Orthodox journalism is a look at events through the Gospel

Caring about people, not sensation, comes first

Svetlana Okhrimenko, head of the press service of the Gorlovka diocese:

– Firstly, Orthodox. For him, the church is not a place of work, not an alien organization with which he can get some tasty goodies. The church is a family. There are different people in it, and anything happens between them. Whatever happens, caring about people comes first, not about sensation. I won’t talk about fulfilling the commandments, participating in divine services and sacraments, prayer and fasting, you know that yourself.

Secondly, a journalist. Not in the sense in which jokes about the second oldest profession are told now (unfortunately, for good measure), but in the ideal sense. A professional who knows why and how to present this or that material. He knows his speakers and his audience, takes into account the stylistic features of his niche, knows how to walk between an aggressive presentation of material and sugary dove doves. Knows how to be honest: not to lie when it is beneficial to him or his employer, not to steal materials from colleagues. Or is this no longer about a journalist, but about an Orthodox Christian?

Church journalism: truth or benefit?

Today, not a single phenomenon of life can do without information support. The Church also has its own information resources. Orthodox journalism is gradually taking shape. What should it be like? Which means of secular journalism are suitable for it and which are not? These questions are very important for us also because our magazine is young - even against the backdrop of young Orthodox journalism. To discuss them, we met in the editorial office of Neskuchny Sad with the heads of some Orthodox media Yulia DANILOVA, editor-in-chief of Neskuchny Sad magazine:

— The opinion of secular journalists is known: Orthodox media are insipid, do not contain the whole truth and gloss over reality.
And indeed, it is obvious that church publications aim to “give positive information.” This task can be posed in different ways: to show the beauty of Orthodoxy, to give a positive image of the Church, or to talk about where and how believers can serve their neighbors. And now an Orthodox journalist writes about another good undertaking... Let’s say it’s an orphanage, or a school, or a hospital - it’s not so important what exactly. He meets with managers and ordinary participants in the case, observes, and asks questions. The impressions are generally joyful: church life is being revived, something living and useful is happening, faith is manifesting itself in people’s deeds. The article is published. And then responses begin to come: it turns out that not everything is so rosy in this community - there are dissatisfied people, draconian orders, immoderate strictness (or, on the contrary, no order), disorder, quarrels... Readers who accidentally find themselves in the know about the matter sigh: well, of course... this is an Orthodox publication... (Read: don’t expect the truth here! I’ll say right away that our magazine also encountered all this.) Then the journalist decides that he will get to the bottom of the truth. And it begins... He discovers that any statement that slightly deviates from direct praises is not accepted by those about whom he writes. He encounters a very painful (painful!) reaction - even when he writes not about abuses, but about natural disagreements and mistakes. He immediately falls into the camp of the “enemies”. He no longer has the right to a subjective opinion - every word he says will be evaluated and weighed with passion. It’s paradoxical, but what would be acceptable to representatives of the secular media - cautious doubt, slight irony, a slightly distant look - is here perceived as an enemy attack, evil mockery, a direct attack. “The tone of the article is completely unacceptable. So we knew - you can’t get involved with journalists...” The situation is strange: readers - including believers - are accustomed (accustomed to secular media) to a certain level of honesty and harsh presentation of information. They have developed - as a reaction to Soviet window dressing - an allergy to reports of achievements and successes. But people who, in a private conversation, allow any, even the most impartial comments, including about church affairs, often become strict censors as soon as it comes to publication in the press. What is this: a double standard? Or maybe the task of church media is fundamentally different from that of secular media? But in this case, what is the truth of this “Orthodox approach” of ours to what should become public opinion and what should not? Is this really just a shop-floor, corporate desire not to wash dirty linen in public? The internal ethics of a closed corporation... But this is precisely what explains all the non-church “experts” who, with the arrogance of “truly free people”, look at the Church as a kind of “organization” with strict and incomprehensible rules for “normal people”. Let's digress and remember what the apostle says: “Love... thinks no evil, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices in the truth, bears all things, believes all things” (1 Cor. 13:5-7). What does this mean for the Orthodox press? How to combine love and sobriety? What needs to be done so that protecting the interests of the Church does not result in silence and loss of reader trust? Is it appropriate to “talk about everything” in church media? How can we prevent the desire to tell the truth from turning into a passion to “see flaws at any cost”? How to move on to an adult, sober, free conversation about the experience of practical church work, including - inevitably - about its mistakes? Maybe the time has simply not come for this yet? And what demands should a church journalist make of himself then? As you can see, there are a lot of questions. But we don’t have an answer yet. Therefore, we would be interested in the opinions of our colleagues. Sergei CHAPNIN, executive editor of the newspaper “Church Bulletin”:
“We see that in ten years of church revival a lot has been done, but, on the other hand, a lot has not been done yet.
I don't think it can hide from a close look. Yes, there are alarming trends in the life of our Church. Bishops, priests, and laity talk about them. You can't remain indifferent. Another thing is how to talk about them and who is ready to hear you? The problems discussed here are largely related to the fact that the Orthodox media, official and unofficial, all taken together, have not yet become a platform for discussions where opinions are expressed and our problems are discussed from different sides. It so happened that Orthodox media are perceived as party publications assigned to one or another church group. I believe that this is a difficult legacy of the 90s, which monstrously distorted the development of church media. I think our task is to return the development of Orthodox journalism to its natural course, to move away from hyper-ideologization, and then the discussion of both negative and positive problems, and mutual criticism (friendly and presupposing dialogue) will be perceived completely differently than it is today. The problems of church life, which the Orthodox media most often write about, can be divided into three main groups. Let's call them conditionally: dogmatic, moral and economic-economic. The practice of the Church Messenger shows that we can and even should write about dogmatic problems - distortions of Orthodox dogma. There are too many people around us who still don't know its basics. And, to be honest, we must admit that these people will remain the absolute majority in the Church for the next five, maybe even ten years. Therefore, we are obliged to pay special attention to ensuring that in historical reasoning, in spiritual advice, and in theological polemics there are no gross errors and misconceptions. If we remain silent, then gradually various distortions may become the norm for some. Here is our latest example: we wrote a harsh critical review of the new book by Archimandrite Raphael (Karelin) “Vectors of Spirituality.” The respected author wrote that in the God-man, “the transfer of properties from one nature to another is a confusion of natures.” But this directly contradicts Orthodox dogma, which speaks of the non-fusion and inseparability of the two natures in the God-man Christ! Saints John Chrysostom and Gregory the Theologian, Saints Ephraim the Syrian and John of Damascus refute the statement of Fr. Raphael. Another type of problem is related to the canons themselves, to the structure of church life in the broad sense of the word. So far we do not have an answer to the question: how to write about canonical violations? It seems to me that these problems cannot be solved through journalism. This is the competence of the church court, where journalists should turn to seek justice. I really hope that real mechanisms of church legal proceedings will be created in the near future. The third block of problems concerns the economy and economics. Issues related to church property are perhaps the most difficult. Because when it comes to repairs, restoration, and use of buildings by parishes—primarily in Moscow—there are often non-building situations. I have no doubt that many elders and even rectors do not know the canons and church rules. People write and call us at the editorial office, but I don’t see any possibility of changing anything. This is a very sensitive issue, and it remains within the competence of the rector of the church and the bishop. If the laity in general plays a more prominent role in parish and diocesan life, the excessive visibility of journalists will be mitigated. The church was deprived of its property, and the process of return is very difficult. You should write about this very carefully. Vladimir LEGOYDA, editor-in-chief of the missionary magazine “Foma”:
“I would like to look at the problem raised from a slightly different angle.
Let's say there is some negative information about the Church. If we simply remain silent about the negativity, it will not disappear, but if we actively join the fight for “cleansing the ranks” and only concentrate on this, we will face the risk of becoming just another party. How to deal with this? It seems to me that here it is necessary to balance the negative with the positive as much as possible. Most negative publications about the Church that appear in non-Church media describe either something that does not actually exist, or something that is not the main thing in the Church. Therefore, the balance in Orthodox publications, in publications that are addressed to a wide audience, should be an explanation of what is important in the Church and what is not. In the Church that exists on our sinful earth, there will always be some negative phenomena. But she lives not by their counterbalance - positive phenomena (good priests and parishioners, charity, etc.), but by the Sacrifice of Christ, who freed humanity. And no “negative” can devalue this Sacrifice. Blessed Augustine once wrote that the negative behavior of priests certainly affects the authority of the Church, but does not affect its Truth. People must clearly understand why they come to Church: for a good priest or for salvation? We need to talk about this constantly, just constantly! Second point: it is very important to understand the difference between real negativity and what is perceived by society as negativity about the Church. Here is a recent example, albeit from the political sphere, but still. In the last Duma election race, the party “For Holy Rus'” emerged. It is clear that many people far from the Church began to perceive the speeches of the leaders of this party in political debates as the position of the Russian Orthodox Church. (Although, in my opinion, these speeches most often looked like a PR campaign paid for by someone to discredit the Church.) I myself heard people who watched “this” say: “Well, why do we need such Orthodoxy? They ask them about economics, but they brought posters with the Ten Commandments to the studio and kept repeating the same thing: “Honor your father and mother,” etc.” Negative, of course. Only he has nothing to do with the Church. Therefore, let's separate what is truly negative and what is perceived by society as negative. And there will be much more of this second one. But we also need to work with this. Now regarding the relationship between truth and benefit. The principle is simple: you should never lie. The truth will always be known anyway. The goal is to honestly acknowledge that we did something wrong and then emphasize what we are going to do to make it better. And here, of course, you can’t lie either. Vladimir GURBOLIKOV, co-editor of the magazine “Thomas”
: - The questions raised here are not specifically Orthodox.
They are associated with the characteristics of the press in general, and especially the corporate press. If you represent the interests of a certain organization, then you should not be its enemy, right? On the other hand, there are some obvious imbalances, some problems. And if you start writing about these things, criticism can be perceived as an attack on the entire structure. This issue becomes especially acute in relation to the Church, since there are too many people for whom encountering at least one negative situation is enough to blame the entire Church. From this point of view, it is impossible to ignore the arguments of those who are afraid, who say: there is no need to replicate bad examples and negativity. And in this situation, it seems to me, it is quite natural that in relation to church reality the role of critic is played by the secular press. Sometimes you can see a critical publication in the secular press, the author of which does not begin to criticize the entire Church. One can even be very grateful to such an author. After all, someone should write about this. There is another problem. Of course, it is very difficult to look indifferently at something non-Christian in the life of the Christian church. Moreover, as honest people, we cannot be guided by bad corporate solidarity. But we are Christians, and we must also be able to forgive, and not judge so mercilessly and hastily, as is customary in worldly society. This is the contradiction of our situation. How to get out of it? First of all, we need to proceed from the fact that what is important to us is not criticism itself, not exposure, but the search for a way out of a wrong situation. We must abandon the prosecutorial tone, we must say “we”, “ours”... Write calmly, without hysteria. Try not to offend, but to help in some way, to suggest, sometimes you don’t have to mention names and places of action. Even in materials about positive experiences, include an analysis of what did not work, “working on mistakes” - and here it is necessary to understand whether the heroes of such an essay or interview are ready for a critical approach? Won't we actually offend them out of nowhere? Sometimes it is even better to refuse publication if people do not understand this issue. What should be the method of presenting information? It seems to me that we must either give different points of view, or follow the “royal path”. What does this mean in practice? For example, our magazine “Thomas” is a magazine for non-church people. We know that in the Church there are extreme points of view on some problems - take the INN, for example - but there is also a general line, based on the judgments of prominent contemporary confessors, scientists, and church hierarchs. And in the magazine we must present, of course, exactly this line. Or, for example, the question of evolution. There are two parties among scientists and priests: representatives of one say that the Book of Genesis should not be taken literally, and the other - that the literal reading is the only correct one. We will either not write about this topic at all, or we will put both points of view, since there is no conciliar church decision on this matter. But there is a danger here of confusing the reader’s brains: such is the peculiarity of the Russian reader that he regards any printed word as the ultimate truth. We have always been very vigilant regarding such issues and tried not to write about things that cause sharp disagreements. True, it happens like this: you write about some good people doing a good job, and they suddenly turn out to be dissatisfied with what you wrote and try to dictate to you what and how you should write about them. They do not respect the journalist and journalism, they feel like complete masters of the situation. In this regard, I think we need to educate people by talking about those who understand and respect the mission of a church journalist. That is, people need to be educated by example: “Look, we wrote about these people. They told us what worked and what didn’t; they were happy to analyze everything themselves. And did it turn out bad? They wrote about both these and those. But we didn’t write about you.” In general, the most important thing now is to rally positive forces around Orthodox magazines, to gather people. So that we feel support, good will and achieve mutual understanding. Of course, at some point we will have to become tougher, but, in any case, we must first of all be merciful to everyone we write about. And this should limit us in criticism. This is our main difference from the secular press: not everything that it can use, we can use. Our publication is not a cannon, not a machine gun. Although sometimes you really want to shoot... Vladislav PETRUSHKO, leading editor of the website “Sedmitsa.Ru” (CSC “Orthodox Encyclopedia”)
: - Much of what was said is in tune with my thoughts.
But a slightly different angle of view is also possible. Perhaps we need to more clearly define the status of church media. After all, on the one hand, there are official media - the same "Tserkovny Vestnik", our website "Sedmitsa.Ru" or some other church media, which, in principle, cannot afford any step to the right or left, because they publish Such publications perceive materials as an expression of the position of the Hierarchy. In such publications, any wrong word or wrong move can cause an avalanche. But on the other hand, there are also media that have a much greater degree of freedom: some organs of the church community, theological schools, etc. Perhaps the status of a particular media outlet should simply be indicated in the subtitle for adequate perception of the information - as truly inviting to discussion or conveying some judgments. It seems to me that some qualitative changes are needed in Orthodox journalism on a very large scale. It seems that church media should greatly change the nature of their coverage of events. Because today many controversial situations, which are actively discussed by secular media, but hushed up by church publications, can give rise to serious distrust in the Church as a whole. And this is fraught with great difficulties both in matters of the relationship of the Church with the state and society, and in the matter of internal mission. Therefore, it seems to me that it is worth thinking about developing some kind of concept (or at least recommendations) regarding the media and submitting them for consideration by the Hierarchy. After all, church media can become an extremely effective means for the episcopate in solving many important problems. If, of course, they are used in a balanced and competent manner, and also provided there is mutual understanding and trust between the Hierarchy and the church media, and the absence of dictates in relation to journalists. Sergey Chapnin
: - Last year, at a meeting of the Orthodox Journalism section, Christmas readings completely unexpectedly five dioceses came up with the initiative to create an association of Orthodox journalists.
This is a very important and kind sign, because the professional community should be consolidated. And those ethical principles that we are talking about, maybe they should not be put on paper as an instruction, but they must be discussed, spoke, meaningful with a professional community. It is necessary to develop, in secular language, the "rules of the game." We will only benefit from this. Julia Danilova
: - Concluding our conversation, I want to ask another question that excites us.
It seems that journalism is a superficial business involuntarily: a journalist is usually not a specialist in what he writes about ... He comes from the outside and makes some judgments about what the heroes of his publication are doing and live. Maybe that's why he does not have a special right to judge those who are engaged in the real case? Can a journalist avoid such a “sliding on the surface”? What do you think about it? Vladimir Legoyda
: - Yes, journalism is a superficial thing.
Exactly in the same sense, in which the movie is superficial - compared, say, with classical literature. And classical literature is superficial - compared to philosophical treatises. And philosophical treatises are superficial - in comparison with the works of the Church Fathers ... So, I repeat, you should not confuse the natural limitations of journalism by the “laws of the genre” with the professional incompetence of individual brothers in Peru. Sergey Chapnin
: - This issue must be considered in the light of the path that Orthodox journalism has passed in ten years.
The superficiality that we are talking about is due to the fact that over the past period the absolute dominant in journalism was information. He passed away-or practically left, now he is just returning a little-such a genre of journalism as an essay. A very complex, in my opinion, very Christian genre, who speaks of a person through which it is really possible to convey spiritual experience, spiritual reality - descriptively or analytically. This tools in journalism exist, simply by virtue of our turnover, due to the deep many years of unprofessionalism of Orthodox journalists, this area is partially hidden from us, we just reveal it for ourselves. Vladimir Gurbolikov
: - Yes, journalism is the profession "superficial".
In principle, there is nothing wrong in this, such a necessary division of labor. In society there are definitely “moles”, narrow specialists, beautiful, professional. Someone is studying a peaceful atom, someone is seriously engaged in military affairs, someone writes very seriously. Each of them is digging deeper in its site - and in the end it already ceases to see the "neighbors", does not receive information about what is happening around. And therefore, there are “amateurs” who run along the “surface” and establish horizontal ties. They capture the information: what did this scientist get, what the military man encouraged, what the writer wrote - and replicates it, and in such a way that everyone and everyone understands. It is not simple. So I, for example, are engaged in missionary journalism. In order to write about the church for people for whom the church world is still alien, I am constantly forced to put myself in the place of an unbeliever, to remember why I myself was once Orthodox, why I myself once had a bad attitude towards Orthodoxy. This is a painful process, it is difficult to return to yourself-prisoner. In addition, the journalist must operate with the language of publicly accessible and vivid images. He cannot speak the language of physicists about physics. He must look for transmission methods, adequate audiences. In general, I personally, according to my device, are always more interesting than a book than a magazine or newspaper, I am a book person. Meanwhile, I professionally deal with the magazine and the newspaper, and I perfectly understand that without journalism, people may not learn about the very existence of the same book! And here it turns out that the concept of “dyilentanism” regarding the mission of a journalist is very, very conditional. Journalism is a professionally “superficial” area, but a good journalist simply cannot be a superficial person! In order to clearly and vividly inform people something important and serious, a personal depth, a high level of culture, and education is needed. And we must strive to make journalists just that. In the meantime - what journalists, such an attitude towards them in society. Now, when church life is just restored, specific examples, specific experience are extremely important: how to organize a family holiday for children, how to behave in fasting or how to establish an Orthodox educational institution ... Therefore, now it is necessary in Orthodox journalism for documentary and reporting-the most objective-as objective as possible , reliefly serving what is happening to the reader. And now there are a lot of reporting journalism, so to speak. For example, a journalist writes: “I entered (or I entered), and there - ah, what a charm! What a miracle!" You read and understand that in fact nothing is said, there are no facts! Of course, this is also a matter of professional skill of the current generation of Orthodox journalists. Rather, it is necessary to leave this pathoal "tradition". Prot.
Dimitri Smirnov, rector of the Temple of the Annunciation in the Petrovsky Park - should the church press differ from secular and what? - Of course, because the church press is primarily in different tasks.
She does not seek to report “fried” facts to attract attention. This is because there is no competition in the church press. Well, who will produce two newspapers in the diocese? What's the point of this? Here we have our own media in the temple: a 50-round calendar magazine. There is everything that our parishioners are necessary: ​​the schedule of worship, a message about weddings, christening, funeral service committed in the parish. Lives of newly -pleased saints. We reprint some news of church life from the Internet. We also place the literary works of our parishioners, reports on pilgrimage trips, photographs. Everything is very calm, in a narrative form, nothing “salty”, intriguing. And even if something unpleasant, Orthodox journalists happen in the church, deciding whether to report this or not, should proceed with reasons of church benefit. It is better not to know about some events at all. Especially about the sins of individuals. Why inform about this in public? This is a person’s personal tragedy. - How would you react to criticism in the media of one of your undertakings?
- I would try to take it calmly.
We are very far from ideal. I know my shortcomings and understand that criticism may take place. On the other hand, it is really possible to evaluate these shortcomings only from the inside. Therefore, I am every journalist who comes to us, I ask you to send the material before publishing to us for approval. - But does it not turn out that as a result, the reader receives an article not to journalist N, but his father Demetrius Smirnov?
- Nothing like this!
Personally, I edit so that no author has never discovered signs of editing. My editing never destroys the text itself, it is rather a correction. In general, I am sure that all journalists, especially the Orthodox, before publishing the material, must make sure that their publication will not grind anyone, will not discredit. We are Christians, we must regret each other. Everything must be done with love. So you ask what is more important - to provide love or tell the truth ... You see, “Truth” - it is in a shift, in retelling is almost unattainable. They say: "Historical truth." But do you understand that this is just a nonsense? There is a certain historical myth that develops about any object. There are common myths, there are private ones. You can never know how literally it was described. Suppose they write: such and such said. And in what context? With what intonation? When describing, there is always a share of error. Love and goodwill protect even from involuntary slander. Prot.
Vladimir Vigilyansky, teacher of the Faculty of Journalism of the RPU named after St. The Apostle John the Theologian - why can one criticize the modern Orthodox press? - The main drawback of the printed church media is the absence of their own information in them.
Even if it is, then these are reprints from other people's news tapes, mostly secular ones. Future historians who will study the current life of the Church in diocesan publications will not learn anything about it. A person who, for example, wants to find out what events took place at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries at the Moscow seminary and the Academy and what Moscow theological schools lived in these years at the magazine “Meeting”, will extract very few from the journal kit. Some diocesan newspapers are still reprinting chapters from SVT books. Theophanes of the Recluse or the sermons of Meter. Anthony (Bloom). We often complain that the current enemies of the Church want to create a peculiar ghetto from Orthodoxy, building an impassable wall between the church and society. At the same time, we do not notice that today's church seal is precisely the seal of the Orthodox ghetto. The presence of your own information destroys this wall. It is necessary to make secular newspapers reprint church news from church publications, and not vice versa. But making news is a very difficult thing. Such work requires high professionalism. And money. The secular periodicals have many professional achievements: mocking, the principles of the presentation of materials, genre wealth and, of course, the efficiency of information. These achievements, of course, need to borrow church press. - Should there be a certain line of curiosity, which Orthodox journalists cannot cross under any circumstances?
-You can write about any phenomenon of life-about sex, football, ballet, Khodorkovsky, presidential elections, the “Jewish question”, Chechnya, sectarianism, “grandfature” in the army and a lot of many.
But it is important to know how. In this matter, you need to take an example from His Holiness Patriarch Alexy, who at diocesan meetings very harshly criticizes our church life. At one of the meetings, the Patriarch stated that we did not and were not forbidden topics in the discussion of church problems, including conflicting ones, but there should be a measure of the concept of church benefit: “We realize that the state of our church is far from ideal. We do not close our eyes to this and see our weaknesses, disadvantages and vices. We are talking about this in order to get rid of the shortcomings so that they do not throw a shadow at the church ”(diocesan assembly of Moscow, December 12, 1996). In Orthodox journalism, everything should be chaste. Hegumen Dimitri (Baibakov), head of the information and publishing department of the Yekaterinburg diocese:-What could the Orthodox press learn from secular?
- If the church media want to reach the reader, they should be equal to secular publications on efficiency, brightness, illustrativeness of the material.
And on the use of modern ways of presenting information. I'm talking about catchy, non -trivial headlines and bright illustrations. Indeed, unfortunately, now people are better than perceive visual information than the printed word. So we should strive for a large number of illustrations, accompanied by informative signatures. And then in most church publications we now have such huge “footcloths” of texts in four row -row. Gray text, small font without any breakdown. But we must understand: the time of samizdat and typewritten in the tenth copy - has passed. Now people will not be interested in such leaflets. Moreover, if it is not only about a church audience. - And from the point of view of content, are there such topics that should not be affected by church publications?
- The question is difficult, and apparently there are different opinions on this subject. Personally, I think this: we need to write more about the positive. Those problems that, of course, are in the church environment, of course, must be solved, but not on the pages of newspapers and magazines. These issues are resolved in confession, in a personal conversation, at the parish or diocesan meeting. It should be a living dialogue, live communication. Why? Yes, because, it seems to me, the discussion on the pages of newspapers is simply ineffective to overcome problems. This is unproductive! To share some kind of positive experience, let's assume some kind of parish or diocese-this is constructive. The person read and thinks: why don't I do the same in my parish? And if we are in the newspaper we will stigmatize some priest for the fact that he loves to drink-what will happen? Well, we will brand it for a year in a row, but it will not change from this. Yes, with this priest you need to deal with his mother, through his brothers, through the ruling bishop, in the end! But not through the press. Another thing is some questions of theological or church-public. Here, discussions in the Orthodox media are appropriate. Whether it is the work of Jeanne Bichevskaya or the question of the canonization of Ivan the Terrible or Rasputin. It probably makes sense to discuss. But also in a calm and constructive channel, and not with only one desire to “brand a shame” of everyone who has other views. After all, the more people have information, versatile information, the better they can figure out what is right and what is not.

print version

Measure seven times - cut once

Archpriest Sergiy Belyanov, editor-in-chief of the magazine “Droplets”:

Faith

Silence is golden, but out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. Therefore, a person writing and speaking about the Church must have an abundance in his heart. And the heart must be filled in abundance with the same thing that Christ filled the apostles with, that is, with such inner meaning that the wave from their words spreads to all sides of the world, changing the inner world of many and filling entire nations and states with new meaning. Hope

Saint John Chrysostom gathered entire squares of people for his sermon, lamenting that he did not have the power of words, which ignites ardent faith. He who preaches the Word bears the obedience to speak. And here we need to hope that some of those who hear were touched by an angel’s wing and their heart opened, and someone else is waiting for their angel. Love

Love your neighbor as yourself. For an Orthodox person, and especially a journalist, respecting people and appreciating those for whom you work is the most important quality. Speak in simple language, but do not simplify. Talk about what worries, pleases, saddens, and this will not leave others indifferent. Wisdom

Measure seven times and cut once. There should be responsibility for your words, like a surgeon during an operation. The cost of a mistake can be irreparable. Every word must be tested by the spirit and truth of Scripture. Without these qualities, professionalism, honesty, literacy and even talent will be useless.

What is an Orthodox journalist?

Three months after the end of the Congress of Orthodox Press, students of the Orthodox University, on behalf of the organizing committee of the congress, prepared a draft annex to the charter of the Union of Orthodox Journalists, the decision to create which was made at the congress. This project is dedicated to ethical issues. It was published in # 9-10 of the Orthodox review “Radonezh” for this year.

Rules of professional ethics for an Orthodox journalist

1. An Orthodox journalist bases his professional activity on the Holy Scriptures, observes canonical rules, doctrinal dogmas, and theological traditions of the Russian Orthodox Church. He must remember the words of the Savior: “I tell you that for every idle word that people speak, they will give an answer on the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matthew 12:36-37).

2. An Orthodox journalist disseminates and comments only on information that is either beyond doubt or has a reliable source. He makes every effort to avoid causing harm to anyone through incomplete or inaccurate information, as well as deliberate concealment of socially significant facts.

3. An Orthodox journalist is obliged in his reports to distinguish between facts and what constitutes opinions, versions or assumptions.

4. An Orthodox journalist does not resort to unworthy methods of obtaining information.

5. An Orthodox journalist considers the following to be serious professional crimes:

a) plagiarism,

b) malicious misrepresentation of facts,

c) slander,

d) receiving payment for disseminating false or concealing true information.

6. An Orthodox journalist should not accept, either directly or indirectly, any remuneration or fees from third parties for publications.

7. An Orthodox journalist, having become convinced that he has published false or distorted material, is obliged to correct the error; if necessary, he must apologize through his press organ.

8. An Orthodox journalist maintains professional secrecy regarding the source of information; he is obliged to respect the request of those interviewed by him not to disclose their statements and to publish interviews only with their written consent.

9. An Orthodox journalist in his professional activities counters political extremism and restrictions on civil rights on any basis: gender, race, language, religion, political and other views, social and national origin.

10. An Orthodox journalist strives to see in every person the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26); he does not allow himself disparaging allusions regarding a person's race, nationality, religion, social origin or illness; he is obliged to exclude offensive expressions and foul language from use.

11. The Orthodox journalist adheres to the principle that any person is innocent until his guilt is proven in court.

12. An Orthodox journalist does not interfere without permission in a person’s private life, especially when it comes to people placed in a medical institution or a nursing home.

13. An Orthodox journalist cannot promote, advertise or approve products that call for cruelty, fornication, lewdness, terrorism, idolatry, or divination.

14. An Orthodox journalist should not allow himself to make heretical judgments and contribute to church schism with his statements.

15. An Orthodox journalist must oppose blasphemy, sacrilege, iconoclasm, and harassment of clergy.

16. An Orthodox journalist respects copyrights; using the work of his colleague, he refers to the author's name.

Probably, any journalist who considers himself an Orthodox Christian will agree with almost all points of this document. Although questions remain for its authors.

It is not entirely clear what the authors of the project mean by “harassment of clergy.” If any kind of criticism of the clergy is meant here, then the question arises, what to do if the priest really deserves such criticism both according to secular moral standards, and even more so according to the Orthodox canons, exposing his flock to spiritual danger and causing a completely fair condemnation from society.

Just pass him by in silence? But then this would be a clear contradiction to the 2nd point of the project, according to which the Orthodox journalist “makes every effort to avoid causing damage to anyone through incomplete or inaccurate information, as well as the deliberate concealment of socially significant information.” The document, unfortunately, does not resolve this contradiction.

It should be noted that among the “Orthodox press” the principles set out in the project are often violated.

Often, the media, which dare to speak on behalf of the entire Church, publish slanderous and false accusations against the clergy (including those prominent figures of the Church who have already rested in God); Orthodox Christians are unprovenly and indiscriminately accused of heresy and betrayal of the Church, without providing them the right to publicly justify yourself. Supposedly “standing for church truth,” some “Orthodox media” often lobby (including not for free) the interests of commercial and political structures that exploit obscurantist ideas only in order to gain certain advantages in business or behind-the-scenes political intrigues.

But the very fact of discussing the “Rules of Professional Ethics for an Orthodox Journalist” can serve as the beginning for a frank conversation about what the “Orthodox press” has become.

We are ready to launch a broad debate on the pages of NGR about the published document.

To set someone on fire, you have to burn yourself.

Mother Ekaterina Nemchinova, editor-in-chief of the Samaritan magazine:

– The task of any journalist, and especially an Orthodox one, is for information to reach a person’s heart. But to light someone up, you have to burn yourself. And only faith can give such burning! Therefore, a journalist who positions himself as Orthodox must first of all be a believer. And honest. Of course, all of the above does not remove the responsibility for professionalism, which is so lacking in church journalism.

Also, every Orthodox journalist should strive to present material in such a way that church media are interesting and understandable to any readership. We should always think about those who are unchurched, because perhaps our word will also depend on whether they will look towards the Church or not.

Orthodox journalism is a look at events through the Gospel

The VII International Festival “Faith and Word” took place in Moscow. Over the past 12 years, it has rightfully become the most authoritative forum for church media. The number of its participants is growing noticeably each time, as is the range of topics discussed. We are increasingly talking not only about the professional training of those who write about church life, but about the ability to present and defend the position of the Church in the information space. How to consolidate church and secular journalism? Is it possible to find new forms of cooperation between the Russian Orthodox Church and modern society and in what direction should the system of Orthodox media develop further? Archpriest Vladimir Vigilyansky, chairman of the information commission at the Moscow diocesan council, reflects on this.

Photo from the archive of Archpriest Vladimir Vigilyansky

— Father Vladimir, you are called the author of the term “Orthodox journalism.” Explain what you mean by this definition and how adequate it sounds today?

— Yes, this term is disputed by many as incomprehensible and vague. There is a concept of “church journalism” - by analogy with sports or political journalism. This definition quite clearly outlines the range of issues covered. In the early 1990s, when the opportunity arose to write about religion, many materials in secular media about Orthodoxy often caused me bewilderment, and sometimes even laughter. At that time, being a church person, I worked at Moscow News and at the Ogonyok magazine. At that time I came across such stupid expressions in texts as “The Patriarch addressed the believers with a welcoming akathist”... The fantastic ignorance in the affairs of the Church, which can still be observed in the media, was especially shocking at that time. Over time, people responsible for church topics appeared in the editorial offices of a number of media outlets. They began to understand the terminology a little, but, alas, still many journalists who decide to write about Orthodoxy are far from the Church and do not understand its realities. When I was the dean of the Faculty of Journalism at the Russian Orthodox University, I asked students to monitor materials dedicated, for example, to the Nativity of Christ. So, 90% of these materials were written so illiterately that their authors should have been fired for unprofessionalism. Everyone seems to understand that journalists who are well versed in the industry, essentially experts, should write about problems and events in the field of horse breeding, finance, sports or new technologies. But for some reason, everyone who is not too lazy writes about the Church.

The definition of “Orthodox journalism” is not specific, but rather metaphorical. Therefore, many are against this term. I believe that he has a right to exist. After all, any view of life, events, people from the point of view of the Gospel is Orthodox. It is not necessary to write only about the Church. You can write about sports, or about the economy, or about the private lives of people, but in such a way that it will be real Orthodox journalism. Just like there is Orthodox literature. For example, Pushkin’s “The Captain’s Daughter” is a textbook example of Orthodox literature, in which there are practically no words such as “God” or “Church”, but this story was written absolutely from the point of view of the Gospel. The term “Orthodox journalism” is possible, but not as a journalistic specification, but as a metaphorical, spiritual definition.

—Who is an Orthodox journalist today?

— The BBC journalist’s code is world-famous; our country has also adopted the so-called code of professional ethics of Russian journalists. At RPU, my students and I formulated our own code of Orthodox journalist. Almost every point has a quotation from the Gospel explaining why this point is included in the code.

However, it is not enough to simply be an Orthodox person and read the points of some code, even an Orthodox one. You also need to be a talented specialist and have professional skills. A mediocre journalist can only compromise the idea of ​​Orthodox journalism with his work. Just like in poetry: if you are a mediocre poet writing Orthodox patriotic poems, then you discredit both Orthodoxy and patriotism with your poems. It is not enough to be a bearer of Orthodox morality and some principles - you also need to be able to present this in one or another journalistic genre.

— How did the formation of Orthodox journalism take place? What, in your opinion, contributed most to its development?

— In my opinion, the professionalization of Orthodox journalism began thanks to the Internet. By 2000, there were many publications in every diocese, in every city, but these newspapers contained only up to 1% news, and the rest were pious interviews from the series “what do you recommend, father?” or excerpts from pious books of the 19th century, information about holidays. This was, in my opinion, a negative example of Orthodox journalism. But, as soon as the Internet appeared, it turned out that without an informational reason, reprinting excerpts from the holy fathers, from memoirs, etc. does not pass. Because websites live on information, on facts - events in the church, events in dioceses, numbers and people, opinions. And magazines have become more professional, because they do not require a news flow - they combine diachronic and synchronous information: what is happening at this time in such and such a place, and what is eternal and unique.

Every Lent I conduct master classes for editors of parish websites. Basically, it is difficult for them to understand what news and information is and why it is needed. I explain with this example. Thirty years later your grandson will ask: “Grandfather, you worked as the editor of the website of such and such a temple, and what was happening at that time in the temple?” And he finds out that nothing happened - no life. But in every church there are parishioners, certain events take place: the iconostasis is consecrated, icons are given, miracles happen in front of these images. But this is not reflected in any way in the newspaper or on the website.

— How did you become the head of the patriarchal press service? Did you think when you decided to become a priest that you would be involved in journalism in one form or another in the Church?

— To be honest, I didn’t go to Church to engage in journalism. In 2004, I was invited to head the press service of the Council of Bishops. When the Council ended, I informed Patriarch Alexy II that there were 15,000 references to the work of the Council in the secular press. And according to the results of the previous Council of Bishops in 2000, which was much more important in significance - the canonization of the new martyrs, the opening of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior - there were only about 3,000 mentions. It became obvious that if done professionally, this could really improve the information coverage of the life of the Church. And when they asked me what needed to be done, I said: first of all, we need to create a press service.

— Has Orthodox journalism changed qualitatively with the advent of online publications and social networks?

— The Internet has opened up new opportunities for us. In the 1990s, the church press was under deep siege. The liberal media scolded the Church; on their pages about Orthodoxy such obscenity appeared that could only be compared with the press of the 1920s and 1930s. The Internet has destroyed this anti-church information blockade. The language of publications and the way the material is presented have changed. For the first time, we created the official website of the Patriarchate, which began to be written in human language. Previously, the same information was presented in such a way that the average person simply could not understand it due to the peculiarities of vocabulary and phraseology. When I headed the press service of the Patriarchate, my editors were... candidates of philological sciences. This contributed to the formation of the style of Orthodox journalism. We have shown that it is possible to write about church and near-church events in normal human language. And the readership, by the way, immediately increased.

On the website of the Moscow Patriarchate we had up to 30 news a day, of which 2-3 news were dedicated to the ministry of the Patriarch, the rest was culture, science, education, construction, icon painting, music, publishing. Thus, a context was created in which the activities of the Primate of the Church were carried out. I think that in theory this is absolutely the right thing to do.

— How appropriate and acceptable is it for Orthodox journalists to have people in holy orders, or is this profession more suitable for the laity?

— Priests have no time for journalism now. I believe that priests from many Orthodox structures can already leave and devote themselves to their direct pastoral work. Orthodox and church journalism, journalistic polemics are the work of the laity. The fewer priests there are, the better. It’s just that earlier, “in the absence of fish,” priests were forced to do this. In addition, we lived and still live in a unique time - in Moscow, more than 60% of our priests have a secular education. Among them are physicists, musicians, artists, art historians, and writers. These people wrote and will probably write.

Although for a wide range of clergy, in my opinion, it would not hurt to have at least a basic knowledge of the principles of journalistic work - from the ability to write a clear post on social networks, to methods of communicating with journalists. Also, any priest may be faced with the task of supporting and developing a parish website...

— How actively is Orthodox journalism developing on social networks?

— So active that in some areas the level of bloggers is even higher than in professional journalism. New genres are born on the Internet. And this is very important, since one of the indicators of the crisis in world journalism is the complete absence of new genres. For decades, nothing new has appeared that is fundamentally different from what has already existed in this area for a long time. On social networks, on the contrary, everything is actively developing.

Does not chase sensation, does not buy or sell

Sergei Geruk, press service of the Kyiv Metropolis:

– An Orthodox journalist always writes the truth, serves Christ and His Church. He is responsible for every word. He must bring the Good News to a world that “lies in evil,” and also protect the Church from the attacks of this fallen world. An Orthodox journalist, unlike a secular one, does not chase a sensation; he is not bought or sold. He always needs to remember that the Church, and therefore the Lord, entrusted him with the word to people about Him, about the purpose of Christian life. An Orthodox journalist should have high professional qualities, know stylistics and classical literature, and leave the word “I” outside the fields of his activity.

Newspaper "Voice of the Orthodox People"

The Security Service of Ukraine became interested in the activities of the UOJ. On January 25, SBU investigators came to one of the site’s journalists and presented a search warrant.

A search was conducted at one of the most active correspondents of the UOJ, whose materials on the seizure of churches in Western Ukraine (for example, reports on the oppression of the UOC community in the village of Ptichya) are known not only in our country, but also caused a resonance abroad. All electronic media and two handwritten notebooks with contact numbers were confiscated from the UOJ journalist.

APPEAL to the President of Ukraine, deputies of the Verkhovna Rada, public figures, human rights activists, journalists, as well as to bodies and representatives of the international human rights mechanism of the UN and EU, all representatives of the international community.
We draw your attention to the fact that flagrant violations of human rights in the field of freedom continue in Ukraine words, conscience and religion. Despite repeated trials and appeals to law enforcement agencies at various levels, to this day believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the village of Ptichya, Rivne region, as well as victims in more than 40 other settlements, cannot freely pray and profess their faith in the places of worship that belong to them . Among the facts of violations of rights are such crimes as the beating of believers in the village of Katerynivka, Ternopil region, failure to comply with court decisions in the case of the village of Ptichya, Rivne region, illegal use of special means by law enforcement officers against civilians, use of violence against journalists, obstruction of the All-Ukrainian Religious procession, accompanied by public calls to the physical destruction of its participants. Simultaneously with the above-mentioned offenses, preparations are being made for the adoption of odious bills aimed at destroying the identity of believers of the UOC who wish to remain Ukrainians within the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. We are extremely concerned that, despite numerous appeals to law enforcement agencies, not a single person from among those who attacked believers of the UOC, as well as those who seized property - churches and other buildings - was even brought to administrative responsibility. The case of an attack on a UOJ journalist in the Ternopil region has not yet been investigated, as well as numerous cases of obstruction of journalistic activity when covering events related to conflicts around UOC churches. Discriminatory statements against the UOC confession are becoming widespread and systematic and have long gone beyond the limits of acceptable criticism; in fact, they have the nature of incitement to commit new offenses against the UOC. At the same time, international law and the obligations of the state of Ukraine, based on the concept of the “responsibility to protect” as a necessary condition for state sovereignty, include specific requirements for public authorities and their persons in connection with the increasing frequency of attacks and conflicts around the UOC. In particular, according to the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (A/HRC/28/66 29 December 2014): Violations of human rights are not only possible by the state; quite often they are committed by non-state actors. However, the state bears responsibility for such acts, since they may indicate imperfections in the system for protecting human rights. The first step in protecting against violence in the name of religion is for high-level government officials to immediately and unequivocally condemn all such acts, wherever they occur. State representatives must play a leading role in ending violence by empathizing with victims and providing support to individuals and groups targeted by such violence. Violent attacks against members of systematically discriminated groups in the name of religion must be understood as an attack on society as a whole. Contrary to the cited duties, current officials not only do not openly condemn violations of the rights of believers of the UOC, but also universally ignore both information about such offenses and written statements about crimes committed, demonstrating a formal approach to their consideration, and in some cases openly declaring “political inappropriateness" of actions to protect the UOC. Despite the fact that the authorities were properly notified of all facts of violations, which is confirmed by a significant number of criminal proceedings and trials opened according to statements of believers of the UOC, instead of ensuring justice and fairness, the government authorities began unprecedented pressure on journalists and human rights activists carrying out legal support and information coverage of facts of violations of the rights of believers of the UOC. Today, January 25, 2021, in residential premises belonging to journalists of the Union of Orthodox Journalists, employees of the press service of the Rivne diocese of the UOC, human rights activists carrying out judicial protection of the interests of UOC communities, representatives of the SBU conducted searches and seized professional equipment - computers, mobile phones, documentation. The grounds for the search, described in the court ruling presented at the time of the investigative actions, are assessed by us as a fiction fabricated by the SBU to obtain a formal reason to block the work of journalists and human rights activists, to collect more detailed information about activists and laypeople defending the UOC, with the aim of possible subsequent individual illegal pressure, including the use of radical offenders. The threat of leakage of data about specific individuals who spoke in defense of the UOC, as well as an array of confidential information and personal data contained in journalistic materials, personal and business correspondence, and legal documents, may pose a threat to the life and safety of witnesses and other persons. Seizures and searches are widespread. As a result of these actions, journalists and lawyers of the Rivne diocese of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church cannot fully carry out their professional activities, which indicates an actual ban on the professional activities of journalists and human rights activists by the state. In accordance with Article 1 of the Declaration of the UN General Assembly of 09.12.1998 “On the right and responsibility of individuals, groups and organs of society to promote and protect universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms” (hereinafter referred to as the “Declaration”), every person has the right, individually and, together with others, promote and strive to protect and realize human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels. According to Article 5 of the Declaration, in order to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, everyone has the right, individually and in community with others, at the national and international levels: (b) to form, join and participate in non-governmental organizations, associations or groups ; c) maintain contact with non-governmental or intergovernmental organizations. Article 6(c) of the Declaration states that everyone, individually or in community with others, has the right to study, discuss, formulate and hold opinions concerning the observance of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, both in law and in practice, and to bring these to the attention of the public issues using these and other appropriate means. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes the right of everyone to freedom of opinion and expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. In accordance with Article 34 of the Constitution of Ukraine, everyone is guaranteed freedom of opinion and speech; in accordance with Article 2 of the Law of Ukraine “On Information Agencies”, information agencies are guaranteed freedom of activity. The seizure of professional equipment and personal means of communication, as well as documentation, constitutes a significant restriction of the right to freedom of speech and violates the guarantees of the professional activities of journalists. As for the conduct of searches and seizure of property from clergy, lawyers and lay believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, who acted as plaintiffs, applicants, representatives in court and other cases related to violations of the rights of the UOC, such actions indicate illegal pressure from the state in connection with with the professional activities of human rights defenders, violate the rights of witnesses and individuals, including in connection with the possible leak of their personal data. It should be noted that, in accordance with the “Guidelines on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders” prepared by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR), all persons acting for the protection of rights are recognized as human rights defenders and are subject to the following guarantees: “ 54. Journalists who promote human rights are human rights defenders, regardless of their accreditation status and the media in which they work (whether it is a print publication, radio station, television channel or online publication). Journalists reporting on human rights violations, corruption or misgovernment, or the activities of whistleblowers should not be subject to persecution; They should not be subject to arbitrary trials or other actions because of their media reports. Authorities must recognize the value of independent and investigative reporting in exposing abuses and abuses of power and support these activities to promote accountability. They must ensure that journalists are not subject to arbitrary criminal prosecution and have access to legal aid and other support to enable journalists to carry out their work without outside interference or fear of reprisal. In particular, measures should be taken to ensure the safety of journalists and ensure that human rights journalists are effectively protected from attacks and other forms of unlawful influence by both state and non-state actors. Any crime against human rights defenders, including human rights journalists, must be promptly investigated in an effective, independent and transparent manner, and those responsible must be brought to justice. 75. States have an obligation to refrain from any unlawful or arbitrary violation of the privacy, family life, home or correspondence of human rights defenders, including electronic communications, and to protect them from such violation by third parties through legislative and other measures. Any violation of privacy, family life, home and correspondence must be provided for by law and necessary to achieve a legitimate aim, in accordance with international human rights standards and proportionate to that aim.” In connection with the above, the news agency Union of Orthodox Journalists, exercising the right to protection provided for in paragraph 4 of Article 9 of the Declaration of the UN General Assembly of 09.12.1998 “On the right and responsibility of individuals, groups and bodies of society to promote and protect generally recognized human rights and fundamental freedom”, according to which “in accordance with applicable international treaties and procedures, everyone has the right, individually and in community with others, to unhindered access to international bodies having general or special competence to receive and consider communications on matters of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and also keep in touch with them":

1. Sends a report of violations against journalists and human rights defenders to the UN Human Rights Council in accordance with UN resolution 5/1 of June 18, 2007.
2. Sends a report of violations against journalists and human rights defenders to the UN Special Rapporteur on the protection of the right to freedom of expression.
3. Sends a report of violations against journalists and human rights defenders to the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders.
4. Sends a report of violations against journalists and human rights defenders to the European Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights (DROI).
5. Sends a report of violations against journalists and human rights defenders to the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe.
6. Sends a report of violations against journalists and human rights defenders to the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of conscience and religion.
7. Sends reports of offenses against journalists and human rights defenders to European Union parliamentary groups and individual parliamentarians.
8. Sends a report of violations against journalists and human rights defenders to other bodies and human rights organizations of the international human rights mechanism.
9. Calls on government authorities to stop illegal pressure and refrain from further unjustified actions against journalists and human rights activists who protect the rights of believers of the UOC.
10. Appeals to the President of Ukraine, deputies of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, government bodies, the international and national community with an appeal to protect freedom of speech and stop the persecution of Christian believers of the UOC, as well as human rights activists and journalists defending the rights and freedoms of the UOC.
11. Draws attention to the fact that, according to paragraph h) of Article 7 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute): crimes against humanity include “the persecution of any identifiable group or community on grounds of political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious... or other motives generally recognized as impermissible under international law in connection with any acts referred to in this paragraph or any crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.” Under persecution, according to paragraph g) paragraph 2 of Art. 7 of the Charter, understand “the deliberate and serious deprivation of fundamental rights, contrary to international law, on the basis of membership in a particular group or community.” In this regard, the Union of Orthodox Journalists, in the event of increased illegal pressure on journalists and human rights defenders, as well as believers of the UOC, reserves the right to immediately inform the International Criminal Court of violations of the rights of religious groups, journalists and human rights defenders - within the framework of proceedings opened at the request of the state of Ukraine , in accordance with the competence of the ICC, as defined in paragraph 191 of the International Criminal Court's Preliminary Investigation Report (2016), according to which: “Given the open-ended nature of Ukraine's acceptance of the jurisdiction of the ICC, the Office of the Prosecutor will also continue to register charges of crimes committed in Ukraine, to the extent that they are subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. At this stage of analysis, in accordance with the rules on preliminary investigation, the Office of the Prosecutor may collect further information about relevant proceedings at the national level.”

Stoker: https://uoj.org.ua/

Orthodox Press Congress

See the beginning.

Information war

The speech of one of the organizers of the congress, the chairman of the Orthodox Society “Radonezh” Evgeniy Konstantinovich Nikiforov, was devoted to this topic. - They ask me why we have gathered here? I will answer this way: we are in a state of information war. We have created a fantastic propaganda machine in Russia, worse than Goebbels’s. The methods of manipulating the consciousness of the masses have been honed to the finest detail. And to resist this satanic stream of lies and slander, we need to unite! Just as before, in the Middle Ages, education developed within the monastery walls, so in our time, soon the truth about events can only be learned from the church media... said Evgeniy Nikiforov. This speech set the tone for the discussion about the relationship between the Church and secular media. Other speakers on this topic were forced to either agree with him or debate. Of those who categorically disagreed with such a radical formulation of the issue, it is worth noting the executive editor of the supplement to Nezavisimaya Gazeta - “NG-religion” Maxim Shevchenko. He was nearly booed by Orthodox journalists after he expressed concern about the lack of “pluralism” in the fledgling Union of Orthodox Journalists. A talented journalist and editor, he himself is one of the participants in the battle on the information front, unfortunately, sometimes fighting not on the side of the Church... The chairman of the Moscow priest Maxim Obukhov fully supported the point of view of Yevgeny Nikiforov that the Church is in a state of undeclared information war. He admitted that church media are much less technically equipped and operate less professionally. And therefore they cannot always give a worthy response to information attacks from anti-church publications. A meeting of editors of secular and Orthodox media took place at the Publishing Department of the Moscow Patriarchate as part of the congress. Metropolitan Sergius of Solnechnogorsk chaired this meeting. At this meeting, the topic of “war and peace” between the Church and secular media was not directly touched upon, but was tacitly implied by both sides. The editor of the reputable magazine “New World,” Andrei Vasilevsky, expressed a paradoxical, but not unfounded opinion about the reason for the difficulties in the relationship between the “fourth estate” and church structures. “The point is not that little is written about the Church,” said the speaker. — This problem cannot be solved quantitatively. The entire context of a modern secular newspaper rejects church information. A story about church life on the pages of a modern secular newspaper is simply incompatible with the concept of most publications. And in order to be able to write more and more kindly about the Church, the entire concept of the modern press must be radically changed. It’s as if an electric discharge passes between an article on a church topic and the rest of the newspaper, they are mutually exclusive... Sometimes - and this is at best - some special space (section or page) is fenced off for religion in the newspaper, but for most of today's press it is simply an increase in volume information about church life will not bring anything good. It will be either comical or blasphemous. The editor of the Orthodox newspaper “Sunday School” (established under the newspaper “First of September”), monk Cyprian, reminded the audience of the prophecy of the holy blessed Matrona, who said that the time would come when it would be impossible to approach a newsstand so as not to be desecrated... Now, according to the speaker, This is exactly the time. Corrupting publications have flooded the newspaper “market.” And we need not to compete with them, but to create parallel points for the sale of Orthodox periodicals. In his opinion, a kiosk should be opened in every diocese to sell Orthodox newspapers and magazines... Monk Cyprian also refuted the common thesis that publications that are not financially independent also become spiritually dependent on publishers. “For several years of work, our founders—the owners of the newspaper “First of September”—never gave us recommendations on what to print and what not to print...” The outcome of the discussion was summed up by the abbot of the Moscow Sretensky Monastery, Archimandrite Tikhon (Shevkunov). “Our reproaches against the secular press are already taking on the appearance of some kind of inferiority,” he believes. “We always say that the secular press writes badly about us, but we must admit that, apparently, it simply cannot write otherwise. Now is the time for general denunciation. Everyone gets it from the press: the army, the state, the Church... It is impossible to expect anything else from the press for a long time. That is why our main task should be to create our own Orthodox media and, first of all, a large church-wide newspaper.

In general, I agree with Father Tikhon’s gloomy conclusion about the dubious prospects for “pacifying” the Church and the media. But his speech does not answer the main question - “why”? Why, with such persistence and bitterness, do secular journalists from various publications and trends invariably see the Church as an “enemy”? Why does this particular “structure” evoke such hatred, such anger from the liberal and seemingly quite pluralistic journalistic fraternity? I will try to answer this difficult question. Someone will probably be quite satisfied with the common explanation that all the main media were “bought” and the puppeteers said “fas” to the journalists, pointing their pointing fingers towards the church fence... But this is only a part, and maybe not even the main part "the whole truth." If the matter is explained so simply, then how can we explain the fact that a significant part of the political and business elite (the same “puppeteers” - “owners of factories, newspapers, ships”) have long been interacting with the church hierarchy and see in church structures, if not a partner, then at least not the enemy. The matter cannot be explained by the “atheism” of the journalistic fraternity either. After all, the Russian Church, which has lived for so many decades under the external dictate of materialists, has a unique experience of conflict-free coexistence next to people of an alien ideology... Then what’s the matter? Probably, the fact is that the Church and the media are doomed to an endless battle precisely because only these two forces are at least somehow comparable in their real and potential influence on society. In a de-ideologized, impoverished, disunited society, only two forces are, in principle, capable of “taking power” over the consciousness of the masses into their own hands (it’s another matter that having taken power, they will lead society in diametrically opposite directions). This is the Church and the media. The “fourth estate” has, in fact, been “calling the tune” for itself for a long time, becoming an independent (and not a secondary, as before) factor in politics and ideology. Now in the struggle for influence on the consciousness of the “electorate” the media have no visible competitors. But this is now. And tomorrow they may appear. And very serious. The strengthening of church structures, the churching of a significant part of society and, first of all, representatives of the business and political elite may, over time, lead to the fact that the dominance of the media over the minds of Russians will not be unlimited. The hypnosis of the TV box will suddenly weaken. After all, church ideology is more than just “ideology.” This is a worldview. This is conscious faith in Christ the Savior. This is an integral ideology, resistant to outside blows, not subject to outside influence... SUCH Russia - Orthodox, conciliar - will become much more difficult to manipulate... And if today the influence of the Church on the WHOLE society (and not just on believers, the percentage of which is relatively small, but every year is increasing) while it is significantly inferior to the influence of television channels and newspapers, then tomorrow the situation may change. This is what theorists and practitioners of “information wars” do not want to allow; that’s why the command “fire to kill” is so often followed when church topics are touched upon in the media... Yes, it will be difficult for us to “coexist peacefully” in this situation. But we must remember something else: the enemy respects only force. And to be heard, we need to become stronger.

Prayer against... the virus. Computer.

For dessert, for the congress participants who were already preparing to pack their bags, there was a speech by Deacon Andrei Kuraev. A brilliant polemicist, an excellent speaker, an apologist who managed to make church issues interesting and accessible even to people far from the Church - what will he say to Orthodox journalists gathered from all over the country? The hall froze in anticipation. The speaker took his place at the pulpit and... ...but before his speech flowed freely onto the listeners, I will allow myself a small digression. Let me make a reservation right away: the apologetic activity of Deacon Andrei Kuraev deserves great respect. The books of a former graduate student in the department of atheism led thousands of people from all over Russia to faith. But it just so happened that an organizationally unformed, but nevertheless very influential mentality arose around the respected publicist, which can be conditionally called “Kuraevism,” and this cannot but cause anxiety and fear. What is “Kuraevshchina”? And how does it relate to the beliefs of Father Andrei Kuraev himself? “Kuraevshchina,” in my opinion, is an attempt by intellectuals (or, as they are sometimes pejoratively called, “educators”) who have recently come to the Church, to seize “spiritual (or intellectual, which is the same thing for them) power” in it. Judge for yourself what this brings to us. Instead of acquiring the Holy Spirit, “Kuraevism” explicitly or implicitly proposes acquiring an “intellectual resource.” “Kuraevshchina” treats with distrust the spirit-bearing Orthodox elders, even canonized ones, these bearers of the grace of the Holy Spirit (and not an abstract “rationality does not trust miracles (which is often not without reason, but should not be raised to a principle); “damage and the evil eye” takes under suspicion, as something almost mythical; he considers “reprimanding the possessed” to be some kind of dangerous savagery; “believing dreams” is worse than heresy for them; talk about the “end of the world” is hysteria, fanaticism... The ritual side of Orthodoxy is not directly rejected, but clearly dislikes (in comparison with the intellectual comprehension of truth). This is this mentality in the most general terms. As they say, options are possible. Unfortunately, the latest books of Father Kuraev (“Occultism in Orthodoxy” and “On Our Defeat”) give fuel to such a peculiar mentality But for some reason it always seemed to me that Father Andrei himself was both deeper and more serious than the “Kuraevites.” And finally, I (and not only me - there were one and a half hundred Orthodox journalists sitting in the hall) had a happy opportunity to compare “Kuraevism”, well known to me, with... Father Andrei Kuraev himself. I must admit right away that I generally liked Father Andrei’s speech. I didn’t like some of its fragments, which could be interpreted in their own way and absolutized by “Kuraevites” locally. These are the fragments. “The more spiritual the pastor, the less important education is. But the less spiritual the pastor is, the more important his education is” (so, it turns out that education is given the disgraceful role of masking the lack of spirituality? Or even replacing it? - A.Zh.) “Now the Church is sick... But if the Church is sick, it means she is alive. The dead do not get sick”... (The presiding Archbishop of Bronnitsky Tikhon responded to this maxim: “The Church cannot be “sick”, for She is the Body of Christ. She is a hospital for the sick, in Her the healing of sinners takes place...” - A.Zh.). “In the first centuries of Christianity, the Church managed to leave the cities and reach the peasants. She managed to understand and sanctify their life. The church taught the peasants to pray in their language. Now we need to do the same with modern citizens. If there is a special prayer service “For the consecration of a well from a ferret that fell there” (I can’t vouch for its authenticity - A.Zh.), or a prayer against an invasion of locusts, then why can’t a prayer service be compiled now for deliverance from... a computer virus?” (probably because a ferret in a well and locusts in a garden are a REAL, and not an imaginary problem. A garden that is “pleasing” to God, and which suffers from locusts, cannot be compared with a computer, the work of human hands, and which is only allowed by God , as an inevitable evil, a consequence of the sinful human will, striving for convenience and pleasure - A.Zh.). And now about what I consider the main thing in Deacon Andrei Kuraev’s speech. This is the “grain” that he brought to the congress and which we will take with us to the provinces. The Church has entered the 21st century—the century of technology and computer viruses. And She will have to get used to changes. Life awaits us in the minority, life in a pagan environment. And therefore, now we must imitate the saints of the 3rd-4th centuries, when the Church was persecuted, and not the saints of the 15th-19th centuries, when She dominated... And so, without renouncing the old, preserving Orthodox traditions, we must move on. It’s like rings on a tree that appear not instead of the previous ones, but along with them... But our generation is a generation of neophytes. And therefore we have no right to any reforms in the Church! To hear this from an apologist for these very (quite intellectual, non-canonical) reforms is truly a revelation.

Union of Orthodox Journalists

The creation of this union was one of the main goals of the congress. The action is large-scale, aimed at tomorrow. And therefore it is not surprising that this idea had not only supporters, but also opponents. But both supporters and even opponents (at least those who recommend themselves as such) rushed to fill out forms to join this union on the last day of the congress. For it became clear to everyone: if you don’t join this union today, tomorrow you will remain outside the ship of church journalism. And this, you see, is scary for someone writing on spiritual topics. Unfortunately (this is the only point where I agree with critics of the idea of ​​creating a union), the answer to the question of why exactly a union of Orthodox journalists is being created remains up in the air. I didn’t hear anything other than “generalities.” Well, I’ll try to say a few words “on my own behalf.” The Union of Orthodox Journalists is necessary at least so that Orthodox journalists, scattered throughout Russia and feeling like loners locally, a barely tolerable minority among their secular colleagues, can finally feel themselves in the general ranks on the information front, where everyone has their own the role of lieutenants, generals, privates (and not “partisans” in occupied territory). The creation of such a union, the awareness of the importance of this idea in the “corridors of power” of the Moscow Patriarchate says, finally, that the hierarchy sees in Orthodox journalists not a necessary evil, not someone’s “servant,” not cogs of diocesan life (without which it would seem can’t get by, but you also shouldn’t especially trust them) - and the soldiers of Christ, the ascetics, whose work is blessed and sanctified by the Church, without whose efforts it is impossible to survive in the modern information battle... On the last day, just before departure, the Radonezh society provided the opportunity for congress participants to go to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra and venerate the relics of the Abbot of the Russian Land - St. Sergius. We were allowed into such Lavra treasuries where ordinary pilgrims are not always allowed. Orthodox journalists visited the Serapion Chamber, where dozens of pieces of holy relics are kept, as well as the hand of the first martyr Archdeacon Stephen, the bone of St. Great Martyr Panteleimon... I was especially struck by one “exhibit” of the Church and Archaeological Cabinet of the Lavra - a small Greek icon under glass; not ancient, not flashy... In Greek, only “NIKA” is written: “Christ is the Victor”... It depicts the Savior, who grabbed the defeated Lucifer by the legs with his hand and trampled on his head... An unusual plot! Isn’t it a symbol of Orthodox journalism?

Photo by the author.
In the photo: Abbot of the Moscow Sretensky Monastery, Archimandrite Tikhon (Shevkunov) Anton Zhogolev 03/31/2000