Russian media fall on a wide spectrum between the very Kremlin-loyal at one end and the very Kremlin-critical at the other.
It came as no surprise that it was Kremlin-critical newspaper Novaya Gazeta that carried out the Russian part of the global “Panama Leaks” investigation.
“Censorship”
But how did media in other parts of the Russian landscape react?
Popular Russian blogger Ilya Varlamov showed the situation as of 12 noon on Monday 4 April in an infographic, which was widely shared in Russian social media.
Varlamov published it under the short headline “Censorship” both on his blog and on his Facebook page.
For the benefit of those who don’t read Russian, the East StratCom Task Force has transcribed the names of the Russian media into English, alongside with the criteria Varlamov applied to the different kinds of coverage on top of his table.
Note that some of the media shown reported on the scandal after the infographic was created.
Traditionally neutral media also reporting
Besides the very Kremlin-loyal (red color) and the markedly Kremlin-critical media (Slon, Dozhd), we see a series of other important media, which remain open to relaying critical information about Russia’s president and his inner circle.
Among them are media traditionally seen as neutral (RBK, Vedomosti), or neutral, but leaning towards pro-Kremlin (Gazeta.ru, Moskovskiy Komsomolets).
Worthwhile noting is also Lifenews, with a reputation for tabloid journalism, which picks up the scandal, but only mentions those parts that concern Ukraine’s President Poroshenko. Gazprom-owned, but traditionally neutral and widely respected Kommersant finds its very own diplomatic way around the topic.
Better late than never
On a positive note, the news agencies on the top of the table have deemed it professionally necessary to report the news, although state-owned RIA Novosti for example released their telegram at a very late point for a news wire (eleven minutes after midnight Moscow time, i.e. more than two hours after the news broke), and with a text that carefully used the Russian word for “allegedly,” “yakoby,” both in the headline and the telegram, making sure to underline that “the documents’ authenticity has not been confirmed by anyone.”
Finally, among those media reporting late on the scandal is Russia Today, aimed at an audience outside Russia. Its very short first article on the Panama scandal, published on Sunday 3 April, does not mention the allegations against President Putin.
Its second article, published on Monday 4 April in the late morning, starts as follows: “Anti-Putin sentiment has reached boiling point in the West, and that to a large degree makes it next to impossible to talk about Russia in a positive manner, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said, commenting on the so-called Panama leak.”
The Russian side of the story
A widely quoted editorial in Vedomosti, signed by Mariya Zheleznova, underlines a fundamental difference between the Russian and the Western perception of the scandal:
“In Russia, owning offshore companies is in the first place a means of protecting and concealing your property; whereas in the West, people hide from taxes”, Vedomosti writes, underlining that offshore companies can help Russian government officials hiding money made on corruption.
This leads Vedomosti to conclude that in spite of Kremlin’s efforts to play the story down, “Panama Leaks” represent a real threat to the government. It confirms what people have already been suspecting: Russia’s “mix of politics and business,” Vedomosti writes, means that it would make little sense if Russian leaders said that “we will now tax ourselves or punish ourselves by law. Therefore, we have to conclude that there is nothing new in these publications, and that this is a blow to the president,” Vedomosti concludes.