More than half of Russians demand censorship in the media: VTsIOM study

More than 60% of Russians support censorship in the media. Such data from a recent survey were provided by VTsIOM. Sociologists assure: over the past 15 years, there have been significantly more adherents of a tough government hand in the domestic press and on TV. Political strategist Sergei Markelov explained to MK what people are willing to exchange freedom of the press for.

According to the expert, Russians agree to give up diversity in the media for only one purpose – to provide themselves with a sense of security and less anxiety.

According to VTsIOM data published on January 9, 63% of Russians surveyed were in favor of introducing state censorship in the media. Sociologists compared the latest figures with data from 2008. It turned out that there were more supporters of a tough approach (in 2008 there were 58%). Only 30% of the country’s population is confident that censorship is not needed.

In addition, VTsIOM experts painted a portrait of a typical Russian who supports censorship.

Most often, this is a woman over 45 years old, with secondary or secondary specialized education, high or average (according to personal assessment) income, living in a small town or rural area. Her favorite source of information is TV. Or it combines watching TV programs with feeds from Internet sources.

A typical Russian citizen who does not support censorship is a man under 35 years old, with incomplete secondary education, and a poor financial situation. At the same time, such a hipster ekes out an existence in the capital or a city with a population of one million and actively consumes Internet content.

Political strategist Sergei Markelov, commenting on the results of the VTsIOM study, drew attention to the age of people who usually speak out for the introduction of censorship.

– Women from the “45+” category are the so-called nuclear electorate. These are the people on whom any power rests,” the expert noted.

At the same time, the analyst noted that men in this age category are also not far behind the fair sex. True, they have different reasons for demanding that the state be involved in what the media publish and show.

– It is important for women to remove anxiety. For men – doubts. When a woman sees that some kind of cataclysm is happening in the world, she begins to worry. A man – to doubt himself and his future. This literally immobilizes him. As a result, we get men who prefer to lie on the couch all day or spend time with friends in the garage, washing bones with the same Americans. This is a form of avoiding problems,” explained the political strategist.

Sociologists from VTsIOM also listed the reasons that push Russians to give up freedom of the press in favor of state control. Thus, 44% of respondents see censorship as “a mechanism for ensuring stability and order in society to prevent panic.”

The second argument is protection against fakes. This was stated by 20% of respondents in favor of censorship.

10% believe that the state information filter will improve the cultural level of society. 9% support censorship in the media, since it will supposedly protect viewers and readers from negative, immoral information, and propaganda of deviant behavior.

In turn, opponents of censorship insist that information must be truthful and cannot pass through filters. This amounted to 39% of those who do not want the state to interfere in the affairs of the press.

Another 17% of opponents of censorship consider it a tool for limiting freedom of speech. 15% are confident that censorship will be used to hush up problems and one-sided coverage of events. The lack of competition and pluralism in the conditions of state regulation of the media was indicated by 14% of respondents.

“Such figures indicate that in society there is a concept of hypertrust in the state,” Sergei Markelov commented on the results of the study.

The political strategist explained how this works at the level of the human psyche. This situation can arise in a society with a high level of anxiety. The more information a person consumes, from the Internet, newspapers or TV – it doesn’t matter – the more nervous he becomes. As a result, the psyche cannot cope, and a logical idea appears: you need to find someone big and strong who will help you calm down.

– People ask the state: “Protect me from fakes. I myself cannot understand where the lie is and where the truth is. Figure it out for me and make sure that it’s not me who deals with my anxiety,” Markelov explained. “This creates a feeling of control and competence. In reality, of course, this is pseudo-control and pseudo-competence. But for a person who advocates censorship, the thoughts are very important: “I know exactly what is happening” or “I know exactly what words to use to cover up the damned Americans.”

True, censorship in Russia is prohibited at the level of the Constitution, the expert recalled. However, this does not mean that it cannot be used under any circumstances. Moreover, this won’t even require changing the Basic Law, the analyst is sure.

“It is absolutely not necessary to call censorship censorship,” Sergei Markelov is sure. “It is enough to call it, for example, information security.” Then two problems can be solved at once: to achieve maximum supertrust in the state and its sources of information with simultaneous maximum distrust of everyone else. In essence, this is a method of managing society. By following it, you can create an absolutely controllable information “clearing,” the expert concluded.