Small liars from the RBC channel. Igor Vittel? Igor Vittel: "There has been a complete degradation of the journalistic profession"

Bloggers are killing journalism, real analysts don’t go on television because they do serious research and can’t “tie two words together,” and the country is on the verge of a major economic disaster that we all need to survive somehow. Well-known TV journalist, RBC journalist Igor Vittel spoke about this and many other things during the online conference of Realnoe Vremya.

Internet in every madhouse

“Recently in GUM I had to run into a paid toilet. The cashier, who was sitting there, says: “Igor Stanislavovich, don’t you remember me?” - I say, no, I don’t remember, - “But I often visited you on the air, now here.” Therefore, I say: “Guys, having been on the program with me, remember where everything can end.” With such a bitter-tasting story, an online conference with RBC journalist Igor Vittel began.

Almost the first topic of conversation with a federal journalist was state propaganda. Vittel noted that many people who are far from the media get the impression “that in the morning they begin to broadcast the president’s instructions directly into our brains.”

In fact, propaganda is not when they broadcast to you from behind the Kremlin wall what to say and what not to say. This is when you start broadcasting your own beliefs, passing them off as the ultimate truth. Or you start, if there really is a pro-government journalist, to sincerely believe in what you don’t believe in outside the frame, Vittel noted.

Propaganda is not when they broadcast to you from behind the Kremlin wall what to say and what not to say. This is when you start broadcasting your own beliefs, passing them off as the ultimate truth.

Now in Russia and the world one can see the general decline of journalism. This is influenced not only by ideologization, but low quality education and decline general level intellect. Much of the responsibility for this lies with in social networks and the Internet, Vittel says:

People who would not have been allowed to clean toilets before now believe that they are outstanding bloggers, gathering a certain audience, precisely through propaganda, broadcasting accessible ideas.

<...>With the advent of the Internet, there were people who could not be allowed to do anything. And everyone has mania, they all sit, click their fingers and write all sorts of garbage, but they think that they express an opinion. There is some madness going on.

Professional journalism with the advent of the Internet has not raised standards, but has fallen to the level of bloggers.<…>Where are the youth? I come to the students - my eyes are burning. And they start to open their mouths - it becomes scary. At least the books would go read, or something, - complained Vittel.

It's scary, it's scary<…>Both Western and Russian journalism now they compete not in who is better and more professional, but in the fall of standards in the profession. Just deepen the bottom. And today I don't know who is worse - "Russia" or the BBC, - says Vittel.

Ruminant analytics

In addition to the decline in the general level of journalism, the level of analytics has also noticeably decreased, the guest of the editorial office believes. In his opinion, real analysis is now being replaced by "simple chewing gum." Moreover, this situation is developing again both in Russia and in the world as a whole.

All television analysts are just "shine face" and earn their own media capital, says Vittel. Even those who come to his program. The real analysts "sit in their underground" and few people know them.

Serious analysts - they can't even say two words on the air. And the TV needs something else - they need Zhirinovsky.

When they say that we are a country of gas stations, on the one hand, you want to “smack you in the face” for such words, and on the other hand, you realize all the correctness of these words

"Don't choke, don't kill"

Perhaps the most striking part of the conversation can be considered a discussion of the current situation in the country. Vittel says Russia has long been on the brink of an economic disaster.

If those people who brought it to the brink of an economic disaster continue to run the country, not realizing that this economic disaster must be eliminated (I'm talking about the government now), then it will be really bad.

At the same time, people of the “generation of janitors and watchmen” will be able to easily go back:

We always manage to cling to the ground. And the generation of young people who grew up in fat years, they can’t withdraw into themselves. They are accustomed to live, as it seems to them, in an amicable way.

Vittel considers President Vladimir Putin very lucky: “As they say in the cards, lucky. If he gets lucky again, then we will slip a short distance. If he does not get lucky, and the country will take up the mind (both he and the government), then we will be in a long time.

“For 31 years, we haven’t sat down and thought: “OK, the Soviet Union is yuk, that’s it, no Soviet Union. Let's build guys new world. What should he be? When they say that we are a country of gas stations, on the one hand, you want to “smack you in the face” for such words, and on the other hand, you realize the correctness of these words, ”says Vittel.

He also noted that he considered perestroika the most difficult and terrible time through which the country and the Russians passed. He hoped it wouldn't happen again. “If we fall into this hole again. What can I say. In the end, this is not what they experienced, ”Vittel is sure, in the end,“ we will somehow get out ”:

Our country was killed, plundered for centuries. Everyone is alive! Stop burying yourself! Just because we have idiots in government doesn't mean we're idiots. We have great people with hands and brains in every city, in every garage. Yes, it died, but perestroika broke it. But still alive. Thank God they are alive. Yes, Fursenko and Livanov buried education - they didn’t bury it! And we will live!

Julia Krasnikova, photo by Maxim Platonov

As it became known today, on May 13, the management of the RBC media holding fired several "top" employees at once. This is the editor-in-chief of RBC Elizaveta Osetinskaya, Chief Editor news agency RBC Roman Badanin and editor-in-chief of the newspaper Maxim Solius. According to CEO RBC Nikolai Molibog, the reason was the disagreement over the future of the holding.

After that, some RBC employees said that they would "leave for their superiors,"

"IN Lately we talked a lot about how to further develop RBC, and in these conversations we could not reach a consensus on some important issues, so we decided to part ways. I want to thank Elizaveta, Roman and Maxim for their work and for their contribution to the development of the company," Molibog said in his message on the RBC website.

Of course, the “opposition public” has its own opinion on this matter. Ever since Gazeta.ru reported that Mikhail Prokhorov plans to sell the media holding, there has been talk of pressure on "independent media" represented by RBC. Say, now "people in gray" came for them. The seething only intensified when it became known about the investigative actions against persons and companies, most likely associated with RBC. And now - a loud dismissal. Which, of course, will already become reasons to talk about the "links of the fucking chain."

In reality, as it often happens, everything is much more prosaic than "the struggle of free media against totalitarianism and censorship."

According to the statement made by the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications, the upheavals inside and around the media holding should be connected not with politics, but with purely economic reasons. According to Deputy Minister of Telecom and Mass Communications Alexei Volin, "the owner of RBC had every reason to be dissatisfied with the activities of his company's management for many years."

The holding, as Volin said, has long been unprofitable - and the current leaders of RBC either did not want to do anything about it, or could not. “As there was a hole with debt, it remains. His managers were generating losses, not profits,” Volin explained. Information about the state of RBC's finances is quite accessible. So the words of the Deputy Minister are easy to confirm.

In 2013, the losses of the "independent infoholding" amounted to 407 million rubles, and in 2014 - already as much as 1.5 billion. That is, the situation has not only not improved over the year, but has become much worse. The total amount of debts of RBC for this moment is no less than 17 billion rubles.

It is not at all surprising that in such a situation the company is strongly “shaking”, there are rumors about the sale of a “unprofitable asset”, details of dubious financial manipulations emerge that attract attention. law enforcement, and now here - high-profile layoffs follow. Since it is obvious that the current management has brought RBC to a completely deplorable state.

As for politics, there are complaints against RBC in this area, and there are quite a few of them. True, not because they are "independent". On the contrary, judging by some data, they are very dependent. From foreign funding. Last year it became known that RBC, as well as the notorious Dozhd TV channel, are sitting tightly on British and American financial flows. And this year - a new scandal, already with German funds allocated for "promoting democracy and Western values."

Such formulations have not deceived anyone for a long time: behind them in ten out of ten cases is ordinary anti-Russian propaganda.

And now, in reality, a situation is emerging in which the greedy and rather mediocre management of RBC, selling at a higher price right and left, still failed to cope with its duties and brought a large and once successful media holding to a deplorable financial situation. And instead of admitting mistakes and correcting the situation, our opposition begins to blame the Kremlin for everything. And to be sold to the West for a small penny.

Where this approach leads is clearly seen from the ratings of the political part of the opposition tending to zero. The media, however, also has an audience - and this audience, if we continue in this spirit, will also rapidly decline. Not because the "totalitarian regime" introduces censorship. And for quite natural reasons of organizational and professional unsuitability.

And finally.

Are the oppositionists so fond of talking about "the hand of the market" and "an honest free economy"?

Well, here's the hand of the market:

"RBC Holding's shares jumped 7% on Friday evening on the news that a number of top managers left the company."

RBC came to "success"

- You came to TV journalism in 1991, 25 years ago. What are the biggest changes since then?

In my opinion, there has been a complete degradation of the journalistic profession. A profession that should get to the bottom of the matter, analyze and try to figure everything out. Now it is propaganda, and from all sides. There are practically no normal media left in Russia or in the world that would really try to engage in professional journalism in the form in which I understand it. About the world, of course, I turned down a lot, but the latest BBC exercises about Putin are no different in better side, but rather they even go for the worse from what, for example, the Rossiya channel is doing. RBC recent years developed in the direction of normal journalism"

Both sides of the barricade turned out to be occupied by non-journalists. But then, for example, RBC: how objective was it before the dismissal on May 13 of the editor-in-chief of the RBC newspaper Maxim Solius, editor of the news service Roman Badanin and their editor-in-chief Elizaveta Osetinskaya?

I probably shouldn't talk about RBC from the point of view of corporate rules. But it seems that in recent years RBC - the website, the newspaper and the magazine - have been developing in the direction of normal journalism. RBC is one of the last remaining islands of objectivity. In recent years, RBC has managed to assemble an interesting team, which, unfortunately, left the other day. All perturbations, fortunately, have always bypassed RBC-TV, and I do not expect anything to happen to him.

- Will you stay at RBC if it ceases to be such an island of objectivity?

I will definitely leave. I do not like some of the ongoing processes, but I would not like to expand on this.

- In general, would you like to be engaged in journalism and run your program until the age of 80, like Vladimir Pozner?

No. I'm not sure I want to do journalism all my life. In the form in which it is. There are some other projects, partly related to journalism, which I am doing and will continue to do. There are some good professional journalists. Our generation has them and, thank God, they work. Even in those publications in which, in general, you do not expect to see them.

Regarding the milestones in the development of Russian television journalism. There was the capture of Gusinsky's NTV, the destruction of Berezovsky's TV6. Are there others?

I wouldn't measure dates like that. It kind of developed gradually. And I can not call it strictly a regression. For example, the RBC-TV channel was originally not quite journalistic. He recruited a lot of people who had nothing to do with journalism. Because it was very difficult at that time to find journalists who understand the economy, and RBC - good example when a professional journalistic team was created from non-professional journalists.

It is one thing for economic journalists, and another thing for economic literacy population. How high is it in your opinion?

Generally speaking, it is, of course, low. Because a literate population is unlikely to take microloans and use such services. And even before microloans, there were a number of banks that gave loans at 70%, and this indicates low literacy. But on the other hand, I travel around the country and meet people. Some people themselves have perfectly learned to deal with their finances and trade financial instruments. And they talk professionally on these topics, they have something to talk about.

If we talk about the kind of journalism that you do at RBC, are there any topics that management asks not to raise?

There is no such. I have never been approached with such requests. There were complaints, perhaps, about not very correct coverage of some (as it seemed to the then authorities) topics. And so, to be banned - this was not the case. “People working at Dozhd firmly believe in what they say, but that’s why this is propaganda”

You said that journalism has come to naught, propaganda has remained. Here is the TV channel "Rain", for example. Do you attribute it to journalism or propaganda?

Propaganda has changed a lot. The people who work for Dozhd firmly believe in what they say, but that's why this is propaganda. Now the media paradigm itself has changed. If earlier a person watched TV, read newspapers in order to find out something, today he turns on TV solely in order to hear confirmation of his point of view. That is, if a person firmly believes that the Ozero cooperative stole everything in Russia, he turns on the Dozhd TV channel in order to hear it and not hear anything else. Because all other channels cause him to have epileptic seizures and a desire to turn them off. Well, there are some compromise options like RBC. But in general, people don't need information. They need emotions that match their emotions.

- It turns out that journalists replace objectivity everywhere own views? But it has always been so.

If a person is sure that everything is happening, he broadcasts it. This does not mean at all that someone from above or below says to him: “Yes, you will say this and that ...” This is just your own conviction, which is broadcast as the only true opinion. The same representatives of "Echo of Moscow" claim that they invite different guests, and this is true. But the leaders just all belong to the same camp and very aggressive. It is simply a broadcast by certain people of certain thoughts to a certain audience.

- Do you consider yourself an objective journalist?

Well, most time yes. I can be biased, because I also have my own beliefs and I also defend them. And for me there are people who are unacceptable for me on my air. That's probably why I'm not a very objective journalist. “They are, in my opinion, sincere idiots”

- Who will you never invite to the air in your life?

I am ready to argue with anyone, if this person has at least a minimum IQ. Borovoy, for example, I will not invite. Because there are people with whom you can discuss, and with whom you cannot. For me personally, it seems idiocy to argue with the same Borov.

Well, this is the first galaxy of market businessmen. Konstantin Natanovich, and there was also the Alisa exchange, German Sterligov.

Sterligov is simply crazy and always has been. And Konstantin Natanovich is just an apologist for the invisible hand of the market, which will put everything in its place. Indeed, this is the first galaxy of businessmen, they sincerely believe in all this. They cannot be blamed for any kind of bias. They are, in my opinion, sincere idiots. Moreover, some of them changed and turned into people with whom I communicate with pleasure. In particular, with the same Irina Khakamada. Now this is a person whose opinion I'm interested in. “Our government, with rare exceptions, is people who harm the country”

How would you briefly describe your beliefs?

Can't describe briefly. I was invited on the air from one very well-known channel and clung to the topic: which side should you put on - statesmen or liberals? The answer was: “I am not a statesman and I am not a liberal. I have my own beliefs that do not coincide with either one or the other. For some, I take the liberal side, for others I am quite a statesman.” The editor fell into a state of stupor: “Well, we can’t do that. We need to get you somewhere." In general, participation in the air did not work. It is impossible to describe my beliefs from these positions. As for domestic economic policy, I believe that our government, with rare exceptions, are people who harm the country. Concerning foreign policy I support her a lot. I believe that the country is in a very difficult situation. But the people who consider themselves to be in the liberal camp are also not useful, just like the government in power. Well, what should I do about it? This is my position, if so briefly.

- How do you relax? Or not before?

I rest and travel. But it's still work. For me, any trip is always a work of thought on some new project. Traveling in Europe, I mainly deal with the history of the First and Second World Wars. This is my hobby, and instead of looking at some sights or having a quiet drink in a bar, I start digging up data unknown to me. And then it usually pours out into some new project.

- It was never a business, of course, a favorite thing, although it all started as a random story. At the time of the creation of RBC-TV, I lived abroad, flew to Moscow to visit. I was born and raised in the Russian capital, but then long time didn't live. And he arrived just when the TV channel was being created. I was offered to work, an author's project appeared, it became my "child". This is my joy, my pain, for almost fifteen years now. Now the child has grown up, and perhaps our paths will part.

Is this your inner feeling or the channel's policy?

- Together.

- Do you have a big team?

- The team has changed a lot, and now five percent of the first RBC-TV team is left. The creators of the channel have also left. The crises of recent years have also had an impact. My team is almost gone. I have not been working for more than a month, I will soon make plans, perhaps there will be a new project, but I can’t say yet which one and where it will be implemented.

I am very grateful to the people with whom I started and worked all these years. I hate it when they say “a unique journalistic team”, but in this case, perhaps the formula is just right. When the fathers of RBC-TV, especially German Kaplun, a great visionary, in my opinion, they began to create business television, everyone laughed at us and said: “What is business television in Russia ?! There are no private investors here. Which Bloomberg? Which CNBC? Nobody will watch it." And the leaders answered that they would watch it, and not even on TV, but on a computer, everyone would always have RBC-TV rolled up in the corner of the screen. And so it happened. I am extremely grateful that they believed in me. The formation of the channel coincided with the time of absolute freedom in the media, and in Russia, and I had no restrictions, either commercial or political.

Now RBC is more professional, recognized in international community a company where everything is made according to samples and patterns, everything is as it should be. But the time when we started was an era of cheerful slovenliness and professionalism, it was freedom.

Undoubtedly, Herman was able to do a great job: to bring to television non-professional journalists who have no idea about the economy, and economists who usually cannot connect two words, and all of a sudden they started working together, and for several years, I think, this was the best channel in Russia , and now, I hope, will be.

- Do you still think of your future with a certain author's project?

It is impossible to predict the future in our country. I can't work on federal channels. And RBC was and remains, probably, the only television channel in Russia now that allows, as my dad says, to happily combine some things.

I recently explained to journalists of one federal channel why I would never come to them, although sometimes I visit Channel One. I sometimes trade in my conscience, but I never trade in my organs. RBC allows you not to trade either conscience or organs yet.

- The Vittel program has not been released since the end of July, but for the audience it is still relevant now, the releases on the Internet are being revised. Were there cases when, as a result of a discussion on the air, you changed your point of view on a particular issue?

“You see, a journalist who takes up arms, in my opinion, is no longer a journalist. You can change your mind, take someone's position solely in order to ignite the conflict further, the conditional conflict, of course, is on the air. Have I changed my position? I don't remember.

Still, my position is to stay above the fray. But the fact that the opinion of my guests is not on the air, but in general makes me think and then think for a long time, read - this is so.

— Is the problem of inviting guests to the discussion topical for you? Whom did you find difficult to persuade to participate in the program?

- As for the guests, there is a certain circle of good talking people, who now and then are invited to the air of various media. I myself am an expert on a number of federal TV channels. If we talk about serious specialists, whom I would like to see, but they did not come, there are none. Mikhail Gorbachev did not come, but due to his age and state of health he had the right to do so. Definitely, the problem of guests who are sane and able to say something, it always exists.

- From what position do you follow the response of the audience? You do not hide the fact that you read comments on social networks, but there are always a lot of populists, there are just sick people, and so on.

“This is a sore subject for me.

Close people persuade me not to pay attention to every idiot who wrote nasty things about me. But I can't, I'm always worried.

Moreover, when people say good things about me, I am grateful to them, but these praises do not touch me too much, I cannot say that I am happy all day afterwards. But if someone writes nasty things, even a frankly sick person, then I feel bad for a long time. But, thank God, I have an outlet - a fan club.

When I left RBC for the first time, it was a very difficult, emotionally torn moment for me, and I survived it thanks to very close people and my fan club. I never expected that so many people care what I say, now this is my barometer, I check with them. I know they worry when I'm not on the air. Then, two years ago, when I left RBC, it was a shock to me that people came and wrote a petition asking to return me to the air, although I then said that I myself had left. These people are still with me, their number is multiplying.

- And how many people are in the fan club now?

- The basic backbone is about one and a half thousand. This is my regiment, they will tear for me.

— Are they not only citizens of Russia?

- Not only, the program is watched everywhere. An elderly woman in a tracksuit once approached me in a clinic and said that she lives in Japan, and, unfortunately, they only show me there on the Internet.

— Do you face censorship?

- Hardly ever. Lucky, I guess. There were a couple of hints, but no more. And the fans in the fan club ask if I get instructions on what to say and what not to say. And even for them, people who believe me, it is difficult sometimes to prove that no one is broadcasting anything to me. Maybe they give instructions to my superiors, but, apparently, I have a smart boss, they did not convey this to me.

I know that after my programs they called and were indignant, sometimes very unexpected responses came, you never know where your word will respond.

People catch, like locators, what can be said and what cannot, like a cat: it moves its ears and knows that it’s better not to go there. And I'm not a cat, I walk by myself. Maybe they preferred not to mess with me, as with a blessed one.

“Today, some people imagine that the Internet is a space of freedom. However, the slogan of the Party of Growth "for the freedom of the Internet" says otherwise.

- The other day in Russia, Roskomnadzor closed two large porn sites, and there was such a joke that the party that would remove this restriction would win the elections. But seriously, when they tell me about the impossibility of developing a country without freedom, I cite China as an example, where there was no live journal, Facebook was blocked, and so on, but the country is developing. Do we want to live without freedom, probably not. But we do not need access to porn sites, but to other resources.

I am for any freedom of thought and speech. Everything that is not related to specific violence has the right to exist. Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is unacceptable to me, as well as any persecution of people under this article, even if I do not agree with them.

Anton Nosik says absolutely unthinkable things to me about the bombings in Syria, but I think that it is monstrous to prosecute him under this article. My acquaintances were persecuted under the same article for calling “stop feeding the Caucasus”, this should not happen either. Freedom of thought and speech must be absolute. A person has the right to doubt anything. This is my position.

I support the position of the "Pariah of Growth", which singled out the freedom of the Internet as a separate item in the program. The Internet must be free. Yes, there should be no child pornography, but freedom of thought and speech should not be restricted.

- Among the recent high-profile resignations and appointments, the resignation of Pavel Astakhov and the appointment of a new Minister of Education of Russia, Olga Vasilyeva. Could you comment?

- In "The Adventures of the Good Soldier Schweik" the character says the following phrase: "Lieutenant, do you have a gun? If I were you, I would shoot myself." So, in the place of Pavel Astakhov, I would have shot myself after the words that he uttered about the tragedy in Karelia. Resignation is the minimum. He claims that he is an officer, but for a Russian officer, this is a shame.

As for the Minister of Education, after what Fursenko and Livanov did to our education, we would not want to wait for the worst. I can’t say anything about Olga Vasilyeva yet, just like about the new children’s ombudsman Anna Kuznetsova.

In this regard, a difficult situation is highlighted: on the one hand, I am talking about freedom on the Internet, but I do not consider disgusting on the Internet to be acceptable. What happened when a new ombudsman for children's rights was appointed was a bacchanalia, a stream of insults, and no attempts were made to understand what and how, to read and understand, finally, to find sources of information, as journalists are supposed to. We clung to a few of her quotes and away we go. This is so disgusting to read. I open the Internet and see how Anna Kuznetsova’s words are being mocked, perhaps taken out of context, or maybe not taken out, but what do they have to do with the profession of an ombudsman?! Her job is to protect the children. She hasn't shown herself yet. Freedom of speech should not turn into freedom of insults. And I want journalists to work professionally.

“By the way, both positions are now occupied by a woman. How do you feel about women in politics?

- Only positive.

I believe that the president of Russia should be a woman. And if Oksana Genrikhovna Dmitrieva or Irina Khakamada became president today, I would only support them.

My friends Marina Akhmedova, Alena Popova - politicians- now they are doing a lot for women's politics in Russia. I have a very bad attitude towards feminism, but very well towards women in political positions. I think it would be ideal for Russia.

- You were born on April 1st. Do you feel the influence of this day on your destiny?

- This is very strange story, the fact is that both me and my native brother, unfortunately, now deceased, were born on April 1 with a difference of 9 years. And I was always bullied, and I still have parents circus artists, so I often heard that they apparently turned out to be great pranksters. I am a pronounced Aries, that's for sure, but about the date - no, I don’t feel much influence.

Do you believe in fate and what do you believe in today?

“I can’t say that I am a fatalist. Talking about God can be too long. Faith is in the heart. Yes, I believe in what exactly, I do not want to say.

Interviewed by Nina Maksimova

Photographer Sergey Tuganov

Although Igor Vittel is undoubtedly my favorite, I still wanted to dedicate my first post about petty liars on the RBC channel to Andrei Sapunov and even began to prepare material. But I came across an article onWikipedia about Igorka and could not resist. Painfully entertaining was this little fellow! The study of the biography, creativity and achievements of such a grandee promised real pleasure and promised to significantly extend life, because every minute of sincere laughter, as you know, prolongs life by an hour. The fact that there will be something to laugh at became clear from the first lines of the read article. And even a cursory glance at a selection of photographs of puffed up posing turkeys, issued by Yandex on request "Igor Vittel" clearly confirmed that the laughter would be both effervescently sincere and long.

And I couldn't resist...

So, get acquainted:

A star of Russian and world economic journalism, a charismatic (is it really from the word "mug"?) TV and radio host, consultant and producer Vittel, who combines his hard educational and other activities directly aimed at making money with open sympathy for Ernesto Che Guevara and, for a second , ... to Hugo Chavez!

Yes, it was the passionate Colonel Chavez, who gave the Venezuelans, among other similar joys, the queue for toilet paper, is his idol.
I immediately admit that the holistic image of this multifaceted character I didn't get it right away.

Who is he, Vittel Igor Stanislavovich: a petty liar, a clown, a baboon suffering from narcissism or a loser splashing with bile, angry with constant failures with women? Or is it mixed with a little bit of all the poop of matter?
It took a lot of time to come to a very definite conclusion:

Vittel is no petty liar. And not even a jester, as it often seems when you see what funny faces he makes on his shows and what frank nonsense he says, keeping a serious face on his comical face. Remember the story of Abramovich's arrest in the US and a live telephone interview with "Dorenko"?

But he is not a jester and not a petty liar, he is just a loser , who, by chance, got on a third-rate TV channel. Mother Nature joked, combining in his body and character a funny appearance and narcissism, a mediocre mind and a painful self-importance, richly flavoring this mixture with hatred for people in general, for women and more successful men - in particular. And the past years have added a whole bunch of complexes.

I'm sorry, but Igor Vittel doesn't fit into the category petty liars and is not of interest for the corresponding study. Characters like him are entertaining precisely as a set of hidden psychological problems and phobias. We will return to them a little later.