[ad_1]
© Tsvetelina Belutova, Capital
Boyko Vasilev
The presenter of “Panorama” on BNT Boyko Vassilev gave an interview to “Deutsche Welle”. The reason: a week ago, protesters shot political scientist Stoycho Stoychev with eggs as he was leaving the television building, where he was a guest on Vassilev’s program. In August, Stoychev had a discussion with the protesters who blocked the intersection of the Romanian embassy in Sofia.
Why didn’t the eggs fly to Emil Koshlukov, but to Stoycho Stoychev? How did the protest against BNT gradually turn into “Panorama”, a program that demonstrated your professional respect for the pluralism of political opinions?
– Eggs are not argument at all, yelling and insults – too. There is something chilling about seeing so many chase you. I don’t see any excuse to publicly humiliate anyone. From now on, any sensible conversation disappears.
And why “Panorama”? Everyone knows that Panorama is not the target of this protest. It just turned out that she was in the right place, at the right time, in the right circumstances. However, he who thinks that this is why we will bend in one direction or another is confused. “Panorama” is a dialogue and will continue to be so.
Why don’t they whistle and scold you personally?
“Won’t you believe me if I tell you I know why?” It’s funny to think of the phrase, “I don’t deserve to be booed and shot.” Or imagine saying the opposite!
Our team tolerates criticism and complies with it. However, I will say that no one deserves to be humiliated, especially in the age of the internet and smartphones. An embarrassing photo becomes part of your digital bio forever. Anyone can do it to anyone. In half a century, your grandchildren will see it. How will you justify yourself to them if you are not there? How would you explain your point of view? What if it has a reason?
In “Panorama” the guests participate in a way that nobody can stop you in your absence. This principle has a more general meaning and we can apply it to digital aggression. We must not give him the last word.
Are the protest on Friday night in front of television and the protest against the ruling party and the Attorney General the same protest?
– The Friday night protest is organized by a certain group, which, as I understand it, has complicated relations with other protest groups. But more protesters are joining. Emotions boil, a rush of activities begins, and things get out of hand. I think that is exactly the problem. If there were a common will and organization, someone would still understand how counterproductive aggression is. The protest brings ideas and it is important that they are presented.
Did the representatives of the protesters seek a dialogue with you? Is it possible and necessary?
– We receive a written request with transmission requests. This is not a dialogue, it is more like an intervention. That is why, on behalf of the team, I said on air that we will continue to do the show in the only legitimate way: by deciding according to professional principles. You know, this is called “editorial independence.” A satisfied “statement” today raises the question of a hundred more tomorrow. The air is not our father’s to distribute as a “quiet” fee.
How is the point of view of the protesters, certainly of public importance, present in “Panorama”?
– The point of view of the protesters is present in the program from day one in every possible way: through guests in the studio, reports and live broadcasts. We have never had the slightest doubt that this should be the case. This is what we did during the 2013-2014 protests.
Do you think that public television should promote public recognition and imposition of the protest leaders, as was the behavior of BNT during the 2013-2014 protests?
– I agree with the “recognition”, but I have doubts about the “imposition”. It involves the artificial selection of some at the expense of others. In my opinion, the media should show the leaders of the protest and seek the truth about them and their intentions, but not play king-maker, king-maker. I am not tempted by the “I created you” journalistic stance because it is boastful, selfish, and ultimately deceptive.
The protest itself creates the leaders; the event itself gives birth to its characters. Not journalists. We will do the best service to society and even leaders if we ask them critical questions now. So in ten years there is no need to show our frustrations and pretend to be late active fighters. I don’t know why I thought of Taras Bulba: “I created you, I will kill you.” In this phrase, cruelty comes from the understanding of powerlessness.
How is journalism made in a situation of political crisis with marked polarization of opinions? Is political pluralism still a universal journalistic standard when a significant part of society does not feel politically represented?
– Political pluralism is no longer a universal journalistic standard. I would say sadly although I remind you of a person writing with a pen on a computer. The Columbia Journalism Review even asked, “What comes after we get rid of objectivity in journalism?”
You can see how social networks are changing the traditional ones. I call this the F effect, the Facebook effect. Journalism increasingly follows the echo bubbles of social networks: it feeds you on your prejudices, it gives you more of the same. Facebook intensifies guerrilla warfare, irrationality, emotion and the strongest emotion, hatred. On the web, it moves much more agile than hearts, kittens and polka dots.
All of this is changing us, “old school” journalists, who believe in logic, dry facts, doubt, and the pursuit of objectivity and pluralism. Look at America: There are Republican-only media and Democrat-only media. The terrifying Trump-Biden debate showed the result: They can’t even speak anymore. Take a look at the BBC talk: More and more viewers want to see “their people” on screen and are alarmed when they see others in the other bubble.
I see how Panorama creates confusion by insisting on showing different points of view and approaching them equally critically. Some viewers see only what they want to see in it. It’s amazing how our own eyes lie to us when we seem prejudiced. But this is not a reason to abandon our format, on the contrary.
Bias is a legitimate form of journalism, complete with firmness, clarity, and personal psychological comfort. But we have chosen something else. We stop in the center of the stadium, where everyone is whistling at us. To the right we ask from the left, to the left, from the right; at the same time we give them the opportunity to ask each other. We doubt, we search, we don’t imagine that we know everything, we stick to dialogue. As Bernard Shaw says, only a true gentleman embarks on a completely unsuccessful cause.
How do you feel about the protest’s attempts to introduce another standard: One who does not openly oppose the government becomes an accessory to a crime?
– As for an old revolutionary tactic, not a journalistic standard. However, according to my impressions, there are many other opinions in the protest.
Are you afraid that in the near future professional and human destinies will be decided according to this standard?
– I’m afraid that it will happen, but not because of the protest. I don’t think any protest can set a dangerous standard for society. He learns something from every civil uprising, and very soon we will know what. My fears stem more from new media technologies, which in combination with the crisis in the crown will fuel more and more division and intolerance. I hope they are balanced by natural human optimism.
Do you see in the 123 intellectuals who supported the demands of the protest in Open Letter, a party in the political debate under the sign of “Panorama”?
– I see these and other intellectuals as interlocutors in “Panorama”. After all, we journalists are what we do. Just what we do; every day.
