Autocracy and the media

Thinking a bit more about the recent report on the Kremlin’s alleged weaponizing of comedy, as well as other claims concerning ‘Russian propaganda’, what has struck me is how many people seem to assume that everything which happens in Russia is directed by the Kremlin. As it happens, in the past few weeks I’ve been doing a lot of reading about Russian conservatives in the last 50 years of the Russian Empire. One might imagine that in an autocratic country such as late Imperial Russia, the press was under the firm control of the state, that there was no independent ‘civil society’, and that conservative and patriotic groups took their orders from the central authorities. Yet this is not exactly how things were.

Take, for instance, the most prominent Russian journalist of the 1860s, 70s, and 80s, Mikhail Katkov. He was a fervent supporter of the autocracy and was given free rein to write what he pleased. But it would be a huge mistake to believe that the products of Katkov’s pen reflected the opinions of the Tsar and his bureaucracy. On the contrary, much of his work consisted of severe criticisms of Russia’s rulers for what Katkov considered their weak-willed policies and insufficiently aggressive defence of Russian interests. These writings sometimes infuriated Tsars Alexander II and III, but they permitted it in part because Katkov also railed against the Tsars’ revolutionary enemies, and in part because they knew that Katkov’s views were shared by a large portion of educated public opinion. On one occasion Alexander III was so angered by a Katkov article that he threatened to issue a public denunciation. But he was persuaded not to on the grounds, among other things, that the negative public reaction might cause a crash in the stock exchange.

katkov
Mikhail Katkov

Whether the labels ‘autocratic’ or ‘authoritarian’ really apply to modern Russia is a matter of debate, but those who believe that they do also appear to think that this means that the Russian media is entirely under the state’s direct control, and so everything that it prints or broadcasts represents the government’s wishes. Arkady Ostrovsky has pointed out in his study of the post-Soviet Russian media that its shift to patriotic themes from the late 1990s onwards responded to a clear public demand. Too many commentators choose to ignore this inconvenient fact. Some historians consider Mikhail Katkov an opportunist. He said what he said because it sold newspapers; but it sold newspapers because people supported it and wanted to read it. Much the same dynamic is probably true today.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Autocracy and the media”

  1. …appear to think that this means that the Russian media is entirely under the state’s direct control

    From observing both sides, I get the impression that the western media are under much more direct control of the establishment (or the ‘deep state’, if you prefer), than the Russian media.

    The West appears to be firmly in the grip of a variety of mccarthyism. Deep, deep crisis, with no light in the end of the tunnel…

    Like

  2. “Thinking a bit more about the recent report on the Kremlin’s alleged weaponizing of comedy, as well as other claims concerning ‘Russian propaganda’, what has struck me is how many people seem to assume that everything which happens in Russia is directed by the Kremlin. “

    What? Only now?!

    “Whether the labels ‘autocratic’ or ‘authoritarian’ really apply to modern Russia is a matter of debate”

    Okay then – let’s have a debate! Your opinion, professor – is the modern Russia ruled over by something “autocratic” (define the term ,please, for clarity’s sake) and/or “authoritarian” (ditto)?

    Like

  3. ‘the modern Russia ruled over by something “autocratic” (define the term ,please, for clarity’s sake) and/or “authoritarian” (ditto)?’

    They are not terms you will ever find me using. I have noticed that those who do use them generally fail to define what they mean by them, which makes them rather useless as analytical tools.

    Like

    1. “They are not terms you will ever find me using. I have noticed that those who do use them generally fail to define what they mean by them, which makes them rather useless as analytical tools.”

      So, for you it’s not “up to debate”, if you are rejecting the terms used in this context outright. Then why such turn of phrase?

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s