Late in the evening on June 19 on the website of the Russian news Agency REGNUM published an interview with Belarusian writer, Nobel laureate Svetlana Aleksievich. Title “You just set propaganda: prohibited and candid interviews Aleksievich” itself promised scandal. And so it happened. Why the journalist published the interview despite the ban and why the author did not want this publication to understand “Country”.
The publication is contrary to the prohibition
“You know, I don’t like our interview, and I’ll forbid to print” — these words ends with the text on REGNUM. Author interview with Sergey Gurkin from the first row is recognized that Alexievich, originally agreed to the conversation and audio recording, banned the publication of material. But the journalist decided to make it public.
“I consider myself a Democrat. Democracy presupposes freedom of speech and the responsibility for the word. In addition, I am a journalist. And if the interviewee a) knows what he says (in a public place with witnesses) for an interview on the record and b) in the beginning of the conversation agrees to answer the questions head on, but after 35 minutes of conversation to decide that interview he didn’t like, then that’s his problem” — Gurkin on his Facebook explained the decision to publish the interview, despite the ban.
According to him, the interview gives an insight into the views of the author, “Now we have found out that people can be forbidden to speak in their native language, if there is a public need (says the writer); those who killed the writer for his views, it is possible to understand (says the writer, humanist and a Democrat); Russification — bad Ukrainization — well (says the man, thinking, speaking and writing in Russian)”.
Aleksievich in an interview with the Russian office of “Radio Liberty” said that initially I was sure that she gives an interview to the edition “Business Petersburg”, and had said Gurkin, a media is a conversation. Nevertheless, “Business Petersburg” went to meet the author and declined to publish the interview. The journalist gave it to the publisher REGNUM, and then was fired from the DP.
The author explained why it would not publish the interview. “It was a collection of cliches that you hear every day on television on countless political talk shows. I’ve been trying to explain something, then waved his hand. I realized that it essentially doesn’t matter what I say. It was more important to fix its position. I was not interested. I this interview is no longer wanted in any form, because it was hardly any interviews or dialogue. It was a conversation with the deaf”, she said RS.
Than the scandalous interview
In an interview, the Nobel laureate author has made a number of statements from the mouth of a Nobel laureate, and a man of liberal views sound, shall we say, weird. So, speaking about Ukraine, says that Russian language for some time, to cancel, to cement the nation (it condemns the Russification in the Soviet Union).
— You say that when a hundred years ago (in your opinion) was spread Russian culture — it was bad, and when imposed today, Ukrainian culture is a good thing.
— It is not implanted. This government wants to enter Europe. It does not want to live with you.
— For this you need to cancel Russian language?
— No. But maybe, for some time, and Yes, to cement the nation. Please speak in Russian, but all schools will, of course, Ukrainian.
— It is possible to forbid people to speak in the language in which they think?
Yes. It is always so. It’s you doing it.
The murder of writer Oles Elder his colleague, Alexievich said that “what he said was also an exasperation,” and that she “understands the motives of the people who did it.”
— You know who Oles Buzina?
The man who was killed?
And hundreds of such examples.
But what he said, also caused the bitterness.
— That is, those necessary to kill?
— I didn’t say that. But I understand the motives of the people who did it. In the same way as I do not like that I killed Pavel Sheremet, who loved Ukraine. Apparently there was some fights or something.
Aleksievich many criticizes Russia, but would be glad to receive congratulations from the President of the Russian Federation in connection with the Nobel prize and was upset that it didn’t come. Sometimes, speaking about Russia, the writer uses the pronoun “they” and “we.”
— Sometimes you speak about Russia as “we” and sometimes “they”. So after all “we” or “they”?
— After all “they”. Already “they”, unfortunately.
So, “they”?
— Yet — “we”. I am a man of Russian culture.
According to Aleksievich, free can be considered people with European looks, and Ukraine wants to be free, but Belarus and Russia do not want. At the same time, it is worth noting that the questions of the journalist contained the ideological clichés and exaggeration. So, in his words, “in the Kharkiv rally in support of independence was attended by three hundred people, and against the Maidan — a hundred thousand.” In addition, he argues that such examples like the murder of an Elder — hundreds of them.
Aleksievich said about rigging
The author did not explain every quote, and said that the text was changed. As an example she cited the issue of the murderers of the Elder. “Everything turned, reinterpreted. For example, how can I justify murderers? I can only guess what motives they were guided” — quoted by the writer of the Russian office of “Radio Liberty”. She added that the publication of an audio recording would help to restore a more accurate picture of the conversation.
So true Lee altered it? Analysis of the recordings
After allegations Aleksievich in the “alerting” REGNUM published a voice recording of the interview. The “country” I listened to the conversation Aleksievich and Gurkin and compared it with the text version. From the words of the Nobel laureate carved the words-parasites, and some suggestions are grammatically corrected, which is normal practice in the transcription of the interviews. Only a few differences.
On 18 minutes the record is the words of the author that in the Belarusian schools two hours of the Belarusian language, English and the rest Russian. This is not in the text.
In the 27th minute in text version did not get clarification of what the Russian President would have to ask the author a telegram of congratulations on the occasion of receiving the Nobel prize. The writer claimed that a telegram was prepared Medvedev. “Why Medvedev?— In 2015 was Medvedev. — Putin as President in 2012”.
And 30 minutes in a text version added the phrase “And in Chechnya, I did not go”, although audio recordings of these words is not.
As for the words about the killers of an Elder, the words of the author are given exactly in accordance with the audio except for one word: “But what he said also led to [some] bitterness”. However, it is unlikely that this omission significantly influenced the content of the response.
