 |
 |
EXPERT EXAMINATION # 28/5 Moscow May 30, 2002 Commission of experts consisting of: chairman of the Board of the Guild of linguistic experts on documentary and informational disputes, Doctor of philological sciences, professor Gorbanevskiy Mikhail Viktorovich (scientific linguistic research experience is 26 years), deputy chairman of the Board of the Guild of linguistic experts on documentary and informational disputes, Doctor of philological sciences, professor Shaklein Viktor Mikhailovich (scientific linguistic research experience is 33 years), actual member of the Guild of linguistic experts on documentary and informational disputes, Doctor of philological science, professor Belchikov Yuliy Abramovich (scientific linguistic research experience is 49 years), actual member of the Guild of linguistic experts on documentary and informational disputes, candidate of philological science, Senior lecturer Kara-Murza Yelena Stanislavovna (scientific linguistic research experience is 22 years), actual member of the Guild of linguistic experts on documentary and informational disputes, Doctor of philological science, professor Mamontov Aleksandr Stepanovich (scientific linguistic research experience is 26 years) on the basis of the request of the director of the representative office of “Internews Network” in Kazakhstan O. Katsiyev of May 24, 2002 conducted psychological linguistic examination of the publication “Khabarization of the entire country. Part 2”, placed on the web-site of the representative office of “Internews Network” in Kazakhstan in the electronic newsletter #23 (117) for 2001, in connection with the lawsuit of Aliyev Rakhat Muhtarovich against the representative office of “Internews Network” in Kazakhstan. Rights and obligations of experts, provided for by the article 82of the Criminal Procedural Code of Russian Federation were explained to us. We were warned regarding criminal responsibility for giving false conclusion by force of the article 307, 308 of the Criminal Code of Russian Federation. The examination began on May 24 2002. The examination ended on May 30 2002. Experts received the following materials at their disposal: 1. Copy of the publication “Khabarization of the entire country. Part 2”, signed by Svetlana Dylevskaya and placed on the web-site of the representative office “Internews Network” in Kazakhstan in electronic newsletter #23 (117) for 2001 on 6 pages (pages 2-7). 2. Copy of lawsuit Aliyev Rakhat Mukhtarovich (by proxy - LRP “legal center”) on protection of honor, dignity and business reputation of December 5, 2001 on 2 pages. 3. Copy of expert conclusion #2561 of the Central (Almaty) scientific production laboratory of judicial examination of March 21, 2002 on 20 pages. Facts of the case: the commission of experts is informed in the volume of materials presented. Scientific research in the course of the examination was conducted in Moscow in the Guild of linguistic experts on documentary and informational disputes; trial participants were not present during execution of the examination. The following issues were put for expert resolution: What types of vocabulary of modern Russian language Russian scientists of linguistics attribute to offensive vocabulary? Does the publication “Khabarization of the entire country. Part 2” contain words or phrases, related to one or several types of offensive vocabulary? Does the publication “Khabarization of the entire country. Part 2” contain slander statements or fabrications addressed to R. M. Aliyev? Does the disputed fragment “Khabarization of the entire country. Part 2” contain evaluation of personality and activity of R. M. Aliyev? Does the publication “Khabarization of the entire country. Part 2” contain statements giving negative evaluation of personality of R. M. Aliyev? What is the semantic context of the fragment of publication disputed by R. M. Aliyev: “D. Nazarbayeva and her husband - first deputy of the chairman of the Committee of National Security of the Republic of Kazakhstan Rakhat Aliyev, own or control (directly or indirectly) several television and radio networks, informally unified into a media holding (television channels Khabar, KTK, NTK, “ORT-Kazakhstan”, radio station “Yevropa plus Kazakhstan”, “Hit FM Khabar”, “Russkoye radio”, “Radio Retro-Karavan; newspapers “Novoye pokoleniye”, “Karavan”, “Karavan” publishing house, information agency “Kazakhstan today”, advertising agency “TV-Media and etc.). Telecommunication company KATELKO is in the same row, “Kazakhstan’s broadcasting corporation. In winter of 2000 by the decree of the government two organizations, who controlled television and radio transmitting means (transmitters, television towers, television centers and etc.), were reorganized and rights of property and use over the state package of stocks of the newly-fledged organization were handed over to “KVK - Kazakhstan’s Broadcasting Corporation”, founder of which is a group of legal and physical entities. Experts ask themselves a question: who would benefit from privatization of state property?”. What are the most substantial and significant genre, psycho-linguistic stylistic peculiarities of the text of the publication “Khabarization of the entire country? Part 2”? What are, based on analysis of the stylistics, composition of the publication “Khabarization of the entire country? Part 2” and semantics of its lexical components, the aims of the given publication - as a text, addressed through electronic mass media towards numerous readers? As a result of the conducted research experts made the following conclusions: 1. What types of vocabulary of modern Russian language Russian scientists of linguistics attribute to offensive vocabulary? In linguistic examinations on lawsuits on protection of honor, dignity and business reputation, as a rule, the key link is detailed examination of meaning and stylistic coloration of words and phrases of modern Russian language, contained in presented for examination texts, considering their possible use for abasement of honor and dignity of another person, expressed in improper form (insults). Upon insulting unlike slander defamatory data, which should be known false, veracity and falsity of disseminated data are of no importance. In practice there are specific categories of words of literary and colloquial languages, use of which in regard to specific person (first of all, physical entity), as a rule, is insulting. These are the following categories:
2. Does the publication “Khabarization of the entire country. Part 2” contain words or phrases, related to one or several types of offensive vocabulary? The analyzed publication “Khabarization of the entire country. Part 2” does not contain offensive vocabulary. 3. Does the publication “Khabarization of the entire country. Part 2” contain slander statements or fabrications addressed to R. M. Aliyev? The question is beyond scope of linguistic experts. Slander presupposes direct intent of falsehood (when speaker/writer primordially strives to discredit another individual, knowing, that he is not right, but anyway speaks or writes, reporting false information, while related to specific facts, not representing evaluative judgments). In this aspect of law theory linguistic expert doe not have an opportunity to define presence/absence of intent. 4. Does the disputed fragment “Khabarization of the entire country. Part 2” contain evaluation of personality and activity of R. M. Aliyev? The disputed fragment does not contain evaluation itself. The fragment contains information that Rakhat Aliyev (and his spouse D. Nazarbayeva) “own and control (directly or indirectly) several television and radio networks, formally unified into a media holding”. This information (data) cannot be recognized as positive or negative, as the ownership of something or controlling of something in itself cannot characterize a person from good or bad side. While information on ownership of something or about direct controlling may be checked (verified); it is difficult to prove by documents data on indirect controlling, thus, it is difficult to verify information in the text on indirect controlling. What is evaluation of personality from linguistic point of view? It implies arrogation to person of qualities and virtues in perspective of the Good or the Evil, Benefit or Damage, Beauty or Ugliness, Nobility or Meanness and similar evaluative categories or presentation of his actions and deeds as subject to evaluative description. From the point of view of language form this is expressed in use of stylistically colored, expressively evaluative vocabulary (not stylistically neutral synonymous versions). Let’s give an example of neutral and evaluative denomination of a person, his qualities and actions. One may say that he is not good-looking, and one may also say that he is ugly. In the last case degree of survival of a quality, meaning expressiveness of the word, is high. One may say that a person took something without permission and reason, and one may say that he stole or lifted it. If in the first case the wording contains non-emotional non-evaluative verification of the event, than the in the second case meaning of the word has pronounced evaluation of action as illegal, inapplicable to law or moral criteria. In the third case negative meaning is so strong that is found beyond the verge of permissible speech behavior. Such words are called non-normative (in the given case it is expressively low colloquial word), and their use is not recommended in official situations, and generally is not welcomed, as their use in itself may be evaluated as illegal speech behavior - abasement of honor and dignity of a person as well as object of evaluation. The fragment of the publication “Khabarization of the entire country. Part 2”, which became the basis for the lawsuit, entirely is lacking evaluative nominations of actions and states of the plaintiff. All verbs, which describe these actions and states, related to stylistically neutral non-evaluative vocabulary of Russian language: “D. Nazarbayeva and her husband - (..) Rakhat Aliyev own or control (...) several television and radio networks (...)". Another matter is that this phrase has grammatical stylistic error: upon use of similar predicates, expressed by verbs with various dirigible cases (it is proper to write “own several television and radio networks and control them”). But in the given lawsuit situation this stylistic error has no significance whatsoever, as it does not affect meaning of the phrase. 5. Does the publication “Khabarization of the entire country. Part 2” contain statements giving negative evaluation of personality of R. M. Aliyev? The publication does not have statements (in the form of assertion, assumption), containing negative information personally about R. M. Aliyev or negative evaluation of R. M. Aliyev. The publication “Khabarization of the entire country. Part 2” is dedicated to “details about Closed Joint-stock Company “Khabar” Agency”. Purpose of the article is defined by the author in the beginning of the publication. The details presuppose description (information) regarding the object (“Khabar” Agency”). The article is consistent “story of the issue of “Khabar” Agency”. The author accompanies these details (facts) with large number of quotations, which allows readers answer the questions that interest the journalist. Therefore, stating “the issue of state support of the channel”, the author quotes interview of D. Nazarbayeva; also look “To the journalist’s question, who is the founder of the channel and how did he receive this frequency “ - the answer (in the statement) of the minister of culture A. Sarsenbayev. The journalist, certainly, analyzes all cited facts, however, the main element of the analysis are rhetorical questions, asked by the author, since the main task of the author - is to compare and comprehend the facts (the sources were always specified) and interpretation of these fatcs. Let’s also note that the entire analysis is given in the form of assumptions: “I suppose that what’s been said” - the parenthetic word suppose; “Seemingly, having decided to secure themselves” - the parenthetic word seemingly; “mass media experts say” - the sentence, denoting the source of opinions. The author of the given publication actively uses data and opinions, formulated by other journalists or other subjects of informational and political activity, including her own agency as the whole. Compare: authorized statement with two subjects: one - is collective subject of speech-activity predicate (“Mass media, close to governmental circles”), and another subject - is the actual author of the statement (journalist S. Dylevskaya), expressing her negative evaluation of way of actions of these mass media: “they present” - this is ironic synonym of stylistically neutral verb “they write” - dominates of synonymous row, which is among big lexicological-semantic field with general meaning “delivery of information” (say, write, narrate). Moreover, sources of information and opinions, mentioned in the article, are also D. Nazarbayeva (“By the way, D. Nazarbayeva herself numerously stated about ideas to create number of “Khabars” and about retransmission pf “cloned” channels throughout the entire republic: (interview to the newspaper “Novoye pokoleniye”: “Today it is clear that”), the government (“And earlier, in the Spring of (on April 22) 1998 the government issued decree # 380”), the aforementioned “Kazakhstanskaya Pravda” and some others (Poly-subjectivity of the text as the linguistic problem was investigated in the number of works of Professor G. A. Zolotova). Big revelatory passage regarding role of D. Nazarbayeva belongs to communist of Kazakhstan’s press Andrey Sviridov. Let’s us cite (in brief, preserving author’s orthography) his opinion, as it was also formulated with use of number of rhetorical techniques of indirect negative evaluation, which the author was forced to use, as D. Nazarbayeva - daughter of the President of Kazakhstan N. Nazarbayev: “If a person wants and can run electronic mass media and he is good in it, then let him do it, independent of whose offspring he happened to be born. Even more so, that initial informational programs of “Khabar”, when it was one of KazTV’s editorial offices, they showed noticeable progress in comparison with former products of state television company, which stiffened in the hopeless “Soviet union”. If the new television company would actually develop in this way only, it would be only welcomed. If the media-empire headed by the “daughter of Kazakhstan” could and desired to play by general rules, and not to establish them for it! And even more so would not strive to keep on changing these rules during the course of the game…” 6. What is the semantic context of the fragment of publication disputed by R. M. Aliyev: “D. Nazarbayeva and her husband - first deputy of the chairman of the Committee of National Security of the Republic of Kazakhstan Rakhat Aliyev, own or control (directly or indirectly) several television and radio networks, informally unified into a media holding (television channels Khabar, KTK, NTK, “ORT-Kazakhstan”, radio station “Yevropa plus Kazakhstan”, “Hit FM Khabar”, “Russkoye radio”, “Radio Retro-Karavan; newspapers “Novoye pokoleniye”, “Karavan”, “Karavan” publishing house, information agency “Kazakhstan today”, advertising agency “TV-Media and etc.). Telecommunication company KATELKO is in the same row, “Kazakhstan’s broadcasting corporation. In winter of 2000 by the decree of the government two organizations, who controlled television and radio transmitting means (transmitters, television towers, television centers and etc.), were reorganized and rights of property and use over the state package of stocks of the newly-fledged organization were handed over to “KVK - Kazakhstan’s Broadcasting Corporation”, founder of which is a group of legal and physical entities. Experts ask themselves a question: who would benefit from privatization of state property?”. The fragment, cited in the statement of claim, was quoted partially, taken out of the context. In the publication itself, this fragment is a part of a paragraph, beginning with the phrase: “Mass media experts say that today all large mass media of Kazakhstan actually passed into the ownership of members of the family of the president of the country, or private individuals, close to presidential circles”. It is important to note that this is not the opinion of the author of the article, but mass media experts, which is denoted by the introductory sentence “Mass media experts say”. Fragment of the lawsuit statement from the statement of claim and the paragraph of the publication following the cited above sentence, thus, may be attributed to confirmation of experts’ opinion. Content of the final phrase (question) of the paragraph: “Experts ask themselves a question: who would benefit from privatization of state property?” also denotes that the fragment cited in the lawsuit, is an argument in favor of correctness of opinion of mass media experts. The mentioned fragment lacks evaluative nominations, regarding personality of the plaintiff. Vocabulary of compatibility of words in Russian language (edited by P. N. Denisov, V. V. Morkovkin, edition 2, Moscow 1983) gives such definitions to the word “personality”, as “human, individual, historic” and some other non-evaluative definitions, as well as “outstanding, heroic, bright, dark, suspicious” and etc., giving evaluative qualification. The aforementioned list demonstrates that composition of lexical meaning of evaluative adjectives includes categorical axiological component “good” and “bad”, containing obvious ethical element. Let’s us note that according to the opinion of the outstanding modern specialist in Russian philology, corresponding member N. D. Aruyunova, evaluation as the phenomenon of human perception and attitude toward the world always contains more or less ethical, moral aspect. According to the vocabulary of P. N. Denisov and V. V. Morkovkin PERSONALITY - is “person as a member of society and a bearer of personal, individual principles; totality of qualities, inherent in the given person”, and according to - “Explanatory dictionary of Russian language” S. I. Ozhegov and N. Y. Shvedova it is “A human as a bearer of some qualities, person (with 3 meanings). 2. pl. Insulting insinuations, remarks”. The cited abstract doe not have any of these definitions of personality, as the author of the article S. Dylevskaya did not set the task of giving evaluation of personality of R. M. Aliyev - neither in the cited fragment, nor in the article as a whole. Let’s us note such textual subjects, as “observers and television experts” and “Mass media experts”. Trusting them to express the expert opinion, author of the publication S. Dylevskaya uses the well-tried rhetoric technique of appealing to authorities for making her position more persuasive in the eyes of the readers of the Internet edition. Moreover, thus the author decreases chances of persecution for criticism, since she uses thoughts from respected intellectual sources and creates a basis of validity of her journalist position. Particularly “Mass media experts” are subjects of opinion in the fragment, which became the reason for the given lawsuit. It represents one of the last paragraphs of the publication “Khabarization of the entire country. Part 2” and immediately follows the paragraph, which contains formulation of the key problem of the article. Let’s cite the fragment, but not like it was done by the plaintiff. Let’s break it down to logical-compositional elements and comment logical structure of the same fragment from point 1 to point 9. Having cited both paragraphs, already having examined the entire article in the course of expert analysis, we will try to understand what character is the main object of criticism in the given work: 1. Unfortunately, issue on actual owners of the biggest Kazakhstan’s mass media remains to be top secret. 2. There is a paradoxical situation, when 3. when from one hand, mass media are formally independent (meaning non-state, private), and on the other hand - there is obvious closeness between state structures and largest television and radio networks. 4. In these conditions control of society over legality of use of state funds, legality of receipt and distribution of profits, tax payments and etc. is impossible. 5. Mass media experts say that 6. today all large mass media of Kazakhstan actually passed into the ownership of members of the family of the president of the country, or private individuals, close to presidential circles. 7. D. Nazarbayeva and her husband - first deputy head of the Committee of National Security of the Republic of Kazakhstan Rakhat Aliyev, own or control (directly or indirectly) several television and radio networks, informally unified into a media holding ().Telecommunication Company KATELKO is in the same row, “Kazakhstan’s broadcasting corporation (). 8. Experts ask themselves a question, 9. who would benefit from privatization of state property? The given textual fragment consists of two paragraphs and is located in the final part of the article. It contains main observations and conclusions of the author of the article regarding situation in Kazakhstan’s mass media. Point 1 contains formulation of the main problem of the article regarding general object of the text. Point 2 evaluates the situation, meaning contains formulation of the main thesis of the given final fragment of the article, and point 3 contains arguments to this thesis. Point 4 represents conclusion-consequence from this argument. Points 5 and 8 represent authorized constructions, which contain special speech subject - “experts”, while this subject is called upon strengthening by its authority impression made on audience, and disseminate responsibility for critical opinions, expressed regarding the general object of the text - “largest mass media of Kazakhstan”. This is one of techniques “of Aesopian language” in conditions of limitation of freedom of speech. Point 6 - is the basis for critical pathos of the article, factitive thesis. Here information is presented in specific syntactic position. However suggestibility (non-criticality of perception) of this information is softened by the verb in modus framework (performative, meaning speech verb “to say” has less verifying, truth strength, than, for instance, the verb “to report”). Point 7 is argument-example for the thesis in the point 6 and personally represents subject for the statement of claim. It contains information, which the plaintiff considers untrue. And, finally, point 9 represents indirect statement, made in the form of rhetoric question. The formulation “Who would benefit from privatization of state property?” in the suggested circumstances implies only one thing: “Privatization of state property was profitable for those who received it”, and from the previous statements the reader clearly understood: it was the members of the President Nazarbayev’s family, first of all, D. Nazarbayeva, not at all R. Aliyev is the main object of criticism of the analyzed article in the information Internet-based newsletter of Internews Network in Kazakhstan, which opinion if represented by the author of the article - journalist S. Dylevskaya. On the basis of the analysis conducted we may discover what in this passage (meaning in the point 7) caused the plaintiff, in his opinion, “irremediable moral damage, expressed in discomfort, nervous state”. This statement disseminates as something already known, as an argument to the thesis, data, which he considers to be untrue. And the plaintiff himself, in his words, is presented in this phrase as subject of untrue action. Reason of such perception of the given phrase by the plaintiff as well as by the potential audience is purely linguistic, but it lies not in the use of negatively evaluative vocabulary, which is called upon insulting the personality of the subject and abasement of his honor and dignity, discrediting him in the eyes of the potential audience. There is nothing like this. The reason lies in specific syntactic organization of the phrase, which is typical for Russian language as a whole and often used in journalist texts of news as well as analytical character, possessing positive as well as negative pathos. The analyzed phrase is built so that the data, contained in it, are perceived as true, although this may be different. Here linguistic examination is on the border of its application, since proving truth or untruth of the data contained in the text is beyond its competence. However it necessary to add that linguistics distinguishes event and evaluation of the event, opinion regarding the event. In addition, if the phrase, containing information on the event is not subject to linguistic judgment, than this cannot be said about the phrase, containing evaluative judgment. From the linguistics’ point of view this is an opinion, meaning statement, not subject as such to procedure of verification, truth qualification. In addition, from journalist theory and practice point of view opinion - is unalienable component of mass media texts, right to formulate and disseminate which for journalists as well as other categories of citizens is guaranteed by the Constitution and national and international legislations on mass media. 7. What are the most substantial and significant genre, psycho-linguistic stylistic peculiarities of the text of the publication “Khabarization of the entire country. Part 2”? The text was written in genre of the critical article, essential characteristics of which include presence of opinions on various important issues of the present. To express one’s thoughts about on these issues, raise them, provoke interest of the public to them - is the professional task of the journalism. Nobody, no official persons can hinder it. Opinions are not cognizable, and freedom of expression and dissemination of opinions is recorded in Constitutions of majority of democratic countries as one of the founding civil liberties and one of the basic rights of persons. However, information in any journalist text should be authentic, and opinions verifiable. This is also professional duty of the journalism, and in case of its non-fulfillment, it should correct the errors according to the rules, set by the laws and professional codes. Incorrect information is refuted, and incorrect opinions are disputed. We can say with certainty that the text of the publication does not contain insulting evaluation of the plaintiff’s personality, and in general of other acting characters of the publication. We can say with confidence that regarding the plaintiff and other acting individuals data were disseminated, according to which the have committed deeds, which may and should become object of criticism and further investigation (for the plaintiff this participation of high-ranked state employee in privatization and utilization of official and marital status). Degree of authenticity of particularly these data is not defined by linguistic way. Factual evidences are needed for this purpose, which are not cited in the article. Information is formulated with support from statements of various individuals of Kazakhstan’s media process and insufficiently specifically. Data, disseminated by a journalist, should be true, and opinions - substantiated by persuasive facts. In case of the analyzed publication, linguistic experts have some doubts, connected with language from of presentation of information. What does it mean, “control directly or indirectly” - what are the “forms” of this indirectness, what is the degree? What is the meaning of the definition “unified informally into media-holding” - there is no and was no documents regarding their unification? Or journalists could not get them at the right time? In any case validity of actually serious claims addressed towards D. Nazarbayeva , R. Aliyev and other characters of the publication (by the way, nameless) should become the basis for further journalist investigation and be clearly presented in the text of the publication. Explicitness of evidence basis of the journalist text allows authors of similar critical articles to avoid initiation of lawsuits against them. In general the article “Khabarization of the entire country. Part 2” makes it its aim based on big factual material and within the framework of linguistic correctness to draw public attention to number of problems of media business and activity of media companies of Kazakhstan. The analyzed text by the expert committee is very weighted, emotionally reservedly, statement has objectively establishing character. The author strived to substantiate logically her statements, as well as evaluative judgments (which are also reserved, mainly rationally expression) or with quotes from interviews of official individuals, newspaper materials, official documents. Confirmation of the given thesis of experts is the condition that 37 percent of the six-page text consists of direct quotes and references to documents or their statement. S. Dylevskaya shows prudence in formulating her statements, expressing some of them in hypothetical form: “Seemingly”, “I believe”, “Observers suppose that most likely” etc. The text of the publication does not have groundlessly harsh, in terms of expressive evaluation of negative evaluations of official persons, institutions, mass media bodies. Doubtlessly the title of the given publication is expressive, forcing to draw attention to journalist, clearly correspondent to its content and focusing attention of readers on processes, taking place in the system of Kazakhstan’s mass media (moreover - local reader, owning actual fund of background knowledge). At the same time, the experts consider the title of the publication the only harsh, journalistically loaded component of the publication, not transgressing the bounds of linguistic correctness. Expressive speech means in the analyzed publication are presented extremely decently and in its majority are attributed to the sphere of rational evaluations; their expressiveness is characterized by reserve, peculiar balanced bookish speech, style of statement of objectively analytical character. Even reservedly-skeptic attitude (the most dramatic statement that the author permitted herself to use) is expressed with assistance of expressive speech means of frugal, “placid” key: “one should not flatter himself in regard to “modest appetites of the RGP”, “about retransmission of “cloned” channels”, “Radio “Khabar” as they say “pegging” the plot”, “gradually training listeners to “the coming” of the media holding”. Many of similar “expressions” represent figurative-metaphoric use or neutral words, or stable word-combinations of more narrow meaning (such as “star hour” or “pegging the plot”) in literature speech. 8. What are, based on analysis of the stylistics, composition of the publication “Khabarization of the entire country. Part 2” and semantics of its lexical components, the aims of the given publication - as a text, addressed through electronic mass media towards numerous readers? Influential modern theory of speech acts states that one of constituting peculiarities of statement as unit of speech communication is index of elocutional power, meaning that task, which is realized by speaker concerning listener in order to deliver necessary information in specific key. The speaker, for instance, may make it his aim to report information on some event, and may - show his attitude towards the event, having evaluated it as “good” or “bad”, meaning to criticize severely or praise it highly, and may discover special sense of the event - and them interpret it, and if it is some secret, hidden sense harmful to society - then to disclose it. Both single statements (minimal speech work) and full-scale statement - meaning text, have elocutional power. As a rule, it is formulated as its genre name or its typological position in the system of journalist genres. In case of the publication “Khabarization of the entire country. Part 2”, we have a text, which belongs to genre of the article within the limits of the group of analytical genres. We define as critical article its specific (subgenre) attribution. The task (aim, elocutional power) of this text is formulated by the author on two levels, according to two objects of publicistic research (singular - Closed Joint-stock Company “Khabar” Agency” and summarized on republican scale, general - entire information market of Kazakhstan). Aim of the first level (specific) is formulated on the very first page in clear form with the help of the verb, implying specific aspect professional activity of a journalist: “In this issue we publish details in the closed joint-stock company “Khabar” Agency”. Aim of the second level (summarized) was not explicitly (clearly) formulated in the text, however the reader may formulate it himself. To do this he, first of all, has the formulation of the main problem, which is raised in the article on the last page and sounds as deductive conclusion regarding media situation in the country on the basis of the number of the aforementioned examples: “Unfortunately, issue on actual owners of the biggest Kazakhstan’s mass media remains to be top secret. There is a paradoxical situation, when from one hand, mass media are formally independent (meaning non-state, private), and on the other hand - there is obvious closeness between state structures and largest television and radio networks. In these conditions control of society over legality of use of state funds, legality of receipt and distribution of profits, tax payments and etc. is impossible.” (orthography of the original is retained). Correspondingly, we define aim of the article as constructive criticism from the position of interests of the society and in protection of constitutional regulations. Second of all, critical, revelatory pathos of the article follows from active use of evaluative nominations with reference to situation and actions of number of players of Kazakhstan’s media field, who participate, judging from, what events are described in the article, in specific privatization of state mass media illegal financing of private mass media through the budget of the republic. Here are of course there are actually verbal evaluations, first- of all, evaluations not of the plaintiff R. M. Aliyev, but other (although close to him) people and, second of all, evaluations, formulated quite correctly, within the limits of norms of literature language, meaning undoubtedly not insulting. Example of negative evaluation of situation - is use of introductive construction “Unfortunately”. In modern syntactic terms, such construction is defined as modal framework of statement and as a method of authorization, meaning specific grammatical method of revelation of speaking subject - creator of the given statement. This subject is able not only to describe state of affairs in the world (offer a listener, audience - in general, so called dictum information), but also to uncover one’s attitude towards it (offer modus information audience). Journalist as the author always expresses not only his personal attitude, not so much personal interests, as attitude and interests of some group of people. The key phrase of the entire article that we have cited clearly distinguishes this group - it is the “society”, meaning civil society, which control over activity of Kazakhstan’s mass media is impossible, according to the opinion of the editorial office as collective author (collective orator, according to the term of the famous philologist, rhetoric theorist and problems of mass media Y. V. Rozhdestvenski). Web-site users (which include audience of Internet newsletter of the representative office of “Internews Network” in Kazakhstan) on post-soviet space certainly do not belong to mass reader. This is intellectual elite, which reads almost all of what has been said in journalist texts (at least almost everything that was put in there by journalists) even in implicit, underlying form. Therefore, the audience certainly received information regarding continuation of privatization of Kazakhstan’s mass media and who are the present owners of mass media. However, what conclusions were drawn by it (those that were suggested by the editorial office and which the plaintiff fears, or some independent conclusions), need to be investigated independently as this audience has quite high barriers of perception criticality. The entire publication of S. Dylevskaya represents journalist investigation based on data, which the editorial office possesses, as well as other representatives of media space of Kazakhstan. Topic of this research is of vital importance, the problem represents important public interest, and therefore, addressing it is more than natural. Journalist has a right to raise morbid themes of the present; this is its specific task, inalienable part of professional activity. Chairman of the Board of M. V. GORBANEVSKI Deputy chairman of the Board of V. M. SHAKLEIN Actual member Y. A. Belchikov Actual member Y. S. Kara-Murza Actual member A. S. Mamontov |
