Before giving the interview, Alexei Venediktov specified: “I want to speak about that the journalist must not be held responsible”.  This statement caused the first question asked to the editor of Echo Moskvy…

Q: So the spring has come, Alexei Alexeevich?

A: What do you mean?

Q: You say that a journalist must stay irresponsible…

A: Well, I said that because a campaign seems to be going on with conferences, public noise, and the ideas of making the panels for ethics etc. I have a feeling that the society is being prepared for changes made in the law about media. One must clearly understand that the journalist must not be held responsible in social, ethic or political terms, with the exception of two-three positions. In this sense, “responsible” journalist will be equivalent to “unprofessional”. When the journalist starts thinking about the consequences that might come after the publication of one’s true material, that would be self-censorship. The rooster is not responsible for the sunrise, he just warns people about it. 

Q: And what kind of responsibility would be proper for the journalist?

A: There are banal responsibilities – for distortion or concealing the facts. And this is ethic responsibility and juridical liability.

Q: So you don’t deny completely the responsibility?

A: No, I don’t. There is responsibility by the citizen and to the Constitution. 

Q: And the editor has more responsibility?

A: The editor is no journalist at all. He/she is accountable for the editorial policy and can allow or not allow this or that material to be published. When the editor hushes up the publicly significant facts, that means he/she is not a real professional, though a manager. The Beslan story proved that it was not the editors in Moscow, and not officials, but the journalists who did not report about the real number of the hostages. This is because the journalists felt some “responsibility”.      

Q: But those female journalists, who reported the lie about only 354 hostages taken, were not held responsible in any way. Moreover, they were awarded by the minister Ivanov.

A: They did not make up anything! They just passed the information that this official said so. But they did not say anything about the mothers’ meeting of 1,500 people gathered. That was half-truth turned into untruth.  

Q: That means into a lie.

A: But it’s the editorial board that must have been held responsible for that. As for decorations, let it be on the conscience of the ministers giving them out.

Q: And do you bear responsibility to the society?

A: No.

Q: Then why the society must have defended NTV station, for example?

A: It mustn’t. But that was not the question of the media. That was the question of the state and freedoms. NTV in 2001 was a symbolic story. The authority did not like the TV Company, and it just closed it down.

Q: And why did you come to think about all it the way you do? You don’t want to bear responsibility any longer?

A: I just got concerned about the fact that it’s the journalist and not the editor, who is tried to be shifted responsibility to for what he/she passes on the air. Just take a look at a shameful formulation of the law on extremism. Shortly before the election I had a talk with a high ranking official who is engaged with the law enforcement bodies. The talk was private, so I cannot give you his name.

Q: Was that a minister?

A: No, he was from another department. He said “Look, Lyosha, I see a bit of extremism going on on your air”. But the third top person in the state, Sergei Mironov, speaks on my air and he speaks seriously about the third term by Putin. That’s the extremism, as it is a violation of the Constitution! “Well, I don’t think we would be able to start a criminal case on that count!” laughed that man. The problem is that unclear and intentionally badly formulated law allows manipulating done to the media. That’s more serious than amendments to the law on the media, or the judicial practice itself towards the media.

Q: And what is to be done?

A: Changing the law. 

Q: How? Shall we appeal to Medvedev?

A: President is just a function for me. This is why I have appealed to Putin all 8 years of his term of office.   

Q: And?

A: We used to be successful in beating off the amendments.

Q: Only once.

A: That’s true, only once. And what? That time the president and the media came to an agreement. Incidentally, it was then that the editors signed the charter and observed it when Beslan happened. And no one had complaints to the media – either law enforcers, or politicians, or the victims, with the exception of the story about the falsely reported number of the hostages. I do not lay any special hopes personally on Medvedev. It might be Zyuganov, Ivanov, or Zhirinovsky – anyway it is necessary to struggle for any citizen to have the right for getting the maximum of information for taking the right decision.

When I read about the Politburo of 30 years old I see that those people did not have the full information either. And we always forget that the stories with the CIA secret prisons and about Guantanamo were exposed by American journalists from Washington Post and New York Times. And those journalists got Pulitzer Prize for that. So they help their own country to get rid of diseases of society. 

Q: That’s it! That’s because they are working for society exactly.

A: In their competitive struggle Americans are searching for information – they want to be best, known and rich. Of course, they do not forget about the main thing. Journalistic is not too profitable business. It can give you a fame and publicity. Sometimes it can give you a bullet into your head…    

Q: And what could be the way of changing the situation? Just replacing the journalists with others? There are constant rumors about Oleg Dobrodeev…

A: The matter is not about Oleg; well, about him, too. The matter is about the system of attitude towards the press where the most brilliant information man and organizer of the 90’s managed to get built into. That’s an individual choice, but when you are an editor, your information journalists cannot speak about “deserved” bullet! (That’s about Konstantin Semin, who said about “deserved” bulled that killed the Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjich 5 years ago – N.R.). Why should our president have to give explanations to the Serbs because of what an unsatisfactory journalist said something on the state channel? That’s all due to the lack of professionalism. You may have such a point of view but then you should be a commentator, not the news journalist. There are some people like Mikhail Leontyev who have the right to have even inhuman points of view.       

Q: Why so?

A: Because they express the opinion by part of the community and we must know about it.

Q: And what if this is an opinion by the Kremlin’s people under a disguise of the public opinion?

A: Even people expressing the Kremlin’s opinion must have the right for the access to the air.

Q: Is the Kremlin a society?

A: Sure. I will tell you something for better understanding. First time I was summoned to the prosecutor’s office for giving explanations when Mr. Prokhanov said on my air his opinion that it is better for us to be friends with Hamas organization. Three years later Hamas representatives were received in our foreign ministry officially. So how can I not give Mr. Prokhanov say his word when he anticipates the Russian foreign policy for three years!

The other thing is that everyone without any hypocrisy realizes that the editorial policy by Echo Moskvy can be changed with the Kremlin’s decision, and that our real stockholders are sitting there, not in Gazprom. And they speak about that laughing.  

Q: Who is that?

A: And what do you think?

Q: I don’t know. Why are you restricting yourself now? 

A: During all the period of my editorialhood under Gazprom I have had only three phone calls from there. Those were requests, not orders. Two times I complied with the requests and once I refused. One time it was about the Ukrainian gas crisis, and the other time about the Byelorussian one.   

Q: And the third time was about Beslan?

A: No, that’s what I’m talking about. About Beslan I received a call from the administration from Alexei Gromov and Vladislav Surkov. They both asked me not to mention the nationality of the terrorists. That request I complied with. 

Q: So that’s who your stockholders are.

A: Yes, I believe that the Kremlin’s authority is the real stockholder of the Echo Moskvy in a political sense of the word, while Gazprom is the stockholder in juridical sense. But I seldom get calls from there, as I always clearly explain our position. We are not an oppositional radio station; we are just a professional one. And we are an alternative source of information for Kremlin’s people too.   

As for my responsibility, if we commit a mistake, we apologize. And we do it on the air too.

Q: So there is the responsibility to the listeners?

A: I don’t know what responsibility means really. I must apologize even when it’s not me but my journalist who has committed a mistake. That’s unpleasant, as a normal person does not like admitting he/she was wrong.

Q: And what about the listeners whom you may be rude to?

A: I’m never rude. I’m all so goody-goody.

Q: Will you admit that’s a mistake talking to the listeners like that?

A: If a rascal, bastard or fool gives oneself liberty of saying something rude or silly, that would be considered exactly like that.

Q: And why this rule is not applicable to Leontyev? (The interview was done on the day when Leontyev informed Venediktov of his suspension of participating in the Echo Moskvy – N.R.). 

A: Because this is a guest!

Q: And so he may be allowed comparing Natalia Morar to a prostitute, talking on the air?

A: If we ban this to Leontyev, we shall have to ban something to Novodvorskaya, Kasyanov and others… My approach is we invite people, and what they say is their opinion, and the listeners just assess it. And if the comer is rude, we are not responsible for that. I make a model of the society with my radio programs. If we had a free press in the country, I wouldn’t have to do it. With my views, I would make a bit different radio.