One-time incident: What's wrong with the explanations of "Jellyfish"

Julia Taratuta

From this situation it was impossible to get "good." The chain "the chief editor is accused of harassment - suspended from work - an internal investigation confirmed guilt - the editor is restored" is essentially paradoxical. The editors themselves announce the inappropriate behavior of a top manager, and there can be only one scenario with a fair ending without repression: the accusations against the editor turned out to be lies. People sometimes lie about harassment and even rape - to attract attention, hide failure or fear, commit fraud, remove a competitor. True, the exposure of libel is fraught with serious costs for the prosecutor, so the percentage of false accusations is very low.

But what do we know about justice? What if the collective had long wanted to overthrow the editorial authorities for completely extraneous reasons, and the editor had personal troubles, and he was comforted by alcohol. And what if he has problems with alcohol or formulating a good attitude? And if the phrase "And I will not get anything for it," it gives out in the editor an asshole, and not a person who habitually abuses power. And isn't it possible that the hands on other people's buttocks are a reason, and not the real cause of discontent? By the way, are good people blaming the editor - maybe the girl "misunderstood everything"? And her husband (who immediately asked for forgiveness for the incident) - "mumble and unfortunate jealous man"?

I am not familiar with the victim, and the chief editor of "Medusa" has always known, though very well, but only from the good side. “Medusa” under his leadership is a politically related publication, not at all cowardly, certainly talented and not biased to the gnashing of teeth, not only in relations with the authorities, but also with the tusovka. The problem is that the answers to the questions above do not matter. As well as whether a good person is an editor, and certainly, is he a good editor at all. The very questioning is false.

Alcohol is never a mitigating circumstance, but always an aggravating one. The concept of sexual misconduct in a decent society does not have a graduation - in Russian, by the way, they also do not talk about "slightly" inappropriate behavior. The point is not that there are no novels at work or they cannot be started with someone else’s wife, but that the power of any level imposes restrictions. The editor-in-chief is not just a person who rules texts well, but the fight against harassment is not a “game of the editors”.

It seems that the “Medusa” itself should be uncomfortable with comments in its defense: “Where are you and your ass when people are put in prison?” You can be a man of the broadest sexual views, but the hand, which was laid on you without demand, is unmistakable to distinguish.

How does harassment in a publication that puts ethics on a shield is different from a bribe, a “jeans” or a political note sent by a newsmaker before the deadline? The fact that this word is not in the editorial dogma? So after all, there was no “corruption” there once. An adult reaction to a new type of inappropriate behavior is not so much to have an ethics board of directors as to assess the scale of the sacrifice that will have to be made according to the results of the “investigation”. A couple of months ago, CBS fired its founding father, the whole world stand-up did not seem to be worth the beard of Louis C. Kay, and Robin Wright seemed to be unsure after being left alone in the "House of Cards."

Reputation is the only valuable journalistic asset, and it is scrupulous that only those who have a wet reputation like a floorcloth make it laughable. That is why “one-time harassment” in the explanatory “Medusa” sounds like a joke. A zero punishment of the editor-in-chief (friendly colleagues suggested not to dismiss, for example, but lower) inevitably devalues ​​the "editorial letters" about morality - not only the future, but also the past. “Medusa” was often criticized for pathos, but after all, it was always praised for it.

In an ideal world, an independent media slip does not catch the chorus of angry pro-Kremlin spectators. And the power is not so vicious that any comparison with it makes you want to protect the object of comparison: Kolpakov is already “not Slutsky” because the Kremlin also scolds him, and the government office is a little like a friendly party, where the borders are always more blurred.

Media in such a world remains a business with a transparent pool of investors and an open budget, and not a social investment or charity. And sanctions on the publication, which made a mistake, imposes the notorious market, that is, the reader.

We have no perfect world. And in a very dirty city, apparently, there cannot be one very clean street, where one does not get dirty in a white raincoat. But this does not mean that instead of dismissing the chief editor, you need to say goodbye to the person who brought the bad news.

Photo: Beat Film Festival / Facebook