Print
Region: Russia
Type: Articles
Rate this article
(no votes)
 (0 votes)
Share this article

In our column Viewpoint, we present an interview with Alexei Venediktov, Editor-in-Chief of radio station Echo of Moscow, about Internet technologies in radio, the latest Russian trends and combining expertise and journalism.

In our column Viewpoint, we present an interview with Alexei Venediktov, Editor-in-Chief of radio station Echo of Moscow, about Internet technologies in radio, the latest Russian trends and combining expertise and journalism.

What are the latest trends in radio broadcasting? Does the Internet help or hinder its development?

Radio broadcasting is at a standstill because its functions of ‘inform, educate, entertain’ have not changed since the 1980s, except for minor shifts to please the audience. Wartime sparks the hunger for more info, while affluence prompts the desire for more fun, and so on. Many try to use the Internet and social media to create an animated media system. The most interactive platform by nature, radio sits closest to the Internet as a communication media. But we are still in the early days of this interplay and it is difficult to predict the future.

Do you have rivals on the Russian radio broadcast market?

Sure we have. Any conversational or information-oriented station is our competitor, such as Business FM, Govorit Moskva, Mayak, and Russian Information Service – actually there are about a dozen stations like this in Moscow. We naturally struggle for audience, advertising, branding, citation, recognizability, etc. Of course, each station has its own audience: we aim to keep them happy. While we may watch what our colleagues/competitors do, we never copy them.

Is there a program or a project you wanted to implement but lacked time and resources?

Oh yes, and this year I launched it. Late-night speech radio, which is highly popular in all postindustrial cities because city-dwellers work late and sleep less at night (if at all). They number about one million in Moscow, surveys indicate. The audience is split between music stations and repeat programs, as is our case. My project is titled Alone, because there is only one anchorman who takes the mike in the early hours of the night and starts talking. This is a unique program in Russia, and the product is really a success, since our ratings are above those of 54 Moscow stations in the same slots. City dwellers long for conversation. The trick is in finding an anchorman whom the listeners would trust, because the nighttime is for trusting, and for thinking.

Has your audience changed since the 1990s? Is it more knowledgeable?

The audience changes in parallel with life. So, this not a matter of knowledge. Listeners may become more aggressive or more passive, richer or poorer. In election periods, there is more social activity. We launched our Echo in the Soviet Union as an alternative to all government stations. Unfortunately, we are back to square one. Once again, we are an alternative broadcaster, even for the president, as far as I know.

You say the audience may get more aggressive with changes in the world. What about the current environment?

It is extremely aggressive, on par with the five-day war in 2008 or the default of 1998.

And who is the target?

Everyone, as people are generally aggressive toward their environment. This wave also sweeps through broadcasting. In a situation like this, the presenter’s manner should adapt, and my staff invariably bear this in mind.

Do you consider Russia a democratic state?

Any political regime implies perpetual movement. Now Russia is moving from democracy to authoritarianism, as is absolutely clear. Media and information liberties are shrinking, and this is an obvious symptom. Things are changing, definitely in toward authoritarianism as far as the media is concerned.

They say Russia has two problems, i.e. fools and roads. Do you agree? Could you name Russia’s two main problems?

One is domestic, I mean stifled competition in the political, economic, cultural, spiritual and ideological spheres. And this has been the deliberate policy of the ruling elites over the past 15 years. Problem number two is external – Russia’s increasing isolation from the postindustrial world.

Flickr / Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian
Federation

Can you see ways to solve these problems?

What we need is a policy shift, so it is focused on increased competition and less isolation – the two factors that make our country weaker. But we never change – we tried our best, you know the story.

Is international isolation a double-edged sword?

Not now. Isolation could work both ways in the 19th century and possibly in the first half of the 20th century, while today separation from the global intellectual sphere definitely means retreat. You cannot invent everything invented by the whole world and apply everything applied globally. This is just impossible. Hence, we see China – isolated in the 1970s during orthodox communist rule and opening up in the 1980s – it became attractive for foreign investors and active in buying innovations to trigger development. Our eastern mammoth neighbor is on a completely opposite trend to ours. The figures make one shudder. Russia’s trade with China stands at USD 95 billion, while Chinese turnover with the U.S. is USD 650 billion. Just imagine: 650 and 95. These are the producers of material and nonmaterial assets. As easy as ABC.

Let's return to journalism and information. Is the unrestricted data stream good or bad?

It's both. On the good side, we have greater information volume and accessibility. But at the same time, quality drops and more misinformation circulates. This influx is too large to process and to pick the wheat from the chaff. The human brain has spent 5,000 years in search of information, but now has to swap its main function from searching to selecting. Today searching is easy – just press the button and get an endless flow. Selection is the headache. All that qualifies as bad, something we are not yet ready for.

Russia's information field is highly polarized. We have a dominant attitude, while there also are other approaches. Do you feel the same?

I do, but it's normal. During the Iraq war, the Americans never mentioned this polarization, although the country and the media were divided. Million-man marches for and against Bush’s policies, with Fox channel and Washington Post in one camp and CNN and the New York Times in the other, and no talk of polarization at all. Life should offer several solutions for each problem.

We see a public focused on the use of digital diplomacy, the Internet and social media in politics. Do you believe it's really practicable or just trendy?

A tool’s efficiency depends on the user. An ax can both create and destroy. Do you remember the people's diplomacy in the Soviet Union? If properly organized, digital diplomacy may work. But it implies networking, which is very hard to arrange. One needs strong will and resourcefulness to attract the public because any network can be driven only by interest. Neither commands nor threats nor working time will mobilize the users. But if the form and the content are attractive and effective, huge crowds will rush in.

Is there a way to make journalists and experts operate in tandem?

Pundits and journalists have different functions, both of them effective. The former inform mostly the government, while the latter keep the public in the know. Their missions are opposite, so I don't see the need to create any sort of a system. If an expert chooses to offer his conclusions to a broader audience, journalists will be ready to participate. But if some unknown theorist shoots out his unfounded tales, we will not respond. Such activities may be handy on TV shows designed for yelling rather than for presenting.

Are your programs with expert participation popular?

Of course they are. We invite analysts who are good speakers, not secretive. And discussion is invariably in demand, provided the point is clear. Listeners now care less about news and comments. They are keen on motivation. They know the opinions of expert Alexey Arbatov but would like to know how he has come to his conclusions. And the station is ready to open a platform for this affair, which resulted in program Why Do You Think That.

You say that history is the result of human imagination. What kind of Russia do you imagine in 10-20 years?

Russia is facing a host of threats as I've already mentioned – such as the absence of competition and isolation that emasculate the country. Is a repeat of the USSR’s fate possible? Oh, yes. I don't know whether it will happen in 10 or 20 years, but the scenario is likely. It may either breakup or become a confederation. In the absence of economic power and the ability to sustain postindustrial countries (such as Russia), the state will inevitably lag behind and weaken from the inside, while remaining quite able externally. Today, this tendency is negative, as Russia is weakening not strengthening. One can't use 19th-century rules for life in the 21st century, but Russia is trying to do just that.

What issues and subjects are hushed up or poorly covered by Russian media?

There is no discussion of the fallout of the Russia-Ukraine affair, the accumulation of socio-emotional problems between the two countries, and reciprocal perceptions of Russians and Ukrainians. Polls both in Russia and Ukraine say that only 15 percent of Russians feel friendly toward Ukrainians who respond similarly. Even if a magic wand were to make the conflict disappear (with Crimea remaining as is), this newfound enmity toward Russia has already put down deep roots in Ukrainian society and elites. The focus is on momentary things like movements of forces, Mariupol, Donetsk and Minsk accords, but all these seem like trifles. The map shows that the conflict area covers only five percent of Ukrainian territory. And what about the other 95 percent? Nobody seems to care.

Rate this article
(no votes)
 (0 votes)
Share this article

Poll conducted

  1. In your opinion, what are the US long-term goals for Russia?
    U.S. wants to establish partnership relations with Russia on condition that it meets the U.S. requirements  
     33 (31%)
    U.S. wants to deter Russia’s military and political activity  
     30 (28%)
    U.S. wants to dissolve Russia  
     24 (22%)
    U.S. wants to establish alliance relations with Russia under the US conditions to rival China  
     21 (19%)
For business
For researchers
For students