In Russia, Mikhail Khodorkovsky's projects “Open Media”, “MBH-Media” and “Pravozashchita Postcards” announced the termination of their work after the news of the blocking of their sites by the decision of Roskomnadzor. The reason for blocking was the connection with “undesirable organizations”. At the end of June, four organizations funded by Khodorkovsky were added to the Russian register of undesirables. At the same time, the leaders of all three projects deny that they were in any way connected with these structures.
Open Media has existed since September 2017 – it received a grant from Mikhail Khodorkovsky's Open press company, which was to expire only in the fall of 2022. But, fearing criminal prosecution, the editorial office decided to stop working now. Yulia Yarosh, editor-in-chief of Open Media, spoke about the details of what happened to RFI.
RFI: Julia, Open Media has been working for four years. I will not say that they were calm, but still they did not shut you down. What has suddenly changed? Why is such a decision now made, in your opinion?
Yulia Yarosh: It seems to me that the reason is obvious: on the one hand, there is growth – it is clear that a very small project that no one reads will not be dealt with. I cannot say that we are huge now, we are, of course, smaller than the same “Medusa”. But judging by the traffic, we had, in my best months, 20 million views on the site. Nearly 3 million subscribers across multiple platforms.
Over what period have you managed to achieve such indicators?
The maximum values were 2020 and the beginning of 2021. Since we are a news publication, our topics are politics and society, respectively, as soon as the political agenda revived, our traffic grew. There is nothing magical about it. In addition, we had resonant content and high citations. Citation rate is difficult to measure accurately, there are different ways. We focused on Medialogia, and in recent years our media has taken first places in social networks, since we have large social networks. They took first place many times, overtaking both Meduza and RT among Internet resources. In terms of citation in the media, we were consistently in the top twenty.
Are you now calling the numbers specifically for Open Media or for all of Khodorkovsky's resources, including MBKh-media?
Mikhail Khodorkovsky has many projects – it is better to talk about this with him. And they are not related to each other. As far as I know, he has two media projects – those that he recognized as his own. These are MBH-Media and Open Media. We have completely different editions, editorial policies, platforms. Open Media was conceived as a regular news outlet. It existed on a grant, created materials and news for this grant; naturally, we constantly hunted for exclusives. Investigations. We gathered a large audience. In accordance with the grant regulations, we needed to achieve KPIs by audience, by subscribers, by video views, by views on the site, by citation. As a rule, we achieved them. Of course, I know Nika Kutsyllo (editor-in-chief of MBH-Media – RFI), I remember her from Kommersant, but we did not have any contacts at work so that we would come up with something together, some publications … more joint publications with other media not associated with Khodorkovsky.
You have had a lot of investigations – in particular, in 2021, texts were published about the gasoline business by the Manturov and Vaino family, about the flights of Shuvalov and Sechin's planes during the pandemic, about the neighbors of Putin's palace. Maybe today's events are the revenge of one of the heroes of such publications?
The last investigation was about Shoigu … But, to be honest, I don't think this is some kind of targeted order. Rather, this is due to the fact that there will be elections on September 19. This is a somewhat paradoxical story. You've probably seen: VTsIOM conducted a poll and recorded that the political activity of Russians is at a minimum in 17 years (only 22% are going to the elections, in 2004 there were 55% of them – RFI). The paradox is that the audience is not particularly keen on the upcoming elections. Our news on this topic rarely got into the most read. But we, of course, worked it out, we are all a political publication, and this is one of the significant events of the year. The audience is not particularly interested in this, but in power, it seems to me (this feeling, not supported by anything), this topic caused the most irritation – more than investigations about some people. Small news about spoiler candidates, whose last name differs from the name of the popular candidate by one letter. Or the news that United Russia is sponsoring their own opponents. Or, for example, that video surveillance recordings from the elections will not be published, but a huge amount is still allocated to them. I do not understand why the authorities need to clean everything to the bare ground, why it is necessary to make sure that there is no criticism at all. I don’t know why this is so important, but I feel that, rather, it was for this reason that there was some kind of irritation about our project.
You have done well in terms of audience success. Why didn't you manage to monetize it?
Although monetization was not the goal, we truly wanted to achieve it. The project is being done by guys who previously worked in normal media – Kommersant, RBC, Vedomosti, Forbes magazine, Dozhd. These are large media outlets that live according to normal market laws – at least it used to be like that before. They live on advertising revenues and try to be as independent as possible from the owners, from some kind of injections, even if they are grants. Of course, we would be happy to have a large audience and monetize it over time. We had conversations with Khodorkovsky – that if it works out, we could engage in monetization, replacing the grant – in part or in whole. But on the whole, of course, this was a utopian idea. Because as soon as the project became noticeable, grew up in the audience, began to publish the quoted materials, it became clear that there would be no move for us. This finally became clear when, in 2019, we had three unsuccessful attempts to obtain a license from Roskomnadzor. The first time we were told that the photocopy of the editor-in-chief's passport was not notarized. Assured. They asked, where do you have documents confirming that the editor-in-chief has only one citizenship? This is a very common story, no one knows how to confirm the absence of a second citizenship. Bypass all the embassies and take certificates? Then we sued Roskomnadzor, because according to the law, it cannot demand more documents than is indicated in the regulations for obtaining a license. But we lost the court, as you understand. And then it became clear to me that we would not be allowed to grow to some significant size.
But the grant was coming to an end, what did you plan to do next?
The grant period was supposed to end in September 2022. I didn't make any plans because I thought we had another year in stock. I think everyone will be looking for work now. Khodorkovsky has an interest in continuing cooperation, but we have not yet discussed anything concrete, no details. I don't know what that might be. It is clear that there is nothing that would violate the current laws. Therefore, I find it difficult to say whether we can do something with Khodorkovsky further. But we are considering all the possibilities.
But right now, your employees are already determined to look for a new job, or is there hope and desire to keep the team?
If any of the guys find a job in the near future, I will be very happy. If we come up with something over time – with or without Mikhail Borisovich – I, of course, will also be happy to continue working with those with whom I have already worked. But I just don't know yet what it might be. I just really hope that no one will die of hunger, everyone will find some kind of shelter, will not leave the profession, will be able to continue to engage in journalism without making deals with their conscience.
How was the decision to close the project made?
Everyone asks about expectations. It is clear that we hoped for the best. Looking around what was happening with our colleagues, with other projects, we understood that, probably, an absolutely wonderful future was not waiting for us. We, of course, got ourselves lawyers from the very beginning and tried to do everything in accordance with the laws. We believed that if we did everything as required, we would work as long as possible. But what happened in the end? Some structures of Khodorkovsky were deemed undesirable. These are not our structures. Again, we have not received any notifications, clarifications, but judging by what RKN reported to RIA and RBC, the Prosecutor General's Office believes that our site is associated with these undesirable organizations. And on this basis, we can really get into big problems. This is something that could not be calculated and prevented. Our grantor has many different projects, and whoever wants to, they will always say – oh, this is Khodorkovsky and his one big team. I know it isn't, but I don't have to prove it. If someone thinks that this is so, they must prove. We have never had common tasks or interaction with other structures of Khodorkovsky. Otkritie Media is journalists who write what they want, talk to whoever they want. They ask the positions of all parties – it does not matter whether Prigozhin's position, government agencies, or even those whom we consider corrupt. We will definitely find out the opinion of all parties, we have been taught this way. I know that there was nothing illegal in our project, but there are fears that people who, for some reason, are interested in the destruction of all living things, may unfold this situation. So that we will be guilty of what we did not do. And we have to, out of fears that they will not be completely legal with us, to close ahead of time.
What exactly are the concerns? Criminal proceedings?
There is a Criminal Code, which provides for liability for cooperation with undesirable organizations. If Open Russia has been included in the list of undesirable organizations on the territory of the Russian Federation since 2017, of course, you cannot work with it, you cannot have a contract with it, because you can fall under this article. We had no experience of working with an undesirable organization, but it is clear that absolutely any person who works for Khodorkovsky can be blamed for the fact that he actually somehow interacted with it. I do not yet understand what the connection of our site with undesirable organizations may be, but it is enough for me that RKN gives such comments. I will not wait for someone to explain something to us and risk my freedom and my employees' freedom. You can wait not only for clarifications, but also for troubles.
When you do see the documents from the RKN, from a formal point of view, the blocking of sites and these formulations can be challenged in court?
You can try, but I think it's pretty useless. I'm not sure that we will have the strength, the means and the desire for this. The hope that the court will help us roll everything back and resume the project is absolutely scanty. Moreover, we already had the experience of a trial with the ILV in 19, but it did not end well.
How are the journalists in the mood? Are you upset?
We have a fairly young team, the guys are lively, curious, not afraid of changes. I would not say that there was someone drinking out of grief. Of course, everyone is a little shocked, because everything was happening very quickly. We were going to work next year, and when everything ends overnight, of course, people are a little confused. Until now, many points related to the closure of the project have not been clarified – issues with severance payments, some other things will be clarified for a while. But I do not see desperate comments, I see that everyone is trying to be calm, courageous, to think about the future. It seems to me that everyone will survive one way or another.
Mikhail Khodorkovsky thanked the journalists of his media projects for their joint work
“Political repressions, the liquidation of the institution of an independent court and elections, the gagging of human rights defenders and journalists, show the return of the Putin regime and Putin personally to the outdated Soviet model, adjusted for his personal greed and the greed of his entourage,” Khodorkovsky said in his Telegram channel.
