Moscow April 22, 2013

6. Events on May 6, 2012 and their consequences in the coverage by the Russian federal TV channels

Number of such broadcasts was distributed almost equally between the channels: “Channel One” broadcasted 72 pieces, “Russia-1” – 70 pieces, NTV – 71 pieces. These pieces were broadcasted almost simultaneously: one and the same event (information) associated with the investigation of the “riots on Bolotnaya square”, was either broadcasted by all three channels simultaneously or they all kept silence about them. This allowed to suggest that the coverage of the events on May 6, 2012 on federal channels was carefully coordinated from one “center”.

The pieces about the events on the Bolotnaya Square on all three channels were based on a common model.

6.1. Absence of opinion balance

Defense lawyers of the accused were given a floor only twice on the NTV channel. On the “Channel One” the indirect reference to the defense lawyers appeared only once, on November 9, when it came to the trial of Mikhail Kosenko accused of rioting on Bolotnaya Square.

On the channel “Russia-1” references to the defense lawyers (it was about Leonid Razvozzhaev, detained on a charge of riots on the Bolotnaya Square) appeared only on October 22, in the “Vesti” program. Still, not for the defense lawyers to argue in favor of the defendant, but to show how they conflict with each other: in the piece lawyer Volkova criticized lawyer Vlasova.

Federal channels did not give any other references to the lawyers of those who were detained under the case of the events on the Bolotnaya Square.

Federal channels also did not give the opportunity to opposition leaders, who are considered to be the organizers of the public rally on the Bolotnaya Square, to express their version of what happened. Virtually in every television program they were accused of calling to arrange a sit-down strike, which allegedly triggered the hustle and unrest. However, journalists have never asked the organizers of the action for an explanation why they called people to sit down on the pavement? Was there any reason for that? The reason for these events was formulated by correspondents of these channels “by themselves” – for example, as Anton Vernitsky did in his report dated May 13 in the “Vremya” program (21 p.m.): “Crush is artificially created by the organizers, and if not for a sit-down strike, there was no narrow bottleneck, allegedly arranged by the police at the entrance to Bolotnaya square”. So he reverses cause and effect. Opposition leaders claim that they sat down on the pavement because the bottleneck was formed, but Vernitsky states that it was formed because the leaders sat down on the pavement. The point of view of Vernitsky was presented on TV, and the point of view of the opposition was not.

6.2. General ideological directive: riots were planned in advance by overseas masterminds

On May 6 Andrey Medvedev, the reporter of the “Vesti” program (08.00 PM), stated: “In all likelihood, the provocation was prepared in advance. Once again he repeats: Not so much a public rally than a provocative action was initially planned”.

On May 8 the same conclusion was made by the Moscow mayor Sergey Sobyanin in the program “News” on the “Channel One”: “It was a planned provocation, and it was initially planned”.

On May 13 the program “Vesti” broadcasted a big report by Anton Vernitsky, which was prepared to prove that the riots were planned in advance. However, the entire system of evidence is based on citing anonymous and highly aggressive messages on the Internet.

Judging by the scarcity of “evidence” presented on TV, that the riots on the Bolotnaya Square were planned in advance, investigators do not have enough material for full criminal cases against the organizers of the public rally on Bolotnaya square. It’s obvious that this evidence was not provided by interrogations, or by searches in the apartments of participants of the events. That is why on October 5, 2012 the NTV channel broadcasted a film named “Anatomy of Protest-2”. Although this film did not mention directly the events on Bolotnaya square, it intended to undermine the trust of the audience in the leaders of Russian opposition (Sergey Udaltsov and his associates Konstantin Lebedev and Leonid Razvozzhaev), who were allegedly financed by a Georgian politician.

As it turned out, the film itself and the subsequent campaign to promote it to other federal channels were only a preparatory stage. The case on organizing mass riots in the territory of the Russian Federation, which was started based on the film “Anatomy of Protest-2”, for the first time linked to the riots on the Bolotnaya Square in the television broadcast only starting from October 22. Moreover, this linkage was allegedly provided by Leonid Razvozzhaev in his confessions.

On October 28, when it has been already known that Razvozzhaev refused his confessions, the channel “Russia-1”, however, continued to insist on his involvement in the events on the Bolotnaya Square for no good reason.

Only on December 13, 2012 federal channels gleefully reported that they had in their possession “real evidence” that the riots on the Bolotnaya Square were planned and even financed by Givi Targamadze. It was an implied confession of the fact that up to there, there was no evidence. But what facts presented TV this time?

In the morning “News” on the “Channel One” broadcast a huge report that during the day the channel would repeat 5 more times without the slightest change – so great is its value. “There are new evidence in the case on the events on the Bolotnaya square – says the anchor – Investigation Committee of the Russian Federation confirmed that they have incontrovertible evidence that Givi Targmadze not only funded, but also directed the actions of the leaders of Russian opposition. Some of these materials obtained from reliable sources, was at our disposal”.

Cyril Brainin, a correspondent of the channel, introduced viewers to some new recording. He explained that on this record Razvozzhaev, Lebedev and another activist Yury Aymaletdinov discuss with Targamadze the events on the Bolotnaya Square on May 6.

This part of the conversation he concludes to the audience as follows: “The riots were planned in advance. Participants talk about it openly”. To prove this he provides a new piece of conversation to the audience.

It is obvious that even if this record is original, it does not prove that Targamadze was involved in the planning of the events on the Bolotnaya Square. He only asks what and how was planned, and nothing more. It results from the text of the conversation that Lebedev was convinced of spontaneity of the action, but Razvozzhaev insisted that a day or two before the event was planned, traffic near the cinema “Udarnik” was blocked. However, there were no talks about the organization of riots.

However, on the same day on the channel “Russia-1” also in the morning (“Vesti”, 11.00) it is stated that Givi Targmadze has a direct relation to the events on May 6.

In the 14-o’clock broadcast of the “Vesti” the anchor has in his text an additional sentence: “Razvozzhaev adds that he and Ilya Ponomarev headed people to Bolshoy Kamenny Bridge, where there were clashes with the police”. Although the “prelisten” provided by the “Channel One” before does not contain such information.

In the 17-o’clock broadcast of the “Vesti” the correspondent Olga Skabeeva follows with the topic. “Frankly anti-Putin public rally calling for the overthrow of the government is a provocation orchestrated from abroad. The date of the so-called “March of Millions” – May 6 – chosen not by chance – the day before the inauguration. As it turns out the participants of the events are managed over the phone by Targamadze, approximate of Saakashvili, – says Skabeeva – in fact, Russian opposition reports to him after the fights with riot police that were recognized successful”.

The same “discreditable” recording, presented by the “Channel One” is broadcasted on the channel “Russia-1”. On the screen there are three portraits of participants – Razvozzhaev, Lebedev and Targamadze. Transcript of their conversation coincides with one provided by the “Channel One”. But just as on the “Channel One”, all this does not confirm the statements that “Targamadze commanded marching people”.

Skabeeva continues to comment on the record: “The Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee Targamadze is pleased with the results”. Then she recalled how exactly he was pleased with the results, “Udaltsov and Navalny – at that time the main provocateurs – call not to go away (in confirmation – the sync by Udaltsov on May 6: “Sit down, sit down!”). “Targamadze calls for continuation”, – says Skabeeva...

In the 20-o’clock broadcast of the “Vesti” these two phrases by Skabeeva (apparently for more clarity) are reversed. Now it is like that. First Skabeeva says: “The former chairman of the parliament Targamadze calls for continuation”. And only after that add the sync by Udaltsov: “Sit down, sit down!”

However, the audience is presented with no evidence that Udaltsov shouted “Sit down” with the command by Targamadze, who allegedly “called for continuation”, except for unsubstantiated allegations by Skabeeva neither in the first version nor in the second version of the report.

Later in the same report Vladimir Markin, representative of the Investigation Committee, said that Targamadze “commanded” the events on Bolotnaya square. But again it is not explained how the participation of Targamadze in the events on the Bolotnaya Square is confirmed. The viewer, who took on trust words of a correspondent Skabeeva, now is to take on trust words of the Investigation Committee representative Vladimir Markin.

However, in the 20-o’clock broadcast of the “Vesti”, when the report by Skabeeva will be repeated once more, even more categorical lead-in would be presented: “The scenario of the riots on the Bolotnaya Square is written in Georgia. The Investigation Committee has evidence that the clashes in the capital were managed from abroad actually in real-time. This is a record of phone calls and text messages from the Internet”.

Later in the same report in order to show a systemic character of “conducting” the actions of Russian opposition, the reporter Skabeeva goes to the events of June 12 when the “March of Millions” took place. Here she makes quite comical gaffes that perfectly demonstrate the methodology of preparation of such reports: whip up a sketch using any materials that resemble “damaging evidence”, not caring about their authenticity. The absence of real evidence is compensated by aggressively-incriminating intonations of correspondents of federal channels.