsky, there was a project with Oleg Tinkov, Deputy Minister Evtukhov hosts our program. These are not just presenters, but bright personalities. We want to invite more people like this - they are authoritative and invite quite serious guests who come because they understand who they are going to.

- Who else from business will you invite?

We negotiate for a long time, because people are quite serious and do not decide on such things quickly. I won’t name names yet, but by September a couple of such people will appear on the channel.

Today, TV presenter Maria Stroeva (program “Stroeva. Business”) conducted her last broadcast on RBC-TV. It is also known that Igor Vittel wrote his resignation letter. Are these related stories?

Not related at all. Stroeva is leaving for Ukraine for personal reasons, this concerns her family. Vittel remains. This is one of the brightest presenters of the RBC TV channel, for which the TV channel is really known and appreciated. And as far as I remember, over 10 years Igor wrote more than 200 resignation letters.

- Will you change the editorial team?

I like the way it works Chief Editor Andrey Reut. He came from Izvestia and in two years became well immersed in television cuisine, which he did not know before. He very clearly and sensitively understands what news can be presented from what angle, without forgetting the business audience. In addition, Elizaveta Osetinskaya recently joined the holding and headed the united editorial office. For now, this editorial office is the Internet and the newspaper, but in the future, I think, the TV channel will also join it.

Regular author of a number of print and online media, in particular, the publications “AiF”, “Polit.ru”, “Pravda.ru”, Lenta.ru.

As an expert, he regularly takes part in various television and radio shows: “Politics” on Channel One, “Special Correspondent” on the Rossiya channel, “Right to Know” on the TVC channel.

Awards

Social, scientific and creative activities

Head of the IAC "Politics and Security", Advisor to the Chairman of the IGO OOF "Vympel-Garant", Corresponding Member of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems and the Guild of Marketers, Member of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Research Center "Analytics and Security" and the Foundation "Post-Crisis World", Member of the Council on Foreign and Defense politics, the National Anti-Corruption Committee and the Union of Journalists of Russia.

He teaches at the London School of Public Relations and the Maimonides State Classical Academy. Scientific director of the professional retraining program “Economic Observer” at the Academy of National Economy under the Government of the Russian Federation.

In 2011, he produced the documentary film “There’s No Blood on Me,” dedicated to the case of officers Arakcheev and Khudyakov who fought in Chechnya (the film received a number of Russian and foreign film awards). In 2013, he produced the documentary film “The Diary of a Drug Addict” (directed by Svetlana Stasenko).

Periodically participates in media and PR projects of various kinds, including on the Internet as a producer, works as a consultant, and conducts trainings. He is working on a book about the modern economic history of Russia.

In 2016, he ran for election to the State Duma of the Russian Federation in the Tushinsky (206) electoral district from the Growth Party. He took 7th place with 3.54% of the votes, Gennady Onishchenko won in the district.

Write a review of the article "Vittel, Igor Stanislavovich"

Notes

Links

Excerpt characterizing Vittel, Igor Stanislavovich