July 5, 2006 at 15:08"Glamorous Kremlin" - delete
On June 2, journalist Dmitry Olshansky updated his personal blog on Livejournal.com (LiveJournal) with a post announcing his dismissal from Russian Magazine , an online publication highly respected in a liberal intellectual setting. It was the “dismissal" that was not called what happened, but many concluded that it happened. The reason for the incident was cited by Olshansky in the same place, in LJ - his article “Glamorous Kremlin Watch”, hastily removed by the leadership of “RZh” from the pages of the publication.
"Glamorous Kremlin" - a pamphlet emotional, even nervous; it tells about professional tactics and personal qualities of government political strategists. The text contains the names of real people, but it’s not called the “villains” themselves, whom the author first of all “burns with a verb” —the aforementioned persons have a different role, but this specificity adds some sharpness to the material. In this regard, questions: have the article been removed for censorship reasons, and its author was dismissed from RZ as "objectionable"?
Clarifying the situation, we received a number of interesting opinions about what happened, so it was decided to simply “log”, setting out the information in the order it was received.
So, the journalist Dmitry Olshansky, referring to the removal of the article, said that “the radical decision of the leadership is due to the fact that the text directly touched all kinds of partners and friends of this leadership, albeit in a symbolic rather than literally surname form, and looked as a declaration of intra-administrative war. " On yesterday’s Radio Liberty broadcast, Olshansky said that he was an invited columnist on RZ, that is, there was no dismissal, as such.
The publisher, Gleb Pavlovsky, when asked “Habrahabr” about the reason for Olshansky’s dismissal, replied that “he didn’t dismiss”: “I removed his column with gross attacks on my friends and“ RZh ”. He left".
Journalist Maxim Kononenko, now creator and author of the Idiot blog, told us that the article was removed by the head of the policy department at the request of the editor-in-chief: “I agree with the decision of the editor-in-chief - the article is simply bad. I wouldn’t even publish one, wrapping the author with a perplexed question: “What are you doing?”. Kononenko emphasized that we are not talking about any censorship - just "Olshansky once again faked it."
Anton Nosik, editor-in-chief of MosNews.com and Gazeta.Kg, has a different opinion on the article itself .: “I will say that the author clearly owns the topic better than me. And this insider should “catch” the defendants of the text. If we talk about general principles, about business “to love the homeland for money”, about the track record of those who are engaged in this business today, and about the current list of “enemies of the people” declared by them, then I did not learn anything new in essence. Mitya gracefully left a hilarious episode of the struggle against the "extremists" Gusinsky, Berezovsky and Nevzlin beyond the scope of his narrative - obviously, he did not want to look like a defender of the oligarchy. Nonetheless, without this fresh episode, the list of bugbears with which the KREMLAND valiantly fights for the "conventional units of patriotism" looks incomplete. "
The situation with the “dismissal" of Dmitry Olshansky was finally clarified by Oleg Kashin, editor of the RZh policy department, who, in his own words, clicked the delete button under the Glamorous Kremlin, “Dmitry Olshansky wasn’t fired and couldn’t be fired from the RZh if only because he hadn’t worked in this publication, being a guest columnist, receiving a fee as agreed with the editors. The editorial board did not refuse Olshansky’s services, he himself did not declare that he was stopping writing for us, so I don’t see any reason to talk about his departure from RZ.
“The article“ Glamorous Kremlin, ”Kashin continues,“ was removed from the site on the basis of a consolidated decision of the publisher. Technically, I pressed the “delete” button, and I am responsible for this decision. The article was in fact written in an unacceptably boorish tone, and its publication was my editorial mistake. I want to emphasize - editorial, not political. ”
“I consider the case of Olshansky’s article as an additional confirmation of the democratic nature and uncensorship of“ RZh ”- in most liberal publications, including online ones, such (relatively speaking, anti-Nevuslin text in Gazeta.Ru ) fly into the basket long before publication.”
"Glamorous Kremlin" - a pamphlet emotional, even nervous; it tells about professional tactics and personal qualities of government political strategists. The text contains the names of real people, but it’s not called the “villains” themselves, whom the author first of all “burns with a verb” —the aforementioned persons have a different role, but this specificity adds some sharpness to the material. In this regard, questions: have the article been removed for censorship reasons, and its author was dismissed from RZ as "objectionable"?
Clarifying the situation, we received a number of interesting opinions about what happened, so it was decided to simply “log”, setting out the information in the order it was received.
So, the journalist Dmitry Olshansky, referring to the removal of the article, said that “the radical decision of the leadership is due to the fact that the text directly touched all kinds of partners and friends of this leadership, albeit in a symbolic rather than literally surname form, and looked as a declaration of intra-administrative war. " On yesterday’s Radio Liberty broadcast, Olshansky said that he was an invited columnist on RZ, that is, there was no dismissal, as such.
The publisher, Gleb Pavlovsky, when asked “Habrahabr” about the reason for Olshansky’s dismissal, replied that “he didn’t dismiss”: “I removed his column with gross attacks on my friends and“ RZh ”. He left".
Journalist Maxim Kononenko, now creator and author of the Idiot blog, told us that the article was removed by the head of the policy department at the request of the editor-in-chief: “I agree with the decision of the editor-in-chief - the article is simply bad. I wouldn’t even publish one, wrapping the author with a perplexed question: “What are you doing?”. Kononenko emphasized that we are not talking about any censorship - just "Olshansky once again faked it."
Anton Nosik, editor-in-chief of MosNews.com and Gazeta.Kg, has a different opinion on the article itself .: “I will say that the author clearly owns the topic better than me. And this insider should “catch” the defendants of the text. If we talk about general principles, about business “to love the homeland for money”, about the track record of those who are engaged in this business today, and about the current list of “enemies of the people” declared by them, then I did not learn anything new in essence. Mitya gracefully left a hilarious episode of the struggle against the "extremists" Gusinsky, Berezovsky and Nevzlin beyond the scope of his narrative - obviously, he did not want to look like a defender of the oligarchy. Nonetheless, without this fresh episode, the list of bugbears with which the KREMLAND valiantly fights for the "conventional units of patriotism" looks incomplete. "
The situation with the “dismissal" of Dmitry Olshansky was finally clarified by Oleg Kashin, editor of the RZh policy department, who, in his own words, clicked the delete button under the Glamorous Kremlin, “Dmitry Olshansky wasn’t fired and couldn’t be fired from the RZh if only because he hadn’t worked in this publication, being a guest columnist, receiving a fee as agreed with the editors. The editorial board did not refuse Olshansky’s services, he himself did not declare that he was stopping writing for us, so I don’t see any reason to talk about his departure from RZ.
“The article“ Glamorous Kremlin, ”Kashin continues,“ was removed from the site on the basis of a consolidated decision of the publisher. Technically, I pressed the “delete” button, and I am responsible for this decision. The article was in fact written in an unacceptably boorish tone, and its publication was my editorial mistake. I want to emphasize - editorial, not political. ”
“I consider the case of Olshansky’s article as an additional confirmation of the democratic nature and uncensorship of“ RZh ”- in most liberal publications, including online ones, such (relatively speaking, anti-Nevuslin text in Gazeta.Ru ) fly into the basket long before publication.”