The arrest of Gleb Trifonov, editor-in-chief of the Telegram channel Baza, on bribery charges has sparked broad discussion. While some experts point to a similar recent case involving Ura.ru editor Denis Allayarov, others emphasize the distinction between Telegram media and official news outlets. A third perspective suggests looking at the broader implications of these events for the media landscape.
Gleb Trifonov, the editor-in-chief of the Telegram channel Baza, has been placed under arrest until September 20. He is accused of three instances of bribery, allegedly paid to law enforcement officials in exchange for information. According to the Investigative Committee, this case has already led to the detention of three police officers from various regions across Russia. Additionally, Baza producer Tatyana Lukyanova has also been arrested until September 20, facing charges of bribery as part of a group. The court proceedings were conducted in a closed session.
According to Trifonov`s lawyer, Alexey Mikhalchik, the bribery case materials indicate a total sum not exceeding 150,000 rubles, described as several unsystematic transfers. Mikhalchik explained the transactions by stating that Baza`s anonymous chatbot collected news from various users, some of whom requested compensation for their information. However, the lawyer asserted that the investigation has not provided proof that Trifonov specifically transferred money to public officials.
This situation suggests that, in this instance, the anonymity often associated with Telegram channels worked against its journalists. Previously, such anonymity was often seen as an advantage over officially registered media outlets, which are required to verify sources and adhere to numerous regulatory demands. While the Human Rights Council`s (HRC) Commission for the Protection of Freedom of Speech and Journalists plans to review Gleb Trifonov`s case, Pavel Gusev, the commission`s chairman and editor-in-chief of «Moskovsky Komsomolets,» believes authorities are attempting to bring order to those who have operated in the shadows and exploited this anonymity.
«We very often confuse media and mass media with structures that have entered the market to use information for their own profit and gain. They seek to outpace or in some way rephrase, reformat the information they obtain, shall we say, not through direct means, but through methods often used by the blogger community and many others who try to make money in the informational field. I have always defended and continue to defend the position that mass media should not be confused with various structures that operate by viewing information solely as a means to gain material benefit, and therein lies the whole problem.»
Gusev did not rule out that the Baza case could also impact the future of the registered media market. Other experts consulted suggest the issue is broader. They recall that just recently, Denis Allayarov, an editor for Ura.ru, was arrested on similar charges. Even then, experienced journalists noted signs of global shifts in the rules governing the entire media system. Konstantin Simonov, a professor at the Financial University, considers this trend evident:
«It`s clear that the state`s policy regarding the media sphere is becoming increasingly stringent. This is evident from the recently hotly debated law on prohibited information, its search, VPNs, and so on. But this is part of the story, so we understand that the state is systematically trying to control this sphere: the registration of ten-thousand-strong Telegram users, the slowing down of YouTube. And, indeed, this latest decision — and it`s certainly striking how quickly this last law was adopted and debated, which is also quite indicative. Therefore, a straightforward conclusion can be drawn here: the state is systematically tightening control over the media sphere. This, understandably, applies to traditional media, social networks, and messengers. That is, everything that today serves as key channels for information dissemination.»
According to Konstantin Simonov, if this process also achieves a certain «cleanup» and sends a clear signal to some law enforcement officers, it could be an additional benefit for certain parties. At another level, this could also indicate an intensification of elite rivalries.
Returning to the changes in media market rules, it can be summarized: what was considered «working with sources» for over 30 years can now be interpreted as bribery. There are indeed sufficient formal grounds for this. And since Telegram has become a very powerful media platform, channels that are de facto but not de jure media outlets are now being subjected to these same rules, which are being updated on the fly. Market participants are being informed of these rule changes retroactively, upon the initiation of criminal proceedings.
