Valery Fadeev presenter of Channel 1. Valery Fadeev no longer runs Expert

This information was confirmed to RBC by several sources on Channel One, as well as those close to Valery Fadeev. The journalist himself refused to comment on this information, and Irada Zeynalova advised contacting the channel’s press service on this issue, which did not provide comments on the change of presenters.

Now the “Sunday Time” program has a planned vacation. The last episode of the TV show was released on July 10, and the new season will begin on September 4 - until this time, the program staff is on vacation and also knows nothing about the situation with the change of presenters. However, it is known that Valery Fadeev is already preparing for the role of the host of “Sunday Time”, passing tests in the program’s studio.

Most likely, sources say, Irada Zeynalova will remain on Channel One - she may be offered to host some talk show.

Zeynalova has hosted the “Sunday Time” program since 2012, replacing TV presenter Pyotr Tolstoy, who is now running for the State Duma from United Russia.

One of the reasons for the change of presenters is said to be fierce competition with the program “News of the Week with Dmitry Kiselev”, aired on the Rossiya-1 TV channel. The ratings for the programs are approximately the same: the latest episode of “Sunday Time” scored 4.7%, while “Vesti Nedeli” had 4.4%. Before this, the VGTRK program held the palm for three weeks in a row, but the advantage was insignificant 0.1 - 0.3%.

The choice of Valery Fadeev fell due to the fact that the Kremlin wants to see a leader on the eve of the presidential elections who will inspire more confidence among the conservative electorate. The second reason is the Kremlin’s desire to compensate for Fadeev’s offense for his loss in the United Russia primaries and his failure to get into the State Duma, the publication writes. Fadeev was promised a place on the list of Moscow United Russia members, but at the last moment he had to advance in the Komi Republic, which was unfamiliar to him.

Valery Fadeev has been the editor-in-chief of Expert magazine since 1998. Since 2006, he has headed the holding of the same name. He is a member of the Supreme Council of United Russia, one of the leaders of the party’s liberal platform, and a member of the central headquarters of the ONF. Vladimir Putin's confidant in the presidential elections. Former member of the Public Chamber of Russia.

The reshuffle in the “Sunday Time” program was commented especially for “Davydov.Index” by the head of the department of advertising and public relations at the Institute of Industry Management of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Vladimir Evstafiev:
— Valery Fadeev is a very attractive, imposing man in appearance, who is most likely liked by women. Then he speaks well, his speech is correct, he does not need to read from a piece of paper. This is a very big plus. He has a brilliant understanding of the intricacies of politics, which is why he has been doing this for a long time, for almost twenty years. And he himself took part in all this. That is, he can be extremely useful when editing news, and can become a leader.
He is very calm, reasonable, without any hysterics, and not greedy for sensations, as some people like. Therefore, his appearance will undoubtedly decorate the broadcast and ennoble it, making it more professional. Of course, Zeynalova and her emotions will be missed, but she will probably find another application for herself.

Political scientist, historian and blogger Sergei Zelenin, in turn, does not see much difference in the change of presenters of “Voskresnoye Vremya”.
— One talking head was swapped for another talking head. I just can’t imagine what could categorically change as a result of this. Any presenter does not speak from himself, he voices something. If it’s not an original program, like Dmitry Kiselev’s on Channel 2. This means that for some reason the management needed to change the presentation of the material.
I would not say that this is a serious, life-changing change that can change the attitude towards Channel One. Many just as they did not watch television, just as they did not perceive the information provided by central TV, will not do so,— the expert commented.

Well, something like this.

Full version of the material with detailed expert comments

The life of a journalist is always exciting and interesting. The masters of the pen walk their path together with a million readers, and it is they who make them truly famous. Valery Fadeev, now a famous journalist, presenter of programs on central television and

Career path

Fadeev Valery Aleksandrovich was born in Tashkent on October 10, 1960. In 1983, he received a higher education diploma from Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology in management and applied mathematics. Beginning in 1988, he was engaged in scientific activities for four years. From 1992 to 1995, he developed in two directions: journalism and science. First of all, Valery Fadeev is an expert and scientific editor of the Kommersant publishing house and also deputy. Director of the Expert Institute of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs. Since 1995, his dynamic career in the field of journalism began. He gained particular popularity in 2014, becoming the host of the socio-political talk show “Structure of the Moment”. As for his political career, he took part in the development of the law “On the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation”, and in 2012 he was registered as a confidant of Vladimir Putin. An important stage in his development was the start as the host of the television program “Time” on Channel One.

Family matters

The current Channel One star is in no hurry to share information about her personal life. As you know, Valery Fadeev is married and has three children. He chose the red-haired Tatyana Gurova as his wife. As you know, the spouses are co-owners of the Expert holding. Tatyana holds the position of first deputy editor-in-chief. As for the children, it is known that their adult daughter graduated from a prestigious educational institution - the Higher School of Economics.

Moment structure

Starting from October 2014 and ending in June 2016, Valery Fadeev shone on the television screens of Channel One viewers as the host of the show “Structure of the Moment.” The socio-political show aired every week. Guests and studio participants discussed controversial topics related to the problems and difficulties of life in Russia. Public figures proposed possible solutions, which were also commented on by permanent presenter Valery Fadeev. “The Structure of the Moment” was held in a round table format. The host's guests were Karen Shakhnazarov, Alexey Venediktov, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Leonid Slutsky and other public figures. The show explored topics such as “The UK referendum on leaving the EU” or “Does Ukraine and the Minsk Agreement have a future?” Often the guests did not come to a common opinion and allowed themselves harsh statements towards each other, but Valery Fadeev, whose biography helped him learn how to act in such situations, was always tactful and competent when resolving conflict situations. Now you can only watch archived episodes of the program, since after Fadeev’s transfer to another program, “Structure of the Moment” ended its existence.

In place of Zeynalova

As you know, the host of the Channel One news program “Evening Time” since 2012 has been Irada Zeynalova. The viewer got used to her style and enjoyed watching new news broadcasts with her comments. It seemed like it would be like this forever. But in September, as the host of an evening news program, the viewer saw a new face for this program. The new presenter was Valery Fadeev. It is not completely known what these rearrangements are connected with. One of the opinions says that Irada Zeynalova’s ratings fell, and they decided to replace her. There is information from other sources that Zeynalova was tired of the quiet life of a news anchor and wanted to return to the life of a correspondent with various business trips. Whatever the reason, the news program is now hosted by Valery Fadeev, a person close to power, a liberal and former host of the socio-political show “Structure of the Moment.”

Not Dmitry Kiselev, not Dmitry

“Sunday Time” on Channel One overlaps in time with “News of the Week” on the Rossiya TV channel. In this regard, channels have to not only divide the audience, but also compete in ratings. The presenter of Vesti Nedeli, Dmitry Kiselev, is known to be ahead of Irada Zeynalova in all indicators. Perhaps this is precisely the reason for the introduction of a new face to Channel One. The newly minted news presenter Valery Fadeev, according to viewers and experts, is the complete opposite of Kiselev. Fadeev’s format does not include statements regarding spies, the fifth column, so beloved by viewers and fans of Dmitry Kiselev. But perhaps the first channel is guided by the fact that Kiselev’s time, like Zeynalova’s, will sooner or later pass, and then Valery Alexandrovich will reach his peak of popularity.

Say what you think and you'll be right

The love and respect of the audience is most valuable to Valery Fadeev. Reviews of his work are not always clear-cut. This is due to the fact that he always has his own opinion, which sometimes does not coincide with the view of the audience. But they listen to him, they listen to him and discuss him. For example, he notes: “A journalist works in order to be in the place where an interesting and significant event took place. His responsibilities are to find out the details, communicate with eyewitnesses and then convey this to the public, preferably without deception. But, despite this, each journalist should have his own position and at least some kind of worldview. Of course, you can write political articles and defend your personal opinion in them, but you can no longer call it journalism. This is simply an expression of the position of a publication or a specific person.” And here is what Valery Fadeev says regarding foreign media: “If you do not take into account political correctness, then, in comparison with ours, the Western media, of course, are stronger and more powerful. For comparison, I would like to cite the attendance of Spiegel magazine from Germany. There are no entertaining topics, everything is about politics, but to the point. Discussion of the state budget of Germany simply tears up all possible ratings, since everything is stated clearly and intelligibly - for whom the changes are good and for whom they are not. They do not attribute the lack of popularity to the disinterest of the people; they try in every possible way to captivate the people. And, as a result, they get a return.”

An expert's view of the Russian economy

As part of the Synclite at VIAM, Valery Fadeev spoke about the Russian economy, the difficulties of its development and ways to solve them. In his reflections, he came to the conclusion that the main problem is the most severe monetary policy, namely, recommendations for a sharp reduction in the money supply. In his opinion, to create the basis for the development of the country’s economy, it is necessary to forget about templates and highlight truly significant guidelines. To do this, it is important to discuss the real economic situation, and not spend all the time creating “mythical assumptions” about it. According to Valery Fadeev’s acquaintances, he does not write books, but conveys his opinion through meetings with interested people and conducting political broadcasts. At the synclite, he highlighted the problem of reducing the interest rate in mortgage lending. He stated that the cost of mortgage housing in our country could be 5 times less. Answering questions from guests, Valery focused on missing innovations, the production of a meager range of goods and the degradation of the economy.

Heart-to-heart with Dmitry Medvedev

On the air of the final program “Sunday Time,” Valery Fadeev was able to talk and ask questions to Dmitry Medvedev. Answering important economic questions, Dmitry Anatolyevich noted that negative trends will completely exhaust themselves in the near future. The reason for this will be government measures and the desire to improve the country's health. According to the Prime Minister's forecasts, GDP growth will be observed next year. Subject to improvement in other macroeconomic indicators. As for the rise in prices, this, according to Dmitry Anatolyevich, will only happen within the framework of inflation. And, according to his forecasts, it should be insignificant, which means it won’t hit Russians’ pockets too much.

Journalist = civil servant

When Valery Fadeev was asked for his opinion on the idea of ​​equating journalists with civil servants for the purpose of publishing and declaring income, he responded with indignation and bewilderment. In his opinion, this is overkill. The desire to get into the pockets of journalists is understandable, especially on the part of the opposition, but, according to Fadeev, this will only entail the development of “black accounting.” But no one will ever know the true state of affairs. And the appearance of journalistic salaries “in envelopes” will only further aggravate the country’s economic situation.

Svetlana Povoraznyuk, Anna Akhmadieva

The founder of the Expert TV channel, Expert-TV LLC, which had multimillion-dollar debts to creditors and former employees of the TV channel, was renamed and ceased to exist after a merger with the Ivanovo-based Paradise LLC, specializing in the wholesale trade of food products. According to lawyers, it will now be extremely difficult to achieve payments for obligations from the legal successor of Expert-TV. The prosecutor's office stated that there were no grounds for conducting verification activities and prompt response.

The Expert TV channel was launched by the media holding of the same name in 2008. Problems with the channel began almost immediately after the launch, and then the search for investors began. The debt of Expert-TV LLC for employee salaries, according to the editorial team, amounted to about 25 million rubles. In 2012, Expert created a new company, LLC Company Expert-TV, to which employees of the unprofitable channel were invited. After this, the TV channel continued to accumulate debts. One of the main shareholders of the Expert media holding, Vnesheconombank, allocated 100 million rubles for their liquidation. However, on March 12, 2013, the Expert-TV company filed a bankruptcy petition with the Moscow Arbitration Court.

According to the team’s estimates, the debt owed to them by both companies is about 50 million rubles. Employees are trying to “knock out” money through the courts. At the moment, payments have been made to 10 employees on maternity leave and several more employees who came from the regions. Debts are paid by Expert-TV Company LLC.

However, the second debtor - the co-founder of the TV channel - Expert-TV LLC - has still not paid the debts. Instead, in 2012, the company was deregistered and renamed Techno-TV, co-owned by CJSC Media Holding Expert (30.30%), CJSC Group Expert (30.30%), and the magazine Expert" (30.30%) and a native of the Tambov region Sergei Menshchikov (9.09%). In February 2013, Techno-TV was reorganized into Paradise LLC, which should now be responsible for the debts of Expert-TV.

According to a former employee of the channel, Natalya Antipina, when trying to find someone responsible for the obligations, the search ends at Techno-TV.

Lenders are sent to Techno-TV on Bolshaya Gruzinskaya, but there is no one there and never will be,” she explains.

Antipina’s words are confirmed by the conclusion of the Moscow prosecutor’s office (available to Izvestia). Capital prosecutors found out that Techno-TV does not operate at the address indicated in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities; in addition, its general director is Sergei Menshchikov, who died on December 10, 2012. The merger with Paradise took place on February 15, 2012, on this date Menshchikov is listed as the general director and co-owner of the company.

[Maria Istomina, 07/05/2013: As we managed to find out, the founders of LLC "TECHNO-TV" (changed name of LLC "Expert-TV") include dead souls!!! On February 15, 2013, a native of the Tambov region, who hanged himself on December 10, 2012, was appointed the new general director of the company. That is, in fact, for a month (before the closure) the channel was led by a dead man... What makes the situation even more piquant is the fact that the legal successor, according to the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, is Paradise LLC (!!!). The document recording these facts is in . – Insert K.ru]

The capital's prosecutor's office and the prosecutor's office of Tambov (where Menshchikov lived) came to the consensus that there were no grounds for a prosecutorial response. The channel’s employees, who see elements of fraud in the actions of the former management, expect that measures will be taken by the prosecutors of the city of Ivanovo, where Paradise is located.

However, the head of the Dobronravov and Partners bureau, Yuri Dobronravov, claims that it is too early to talk about fraudulent actions. First, prosecutors must prove the company's intent.

A lawyer colleague from the Knyazev and Partners bureau, Ruslan Konorev, who specializes in LLC activities, calls the renaming of the company with further reorganization into a provincial company a standard scheme for avoiding responsibility to creditors and employees. Most often in such cases, the final legal successor goes bankrupt.

This is what they do when they want to get rid of a company in a civil way. “Don’t just throw it away, but drain it,” says Konorev. - The legal successor is located far away, and no one will go there. Its founders are also, as a rule, nominal.

In this case, you should not count on compensation for debts to employees, the lawyer believes. He is also supported by his colleague from the DS Law law office, Mikhail Alexandrov.

Co-owner and general director of the Expert media holding Valery Fadeev, in a conversation with the publication, said that he was not ready to comment on the situation around Expert-TV LLC and did not understand what kind of reorganization we were talking about.

Expert-TV LLC has gone bankrupt, and I have nothing to do with it. Some procedures are underway, it is known,” he said.

Fadeev noted that the reorganization of Expert-TV was probably caused by needs, but Fadeev does not remember what exactly. [...] this story was familiar for the TV channel (and, according to rumors, for the holding’s print media). Salaries of employees have been delayed since the very moment of launch and, even despite the found investors in the form of VEB and promises to pay everything, many of their debts have not yet been returned. In the summer of 2012, designer Alexander Korotich, who came up with the design for the channel, publicly accused the management of the Expert holding - Valery Fadeev, Tatyana Gurova and Alexander Privalov - of cheating. According to Korotich, he was owed 600 thousand rubles for the design of the channel. After management refused to resolve the debt issue with him diplomatically, he went to court and won, but discovered that he could no longer get his money from the company.

The fact is that in January 2012, the Expert-TV channel changed its legal entity - from Expert-TV LLC to Expert-TV Company LLC. Thus, all the won claims were addressed to the defunct company. Many other employees of the TV channel found themselves in a similar situation, and the debts of some of them reached the amount of their annual salary. According to Fadeev, the change of legal entity was made as part of the restructuring of the holding. He refused to talk in more detail about this restructuring in a comment to Lenta.ru, as he refused to name the amount of the company’s debt.

The last time Expert-TV journalists were paid was in mid-January - a quarter of their salaries for November 2012. But, according to employees, the TV channel owes not only to them, but also to most of its counterparties, so much so that now in the office they threaten to simply turn off the lights for non-payment of rent. However, few people will need light there anymore, since at the beginning of March the channel stopped broadcasting news and latest program releases, and on March 12 it stopped broadcasting altogether, including on the Internet. As a result, all the results of four years of work disappeared from the channel’s website, although some of the recordings can still be found on the Expert-TV page on YouTube.

On the same day, March 12, the management of Expert-TV filed a bankruptcy petition with the Supreme Arbitration Court. And on the evening of March 13, Valery Fadeev met with Expert-TV journalists to talk with them about the fate of the channel and the company’s debts (a Lenta.ru correspondent was present at this meeting). Fadeev announced to employees that external monitoring would soon be introduced and that from the moment the external observer appeared, the company would stop paying debts (the text of this speech, by the way, is already available on Facebook).

According to Fadeev, the reason for the failure was that the channel’s expenses significantly exceeded its income, although in terms of costs, Expert TV was “the most effective channel in Russia.” Fadeev explained that the project was difficult from the very beginning, since it was launched during a crisis, and its management “overestimated how the market would develop.” As for the payment of debts to employees, Fadeev drew special attention to the fact that they were warned in advance that the project was difficult. “Leave this risky job and find another job. Many will confirm that this has been said many times,” Fadeev noted.

After the opening remarks, the general director answered questions from employees, who, naturally, were most concerned about the issue of paying wages. After several evasive answers that the holding puts the payment of wages as its top priority and will try, despite filing for bankruptcy, to start selling equipment and furniture, as well as find other, unnamed sources for repaying debts, Valery Fadeev finally admitted that cannot promise anything and does not undertake any obligation to return the money. Desperate journalists, who had clearly heard many of these phrases not for the first time (although previously they had still been promised to return the money), eventually suggested that Fadeev turn for help almost to Putin, whose confidant is the journalist.

Valery Fadeev, of course, responded to such a request only with a surprised look, but the channel’s journalists published it the next day, promising to send it, including to the State Duma and the presidential administration. [...]

The news about the closure of the Expert TV channel and the scandal with debts to employees was received ambiguously in the media environment. Some sympathize with deceived journalists, others consider that they had to understand what they were taking on and for whom they were working. Still others note that there is nothing surprising in this story, since Fadeev "famous deceiver". And the general director of RBC-TV, Alexander Lyubimov, directly stated that the TV channel was run by “non-professional managers” who should not have gotten involved with television.

The Expert-TV journalists themselves, when asked why they stayed on the channel, answer that they had too good a team and immediate superiors, and besides, they believed Fadeev’s promises for a long time and relied on the reputation of the Expert holding. [...]

Valery Fadeev "for 5 years satisfied his ambitions at the expense of not only his employees, but also shareholders and creditors"

A confidant of the National Leader bankrupted his TV channel, but did not become impoverished himself

Unfortunately, in Russia the founders are not at all responsible for their LLCs: at one point you don’t like the financial indicators - you leave the company along with the employees, with debts to creditors and that’s it - you are clean before the law, you continue to live happily ever after.

Former Expert-TV employees spent more than a year going through various authorities. However, all appeals to supervisory authorities, ministries and departments, in the end, ended up where they began their journey - in the Savelovskaya interdistrict prosecutor's office and in the State Tax Inspectorate, where they were safely shelved. The Russian judicial system was unable to resist such sophisticated methods of doing business by Mr. Fadeev. It seems that only the guarantor of the Constitution can cut this “Gordian knot”. Desperate employees of the Expert TV channel turned to the President of the Russian Federation for help. Text of the letter:

"Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich!

We, the team of the TV channel "Expert-TV", appeal to you as the guarantor of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and urge you to pay attention to the blatant violation of the law on the part of your authorized representative in the elections of the President of the Russian Federation in 2012, a member of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation, head of the Expert Council of the Agency for Strategic initiatives, head of the Expert media holding and one of the founders of the Expert TV channel Valery Aleksandrovich Fadeev. Thus, the behavior of this manager partly discredits the authorities.

For 5 years, the head of one of the most authoritative Russian media outlets satisfied his ambitions at the expense of not only his employees, but also shareholders and creditors, among whom were state-owned banks such as VEB and GLOBEX. In 2007, Valery Fadeev established the Expert-TV channel, brought it to bankruptcy with his illiterate leadership, and is now evading responsibility and the legal claims of hundreds of employees, as well as Russian and international counterparty companies. The debt to members of the labor collective of the Expert-TV television channel amounts to tens of millions of rubles (from 150 thousand rubles for each employee).

Financial problems at Expert-TV began from the moment of launch and continued until the broadcast ceased. On March 12, the Expert TV channel declared itself bankrupt. On March 13, at a meeting with employees, Valery Fadeev said that only two cameras remained on the channel’s balance sheet and promised to repay part of the accumulated debt using the proceeds from the sale of tables and chairs. All liquid assets of Expert-TV Company LLC, including video cameras, studio equipment and vehicles, were transferred to the balance sheet of the Expert media holding a year ago, just at the moment when Mr. Fadeev asked Vnesheconombank for money to develop the TV channel . Throughout 2012, the TV channel rented the above equipment from the media holding. This means that we have almost no chance of getting the money we earned through honest labor. At a meeting with employees on March 13, 2013, when each person already had thousands of debts, Mr. Fadeev cynically stated: “And we warned you: if you are afraid to take risks, do not do it. Leave this risky job and find another job.”

The state twice tried to help the TV channel in distress. In 2009, 20% of the holding's shares were purchased by GLOBEX Bank, and two years later an additional issue of shares was carried out. Mr. Fadeev has repeatedly said that “400 million from VEB should be enough for 3 years of active development of the TV channel.” However, the channel’s employees never saw the appearance of new equipment, the repayment of debt to the team, or any other benefits from the receipt of money from the state treasury. At the same time, at a meeting with the staff on March 13, Valery Fadeev categorically stated that “all this money was literally ‘eaten up’ by the TV channel in a year.”

In 2011, in order to restructure the Expert media holding, the legal entity was changed from Expert-TV LLC to Expert-TV Company LLC, where the entire workforce of the TV channel was transferred in January 2012. We were convinced that a change of legal entity was necessary in order to get away from debts to third parties and pay off employees. As the main argument, the management of the media holding used its reputation, which supposedly would not allow it to deceive its employees. However, the debt to the team for the “old company” was never paid. Expert-TV LLC was renamed into TECHNO-TV LLC with a new legal address, so the management of the media holding ignored dozens of court decisions made in favor of the plaintiffs (former employees of Expert-TV LLC). The debts of some of them from the “disappeared company” reach the amount of an annual salary. In addition, Expert-TV Company LLC was deprived of any financial freedom: in 2011, the commercial service of the TV channel was transferred to the media holding. Everything that the TV channel earned from advertising was transferred directly to the Expert media holding.

Wage delays were systematic in both companies. The debt to the channel's employees, according to our calculations, is about 60 million rubles. The last payment made to us for the “new company” was on January 16 and amounted to 1/4 of the salary for November 2012. Debts for the previous legal entity were not repaid. In addition, no contributions were made to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation for over two years. Currently, ten channel employees are on maternity leave. For several months they do not receive the benefits they are entitled to, which, by the way, is compensated to the employer by the state. At a team meeting on March 13, 2013, Valery Aleksandrovich promised to “think about employees who are on maternity leave.” We are afraid that he will limit himself to “thoughts”, and women will remain “hanging” on the balance sheet of a bankrupt company, without receiving the money they so need and are entitled to by law.

We filed collective and individual complaints with the State Labor Inspectorate in Moscow, the Savyolovsky Interdistrict Prosecutor's Office of Moscow, the Savyolovsky District Court of Moscow, the Federal Service for Financial Monitoring, the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation, and the Federal Service for Labor and Employment. All lawsuits were resolved in favor of the plaintiffs, but the employer did not comply with the requirements.

All this time, the Expert-TV team fulfilled its official duties in full. None of us received any complaints from management. Moreover, many employees received certificates and verbal thanks.

We have repeatedly asked the immediate management of the TV channel to resolve the problem of non-payment of salaries. The general director of the TV channel, Firuz Karimov, forwarded our appeals to the management of the Expert Media Holding and personally to Valery Fadeev. In response, we received only regular promises to pay off the debt and stabilize the salary payment schedule, but they were not fulfilled.

Thus, the channel staff found themselves in the position of serfs, while many employees found themselves below the poverty line, with dependent families and loan obligations. Some workers did not even have the financial ability to travel to their place of work, and some nonresident employees had to live in the TV channel’s utility rooms. In response to direct questions from channel employees about the prospects of repaying the increasing debt, management simply offered to resign. But, as practice has shown, employees who resigned have not yet received their pay.

We believe that the positive image of Valery Fadeev as a politician and public figure is incompatible with such a disdainful attitude not only towards his employees, but also towards the norms of Russian legislation. We turn to you for help, because the supervisory authorities and the judicial and legal system of the Russian Federation as a whole sometimes turn out to be powerless in the face of businessmen who know how to find a loophole in any legislation, such as Valery Fadeev. We believe that it is very dangerous for the country’s economy to have such an “economist” as Mr. Fadeev at the head of the ASI Expert Council.

We ask you to take special control of the settlement of the financial dispute between the management of the Expert media holding and the creative team. We earned our money through honest work and are confident that an employer must fulfill its obligations to its employees.

Editor-in-Chief of Expert - about education, journalism and national identity

Now it is very fashionable to stigmatize the 90s and the oligarchs who stole people's property and Soviet property. Why don’t we remember who gave them this opportunity? Why have we forgotten how the miners thrashed their helmets on the Gorbaty Bridge near the White House and demanded immediate reforms and building happiness in 500 days - with the support of the intelligentsia, of course? All these people bought into the promise of quick consumer happiness. At that time they did not have enough intelligence, culture, or the will to understand that this does not happen, that even solving consumer problems requires a value base.Reference: Valery Aleksandrovich FADEEV was born on October 10, 1960 in Tashkent. In 1983 he graduated from the Faculty of Management and Applied Mathematics of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (MIPT). From 1983 to 1984 he worked at the Almaz Design Bureau. From 1984 to 1986 - service in the ranks of the Soviet Army (Strategic Missile Forces). In 1986 - 1988 worked as a researcher at the Computing Center of the USSR Academy of Sciences, where he worked on macroeconomics. In 1988 - 1990 worked at the Institute of Energy Research of the USSR Academy of Sciences. From 1990 to 1992, he held the position of senior researcher at the Institute of Market Problems of the USSR Academy of Sciences. From 1993 to 1995, he served as deputy director of the Expert Institute of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP). From 1992 to 1995 he worked as an expert and scientific editor of the weekly magazine Kommersant-Weekly. From 1995 to 1998 - scientific editor, first deputy editor-in-chief of the weekly analytical magazine "Expert". In 1998, he worked as first deputy editor-in-chief of the Izvestia newspaper. In November 1998, he was appointed editor-in-chief of the Expert magazine. In July 2006, he was appointed general director of Expert Media Holding CJSC. He is the director of the Institute of Public Design, a member of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation, a member Board of the Media Union, member of the Russian Public Council for Educational Development, co-chairman of the All-Russian public organization “Business Russia”.

Life without history

Valery Aleksandrovich, what place does the problem of spiritual and moral development of Russia occupy today among other problems on the agenda?

None. Issues of spiritual and moral nature are simply not on the agenda. That is, in fact, of course, they exist, but I do not see them being widely discussed in either the public or political arena. The existing discussions are peripheral in nature, although sometimes very worthy people participate in them. Of course, the Church is trying to talk about such problems. However, how relevant is her approach to the secular socio-political space? Society is more concerned about the pragmatic side of life. Alas, we talk about anything, but we are silent about morality and spirituality, even in connection with such problems as education. But even questions of economics and politics cannot be resolved without having a real value basis. And in the end, she is always moral.

- Why is this happening?

Let's take a simple problem: economics. Now it is very fashionable to stigmatize the 90s and the oligarchs who stole people's property and Soviet property. Why don’t we remember who gave them this opportunity? Why have we forgotten how the miners thrashed their helmets on the Gorbaty Bridge near the White House and demanded immediate reforms and building happiness in 500 days - with the support of the intelligentsia, of course? All these people bought into the promise of quick consumer happiness. At that time they did not have enough intelligence, culture, or the will to understand that this does not happen, that even solving consumer problems requires a value base.

And the people were deceived: what should have happened happened. Property went to those who were able to take it - the arrogant, the daring. After all, there is never enough of it for everyone, you can’t spread it on a common crust like butter - it will turn out too thin... And then suddenly they came to their senses and began to complain about the injustice! And who is to blame? It's their own fault - those who wanted quick consumer happiness. And they too must be held accountable for what happened. And now for some reason everyone is talking only about terrible oligarchs. But oligarchs are also different. Some of them are simply outstanding people who put all their will, all their minds into business and, by the way, provide hundreds of thousands of people with jobs, and highly paid ones at that. They are engaged in charity - they themselves, without prompting or pressure from above, maintain schools, shelters, build churches and monasteries. So there are people everywhere, and there is no point in unequivocally scolding or praising anyone.

Sweeping, harsh criticism of the 90s is in some ways immoral, because most of us are responsible for what happened then. In addition, there were positive changes, colossal changes. We were finally freed from the ideology of communism. Another thing is that freedom is a powerful and complex tool that we still do not know how to use well. But today we have the main thing that people who live in a free country should have. We received a free economy, a free press, and the opportunity for self-realization. An open country, finally. There are much more opportunities than there were in Soviet times.

Another thing is that the conditions for realizing these opportunities in the 90s were generally poor. They are still useless. Their improvement is one of the primary tasks of society and the state. And this means that it is necessary to develop the positive things that were laid down in the previous period of our history. And if you start crossing out everything, just as they first crossed out the tsarist regime, then the Soviet regime, then the 90s... We will always live without our own history!

About the skills of a service dog

You mentioned education. What is your attitude to what is happening today in the field of education? Don’t you think that replacing the “teacher-student” model with the “buyer-seller” model will lead to the fact that universities will provide not knowledge (a worldview category), but information (an impersonal sum of facts)?

I agree that the most important thing can now be taken away from education. In general, why does a person need education? Today, many people talk about education as a system for acquiring skills that will allow a person to exist comfortably in the modern world. But, excuse me, even a service dog has skills! And very good ones. This is not what education is for. A person must understand why he exists, why and how he can realize himself. And these questions are directly related to religion, which provides perhaps the most important answers. Education, enlightenment and personal development are related things. If education and training are removed from the education system, then instead of educated people you will get service dogs. A very significant moral substitution will occur. And today everyone is afraid of the word “morality,” especially the word “spirituality.” And therefore, even in the national project “Education” the emphasis is often placed on a purely pragmatic, technological aspect. The fact that every school needs to be equipped with computers and connected to the Internet is beyond doubt, just as the need for schools to acquire books was not controversial at one time. But this should not be the only achievement of the national project! Because books and notebooks, computers and the Internet are needed so that children can think, write, and create.

We are not using the outstanding competitive advantages of our education that we already have: hundreds of schools and hundreds of dedicated people - principals, teachers who provide the best examples of secondary education in the world. Why not turn this into a system? The main thing is to change the status of the teacher, to make it high again. But then we need to set new goals in education reform. We still need to move from skills and competencies to education and enlightenment. And if today we observe a rejection of such a formulation of the question, then it is connected, of course, with the absence of that very moral support that we are talking about.

Today, Russian education is becoming part of the pan-European Bologna system, which contains a number of advantages and opens up new opportunities for students and graduates. But is it capable of solving all the problems of our education? Will this system worsen existing problems?

What prevents us from offering our own along with the competitive advantages that we should gain by joining the pan-European education system? I recently participated in a small conference, where there were rectors of several leading universities in Europe, including the rector of the famous Eton School (Eton College is one of the most prestigious private schools in the UK - Ed.). And when I expressed myself in the spirit that not only we, but also they, in the West, have problems, they nodded joyfully (or joylessly?). They agreed that education is experiencing a number of problems that they simply do not know how to cope with. So much the better for us - today there are not many areas where we have anything to say. Education is such an area. Bye.

Church and freedom

In your article “The Politics of the Current Moment” you say that the existing development plan for the country “is too pragmatic and has a pronounced consumer nature - an increase in the standard of living of citizens.” Does this mean that the long-term plan (and not the medium-term plan, to which you classify the existing one) should lie in a different value plane? What relation do Orthodox values ​​and the Russian Orthodox Church have to these “long-term” tasks?

The consumer emphasis here is quite understandable: it is a reaction to the difficult 90s, to a sharp drop in living standards. And, of course, the task of the state is to provide some minimum so that people do not feel humiliated. Indeed, despite the rise in wages and the large increase in income in recent years, pensions still remain humiliatingly low; lower than in Soviet times. So consumer problems undoubtedly need to be solved.

At the same time, I am sure that the powerful development of the country, which will be accompanied, among other things, by a proper increase in the standard of living, is impossible if you do not have a picture of the future, if you do not understand what Russia is, who we are and what we want to do. A large country must have a goal, it must have a meaning of existence, otherwise it will simply disappear. But the meaning of Russia’s existence is not yet visible to our society. Perhaps it should not lend itself easily to rational comprehension or verbal expression. But at least it should be felt. But it is not felt. This is the very problem of national identity that is being talked about today. This identity doesn’t exist, it’s lost.

- How does this manifest itself?

We do not rely on the heights of our own national genius. We have Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Russian philosophers. But they do not create the space of our life, the space in which ideas would be born about what we should do next, what is the meaning of our existence and what is the vector of movement. In this sense, we need to go back a hundred or even more years. It is necessary to make the ideas of our ancestors instrumental. Of course, “stitching” all this together is a difficult task: you can’t just mechanically take and transplant the ideas of the past onto modern soil. But it will have to be stitched together.

And in this process, the role of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Orthodox community, the values ​​of Orthodox culture will be great. After all, all Russian literature, Russian philosophy is thoroughly religious... Of course, we cannot now take it and say: you know, we all need to live in Christ. And hope that everything will heal tomorrow. It is necessary to develop such tools, create such institutions that can create a space for modern life based on the values ​​that once nurtured Russian culture.

One of these tools, of course, is education, if we understand it not only as a set of skills, but in an educational and educational sense. Then it will help us enter the space of our history, our religious, philosophical and moral heritage. This does not mean that everyone will start going to church and immediately become believers. But at least we will return to the space of our own culture, which is already a thousand years old. And now we have fallen out of this space. That's what we're talking about. But how to formulate this, what needs to be done so that at least everyone understands - I don’t know yet...

In a recent interview with Time magazine, President Putin said: “There is not and cannot be, in my opinion, in today’s world of morality and ethics apart from religious values.” In this regard, what do you see as the role of the Church in modern society? After all, today the Church does a lot for society. But problems remain, and very serious ones.

You can argue with Putin here. Modern secular ethical systems have abandoned the religious values ​​that once shaped the concept of morality. Another thing is that, having refused, they were faced with a number of insoluble conflicts. Europe, which once said through the mouth of Nietzsche “God is dead,” today cannot solve the elementary problem of the Arabs in Paris, which in a different value and socio-political situation was easily overcome.

New ideas - tolerance, political correctness - are all substitutions, false ideas. Their worship sometimes takes comical forms. In some American states, it is prohibited to tell Jewish jokes because it is interpreted as anti-Semitism. But Jewish jokes are a cultural phenomenon, the same as, say, Armenian ones, etc. Sometimes it’s not funny at all - when on some European airlines clergy are forced to remove their crosses when boarding a flight. This could allegedly offend non-Christians present. But this is a path to nowhere, a path to unfreedom. What Dostoevsky so beautifully described in “The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor.” And in the West, many have followed this path to the end. And then - nothing, then - emptiness. We cannot reach this dead end. We must remain in the freedom zone. Many people shy away from the word “freedom” because they associate this word with liberalism. But these are different things...

But in modern society the concepts of “Church” and “unfreedom” are often linked. Even today, any attempt by the church community to express itself in the public sphere is seen as an encroachment on freedom. Are those who think so right?

This stereotype is precisely connected with a false understanding of freedom. After all, in the end, all the ideological work in Russia, all Russian philosophy and literature were engaged in mastering this concept... They could not, and in 1917 a catastrophe occurred, when in some terrifying impulse for freedom everything was destroyed...

All religious issues are built around freedom. I am not an expert, but even I remember well the words of Christ: And you will know the Truth, and the Truth will make you free (John 8:32), and the Apostle Paul: Stand therefore in the freedom that Christ has given us (Gal 5:1). Of course, Paul meant primarily freedom in Christ, freedom from sin. But also freedom as God’s gift to man, freedom of moral choice. In our country there is some kind of glitch: people understand freedom in a negative sense - as the freedom to do evil. Because of this, the widespread position today arises that freedom must be limited. But such a position is a manifestation of weakness. And actually, something else was meant: the possibility of creative self-realization. This is about the issue of education: after all, people were born not to acquire skills and practice them, but for something else. This is why the Church teaches.

Theologians and academics, Church and society

Does this mean that you do not agree with the academicians, the authors of the famous “letter of ten”, who are extremely concerned about the problem of clericalization of our society?

As far as I understand, these people reject religion altogether and oppose it to science. It seems to me that all this looks simply comical, especially considering that among them there are even Nobel Prize winners. All the great scientists who laid the foundations of modern science, starting with Newton, tried to comprehend God's plan, were carriers of the Christian worldview, within the framework of which modern science was born - in Europe, and not in China, India or the Arab East. Later, in the 18th - 19th centuries, some scientists abandoned metaphysical guidelines, but the great ones, on whose shoulders we all stand, were believers. So there is no contradiction between religion and science.

In this regard, another important topic arises. In our country, theology (theology) has not yet become a recognized university discipline. There is no VAK standard in theology. It’s a paradox: all Western universities have theology, but in Russia they don’t, because it’s supposedly obscurantism. We are the most progressive in the world, right? On the contrary, it seems to me that precisely the position expressed in the “letter of ten” smacks of obscurantism.

- So you are in favor of theology being a Higher Attestation Commission discipline?

Certainly! Otherwise, you can then cross out the mathematics from there. After all, what is mathematics? Does she study natural resources, the atmosphere, the laws of nature? No, this is an absolute abstraction, this does not exist in the material world. Or is philosophy actually a game? Theology has its own apparatus, its own tools, developed over centuries. Thousands of the smartest people have studied theology, how can you reject this?

How can we make sure that there are fewer such misunderstandings in our society? How can we ensure that issues of morality and spirituality are put on the agenda? What needs to be done so that the whole society hears the voice of the Church?

Of course, it is not for me to teach representatives of the Church, but it seems to me that the time has come for its more active participation in public life. We need a tool, a channel that would bring our society closer to basic values. After all, the Church, as far as I understand, is not only bishops and priests. Perhaps one of these channels can be the initiatives of the laity. That is, the normal development of civil society.

Thanks to a joint project between Expert and Thomas, based on research from the Institute for Public Design, our readers learned that believers are younger, more educated and more successful than is commonly believed. Many readers reacted to such data with great distrust. How would you explain both the results and the reaction?

First of all, I note: the result of our research is very close to reality. Because this is a huge sample - 15,000 people. It is very carefully done: if you take our data on the structure of society, you will see that they almost perfectly coincide with the population census data. This indicates the high quality of the sample and the accuracy of the result.

Yes, the believers turned out to be younger, more educated, and more energetic than is commonly thought. After all, the myth that Orthodoxy is about old women is still alive. In fact, each of us can remember our believing friends and see that among them there are young, energetic, successful people. At the same time, they don’t just go to church, but try to live by the principles that the Church preaches: for example, they have large families and do charity work. By the way, in the regions the church way of life is already becoming quite everyday, so to speak. And, notably, in many respects among the wealthy part of the population. Let me give you a perhaps somewhat unexpected analogy: drivers of expensive cars behave much better on the roads. Of course, there are some who are insane among them, but on average, the driving culture is much higher among owners of foreign cars than among owners of domestic cars. This, of course, is not a completely correct comparison, but often it is those who have already resolved material issues who begin to think: what next? What should we do about it? What is this all for? This means that serious changes are taking place in society itself, instilling hope and optimism. After all, it is from the depths of society that, it seems to me, those transformations that will lead to an awareness of national identity should begin. That is, these values ​​will not be brought down from above, but they will grow into the consciousness and lives of people. And at this level, of course, the Church will increasingly become an integral part of the lives of many people.

Then why, if everything is developing so well in our society itself, issues of morality and spirituality, as you said at the beginning of our conversation, are not even on the agenda? Has the critical mass not yet accumulated for them to manifest themselves?

Institutions have not been created that connect society and its aspirations with the political sphere of life, which can translate to the political level what is ripening in society’s expectations. And this gap between the political elite and the life of society remains. This is not tragic, but must be overcome.

I think that now public institutions that create such a connection will be in maximum demand. Development can come not even through politics, not through political parties, but through a social movement. And “from below”. And this movement will have an ever-increasing influence on local authorities. Then there is a direct connection between politics and people’s lives, and political and social institutions become “alive.” We don’t have this connection, and the parties look like cardboard, alien to us.

- What does the Church mean to you personally?

Perhaps many will condemn this view, but for me now it is, first of all, a question of identity. If I live in Russia and I am Russian, then I am Orthodox. Moreover, Russian is not in the sense of blood, naturally, but in the sense that Russia is my country. Of course, Muslims will also say that this is their country - and that’s good. But for me these two points are inextricably linked. This is the ultimate identity. I don’t think that every Russian should be Orthodox, but in the limit it is so. And we must understand that this is one of the foundations on which the country rests...

But this position speaks more about cultural identity than about religious identity itself. So it turns out that many of us consider themselves Orthodox, but, say, not all of these Orthodox believe in the Resurrection of Christ and eternal life. Even a new “identity” has emerged: the Orthodox atheist. But this is absurd. What do you think?

I will say this: don’t demand too much from people.

About subjective journalism

You head one of the most authoritative and successful publications in modern Russia, so I simply cannot ignore issues in the professional sphere. What to do with the notorious “journalistic objectivity”? Recently, one journalist told me that “Thomas” will never become a full-fledged participant in the media market, because “for you the Church is a subject, but until it becomes an object, you will not be able to engage in journalism proper.”

Yes, this position is typical for some publications. For them, not only the Church, but also the country Russia is an object. And it is a deep misconception, simply a catastrophic mistake, to think that for a journalist everything should be an object. It is not true. Of course, when we are at the level of information journalism, at the level of news agencies, this is possible. The main thing is that the information is as accurate as possible. Not even objective, but accurate - and all that there is. But this does not mean that the rest of journalism should be “objective” - that is, treat everything as an object. This is simply nonsense because it is a debasement of journalism.

Another mistake is to assume that information must be exciting. This is the concept of the so-called infotainment (from the English information (information) and entertainment (entertainment)), which also came to us from the West. Well, this is just some kind of idiocy! Why does everything have to be fun? Why should life be reduced to just entertainment? A person just wants to find out what is happening, and they begin to captivate and entertain him. He should receive even simple information while having fun. But the task of journalism is not only to inform, but also to educate, and even more - to inspire. And the best examples of journalism, both here and in the West, show this. We forget about this. And we contrast supposedly objective journalism with biased, opinion journalism. This is a false dichotomy because there is no objective journalism. There are professional principles. For example, if a journalist adheres to a certain point of view, he should not impose it on the reader, he should communicate another point of view. This, I repeat, is his professional duty. Unless, of course, he writes an essay or pamphlet. But in everything else... Even the choice of agenda is already subjective. Readers of such “objective” magazines and newspapers feel false because editors and journalists simply do not respond to their thoughts and feelings. Because for the reader the country is our own, but for them it is foreign.

Photo by Vladimir ESHTOKIN

Valery Fadeev no longer runs the Expert publishing house and is no longer its co-owner, he said. Fadeev sold a stake in the media holding to another shareholder - a bank VEB, he says.

Another shareholder of the company, Tatyana Gurova, also transferred her share in the publishing house to the bank for trust management, Fadeev said. She was also appointed editor-in-chief of Expert magazine, says Fadeev. Prior to this, Gurova held the position of editor-in-chief of the publishing house. Vladimir Morozov was appointed acting general director. Before that, he was the executive director of a publishing house, Fadeev said. However, on the Expert website at the time of publication of the article, Fadeev is still listed as the main reactor. Previously, he told the RNS agency that he had sold his stake in the holding.

Previously, VEB owned 31.2% of the shares of CJSC Media Holding Expert. Fadeev and Gurova each had 12.9% shares. Another 29.3% control the structures of Oleg Deripaska’s “Basic Element”. 12.9% of the shares of the publishing house are held by the scientific editor of the Expert magazine Alexander Privalov, 0.7% by Dmitry Grishankov.

For many years, the publishing house has had financial problems, including the publishing house attracting multimillion-dollar loans from its shareholder VEB. In 2014, the bank increased the credit line opened for Expert for eight years from 100 million to 550 million rubles, but the company also does not pay off the loan regularly, it follows from court decisions. At the end of 2016, Globex Bank filed a claim against Expert, demanding compensation of more than 88 million rubles. loan debt. As a result, a settlement agreement was concluded, according to which “Expert” had to pay only the debt of 65 million rubles, and not pay the remaining amount (accrued interest). In early February, Transcapitalbank demanded that the media holding repay a loan in the amount of more than 20 million rubles, as follows from the files of the Moscow Arbitration Court. Also, the publishing house is regularly sued by its former and current employees, partners, including printing houses. In total, in 2016, claims were filed against the publishing house in the amount of more than 427 million rubles, as follows from SPARK-Interfax data.

Fadeev explained the need to leave the share capital of Expert to Vedomosti as a possible conflict of interest after his appointment as secretary of the Public Chamber. At the end of June, Fadeev was elected executive secretary of the Public Chamber of the sixth composition; there were no other candidates for this post. Fadeev then told reporters that the chamber should “take responsibility for the agenda,” explaining, for example, the meaning of the economic programs being developed. “The conflict of interest is due to the fact that the agenda of the Public Chamber often overlaps with the agenda of the Expert publishing house,” he said. Vedomosti's source in Expert said that he had heard that giving up shares in the publishing house and the positions of editor-in-chief and general director was one of the conditions for Fadeev's appointment to this position.

He does not disclose whether Fadeev received any monetary compensation for the Expert shares; he only clarifies that it was a purchase and sale transaction. According to the law on joint stock companies, other shareholders have a pre-emptive right to repurchase shares in the event of the sale of the share of one of the shareholders. But if a share is sold or transferred to one of the existing shareholders, the seller is not obliged to make an offer to other shareholders to sell the share. Grishankov said that he did not receive an offer to buy out the share. Privalov declined to comment.

Two Vedomosti sources in the media holding said that after the deal, some of the employees received wage payments; before that, the publishing house regularly delayed wages for its employees. According to one of Vedomosti’s interlocutors, VEB promised to fully implement the credit line opened in 2014 for the publishing house, as well as to finance the further development of the magazine. Fadeev does not comment on this. A VEB representative promised to provide a comment later.