The Russian government panicked because of the publication of the “Bloomberg”.

“Fake” and “fraud” called the Russian diplomats graph of trust to Vladimir Putin that the U.S. Agency Bloomberg actually copied from the main website of the sociological service of the Russian Federation – to the polls. The Russian Embassy in the US is not like the figure of trust in Putin 27 percent. They require a different 67%. The state Duma called on the carpet head of the Russian branch of Bloomberg. Where the legs grow from this panic attack?

“Radio Liberty” dealt with the analyst of the Carnegie endowment Andrei Kolesnikov and sociologists Valery Fedorov (VCIOM Director) and Denis Volkov (Deputy head of the Levada center).

Elena Rykovtseva: Today the sun came out in the sense that Vladimir Putin for the second time during isolation in a new-Ogarevsky bunker went to Moscow. And the morning telegram-channels, in particular channel which is called “Boiling”, was showing us these pictures: the empty city, which the train rides is quite obvious presidential. All wondering why he was in such a huge part went to the Kremlin that he’s going to do? And suddenly, it was all for a meeting with the head of Russian Railways. We’re talking about the scandal connected with Putin’s trust rating. I’ll ask our guest Andrey Kolesnikov, did not go if he could raise the rating, about which we have gathered here today?

Andrei Kolesnikov: I think he just went to stretch my legs, I have a suspicion. Because everything happened at the Saltykov-Shchedrin: he was waiting for bloodshed, and he ate Siskin. Today, all stubbornly waiting for him to announce something on quarantine measures, their withdrawal is due to the fact that on June 24, the day of the 75th anniversary of the Victory day Parade in a symbolic way we will vote for amendments to the Constitution, for our victory over Germany in 1945 at the same time. But nothing happened. Meeting with Belozerov, of course, not required to travel to the city of Moscow, Belozerov could come to the bunker for Zuma can talk. In a sense, of course, the indication, the indication that, perhaps, a little bit you can loosen quarantine measures in Moscow. Someone even said it was a Hello mayor, how much can you tighten up, the boss came on the street can be a little popolarity seat belts. You can guess a million times, and on the other hand, it is possible to guess in the direction that the meeting with Belozerov was in September 2019. I told Putin that Russia is a special civilization, it turns out he said that fall.

Elena Rykovtseva: And a tuple is a simulation?

Andrei Kolesnikov: a Tuple can drive back and forth all you want. Absolutely is no problem. I think it’s a symbol of what it takes to release people from quarantine. May be true he was tired, he wanted to change the interior.

Elena Rykovtseva: If it is, if it wasn’t recording. Because while what we now understand is two things that the motorcade was driving and what we were shown of two people, one like Putin, on the other Belozerova, sitting in the Kremlin. When it was recorded, we can only guess. But we do not know today were going to talk. Happened during this time is atypical, unusual, fantastic story, the beginning of the Russian Embassy in the United States, published on his page in Facebook awesome text:

“One gets the impression that the article in Bloomberg written to promote fake charts and create sustainable about visual images about the “negative dynamics” in Russia.

This time the object of the fraud was the “ranking” of President Vladimir Putin. Citing polls schedule, according to which the figures are 27%.

The editors of Bloomberg continues to show total disrespect for their readers. Probably, hoped that they won’t check the sources and you will not find the actual confidence level of 67.9%.

Counting on the honesty of the publisher. Urge to exercise professionalism and objectivity, to place the actual performance of the trust and to apologize to his audience for the disinformation”.

The most fantastic in this story that link to these polls about 27% in this perturbed letter taken from the same website VTsIOM. That is, the information of the same Polls. These are two different figures 27 and 67, but they both belong to Vladimir Putin, they both relate to a rating of his confidence, just made these surveys by different techniques. Let’s see our story about what happened.

Elena Rykovtseva: it is obvious that the poll in which Vladimir Putin trusts 27%, is the same VTsIOM poll. Question to you: who should apologise for these figures?

Andrei Kolesnikov: I think that apology should come from those who made claims to “Bloomberg”. I know good people who are the authors of this article, I don’t understand why this is a Russian Embassy in the United States, these people work in Moscow. They are well versed in politics, the economy of the Russian Federation, are enough serious journalists. Schedule, given these journalists, on the website VTSIOM called “the Dynamics of trust in politicians.” If I remember correctly, this issue was only up to a certain time, which VTSIOM Meryl confidence (who of politicians you trust). Then, when there were some complaints VTsIOM figures by the same parent organizations, have a second question: trust or don’t trust so-and-so, such-and-such politicians? Also absolutely a legitimate question, VTSIOM gives these figures. It is not important in the outcome, it is important that in principle all indicators, Putin is slipping slowly, surely. I don’t know whether to call it a trend, will we have a rebound, but enough to seriously drop his ratings. Linked to this is the hysteria in the Kremlin, is linked to the concealment of information other sociological organizations measure the social mood of the population. This is related to scandals with the same Western media in connection with the figures on mortality, claims to articles that are very seriously on the basis of the techniques discuss a serious topic without any assaults on Russia, by the way. After that, there were many interviews with experts on mortality, that, too, seriously dismantle this problem. Symptoms of hysteria in the Kremlin, when you do not understand what is happening, what to do with it. It’s a habit to work with numbers so that these numbers misrepresent, to distort, to misrepresent and shout to everyone around that you’re wrong to interpret. Even interpretations, in fact, I have not seen in this article, they are simply not there.

Elena Rykovtseva: in touch With us Valery Fedorov, Director of the Russian center for public opinion research. I rewind a year ago when you introduced a new methodology, the second methodology of surveys about the trust of the most famous, the most authoritative politicians of the Russian Federation. The first technique is a secret poll, when you want to apply or you call and ask: who do you trust? In this procedure, Vladimir Putin, people who came to mind to call him, was 30%, now 27%. A year ago you enter another method when you clearly ask the person: do you trust Vladimir Putin? These people, who called Putin’s name, was 67%. What a year ago you took a second technique to enter?

Valery Fedorov: to help you and your colleagues not to make a mistake and not to mislead your audience.

Elena Rykovtseva: But after so many years “misled” why a year ago I needed to change something?

Valery Fedorov: We have forgotten that it was a year ago, but thank you for reminding. Why we entered it? Because it was too much juggling, too many misinterpretations, too much was sucked from the finger, pardon the expression, conclusions. Because when they say: according to Polls, 27% of Russians trust Putin – it’s not, absolutely not. When the data is obtained from responses to the question of where Putin’s name did not sound, but the 27% or 30%, the difference is not very big, those people who Wake up at night, without any prompting referred to Putin as a politician who they trust the most-your colleagues misleading: only the 27 or 30 trust Putin. But this is absolutely not true. Those whom we might call followers, fans, and each such policy is, someone more, someone less – it depends on many factors that change in time their number. But in addition to supporters in addition to fans, there’s always the periphery, there are those who are situationally adjacent to or, conversely, moving away. As in any football match there are so-called ultras who go to every contest with placards, shouting, in General, are sick, but they are always a minority, the vast majority of fans are people who want to have fun and allow yourself to do it a couple times a year at best. Say, for example, that for the “locomotive” only hurt those ultras, is, to put it mildly…

Elena Rykovtseva: …wrong. I’ll give you again a year ago, but all is quiet to this was, everyone knew who you interviewed and what question. Is it true that you are still blamed for the low numbers, I would like someone to tall?

Valery Fedorov: in this case We work as a thermometer. Will the doctor or the patient to swear on the thermometer? Of course, if he is intemperate, if not on whom to pour out his resentment for the increased or, conversely, lower the temperature, it can break the thermometer, especially if it is mercury, it is clear what the consequences will have all the room to save then. We have, thank God, the head of state are the people calm, Mature. My dear Andrei Kolesnikov, I think he’s with these people not talking, watching only from afar rather ascribes to them some kind of nervous reaction. I won’t say huge, but some experience these people have, they are quite sensible and people are quite rational, nervous reactions I there especially did not notice, especially lately. So, of course, different periods there are. There are situations when the rating increases, of course, is happy, is when he falls.

Elena Rykovtseva: Then it turns out that this is your personal panicky reaction happened a year ago, you personally decided what you journalists cringe? You yourself personally wanted these figures were like this and not the other, no you have not disturbed – it was your personal initiative to introduce the second method, which gave a much more lovely visual picture?

Valery Fedorov: If you need to find the author, well, I’m willing to be that author. Although in reality we have many bright minds, analysts who ate a dog on the art of asking questions. We have this kind of decisions are taken collectively, there are special regular meetings where we discuss our questionnaire and share produced a total, collective opinion. If you need a public person, then okay, I’m ready to take on this mission.

Elena Rykovtseva: I, of course, dreamed that she was sitting not in your organization, this person, but if your organization takes responsibility for the second method please. We now turn to name-calling and accusations. Embassy of the Russian Federation in the USA called fake this timetable, God knows what words it calls, object manipulation and so on. But “Bloomberg” took your schedule. Yes, there is such technique, there is a second, he took one of them. Please tell me how you can blame the “Bloomberg” that it publishes fake?

Valery Fedorov: when I was finishing school, deciding where to go, where to obtain education, as a way of life to build, I as one of the options considered MGIMO, I had these urges. But I come from a small provincial Russian town, of course, the language level that I could get, though, and went to a special school, was insufficient for admission to the University. So if you think I work at the Ministry of foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, then you too well think of me. If you have doubts about those claims that our Embassy in Washington have expressed, I recommend to contact him or the Department of press and information of the Ministry of foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. If to speak in fact, I am very surprised and annoyed by the fact that a highly respected professional staff of the Agency “Bloomberg”, illustrating his conclusion about what is happening with the level of support for Putin, decided to take from the variety of data that our website features regularly, only the data of this survey, which of course gives specific information on this subject, but it gives the least accurate and intimate information. He did not that, honestly, he did about how the media works, it is about memory and about the people that are included in the political process, very carefully following all the news. This proportion is not very big and is definitely not a majority among the Russian population. In the end, I don’t understand why it was impossible to dial my number, to call, in fact, colleagues from Bloomberg do this periodically, this time nothing had yet been done. In my opinion, this is just bad journalistic work.

Elena Rykovtseva: I’m Sorry, please, I think you would be careful with the word “memory”. Because of what you said just now, I isolate that 73% of Russians do not remember Vladimir Putin. So no need this poll, so memory link. They watch TV or not, but they remember him, but do not call as the person they trust. But most importantly, that not only the Embassy, there are also deputies of the State Duma call on the carpet the head of the Agency due to the fact that it publishes “fake” graphics. Your chart is called a fake deputies too. But you also expressed a number of complaints to this Agency. It turns out that you then have on your site, as I understand it, to invite the journalists to publish the amount of graphs. That is, you write: you are not allowed to publish one chart, one confidence rating, you will be obliged to publish at least two to ensure you didn’t wear out then to the State Duma.

Valery Fedorov: the data quoted dear “Bloomberg”, they took from our website. They took him from the material that we put out every Friday called the “Analytical review. The trust ratings for politicians, evaluation of the President and the government, support for political parties”. You can go to our website, and it continues to hang on the main page. You know, there is in this material, it is a small, two-page, given all the ratings, the trust ratings, and ratings, work, and the answer to the question of who of the four or five Russian politicians you trust most. It shows all this data in one small article. Colleagues from Bloomberg somehow took only one plate and ignore the rest.

Elena Rykovtseva: Because they did not write the material on the ratings of trust to Putin, they wrote material that in order not to hold a vote on the amendments on the falling ranking, he needs to do it quickly, otherwise the problem will be the vote on the amendments. They took one of ratings, which shows loss of confidence. If they have another rating, it would have shown a loss of confidence. You do the same for both ratings loss of confidence in the same percentage. Why should they publish a bunch of some pictures of the material that do not mean it? They just illustrated the point: there is a fall, so he is likely to vote on the amendments. Anything more than anything they didn’t want to show this picture. Why would they now? I once again want to show these graphs, a graph that has published “Bloomberg”, and the schedule, which is published on the VTSIOM website is absolutely the same schedule. Under this schedule is posted, the table is a very detailed listing of where each other are hanging these people, which the Russians trust the most. Vladimir Putin with 27% who insulted the deputies and diplomats, he in the first place. Shoigu 12%, Sergei Lavrov 10%, then goes Mishustin 9%, Zhirinovsky 7%, Zyuganov-4%, Sobyanin 2%, Medvedev 2.7%, Grudinin 2,4%, then there is the Bulk, Mironov. What’s wrong with that scene?

Andrei Kolesnikov: first, it reduces, but it can be seen on other charts. Secondly, the numbers look very unpresentable, the fact that below 30, as a not very serious look. Levada-center about the same question, there is 28%, which suggests that the polls were fair measures trust levels in accordance with this issue. Very similar data in fact, they differ in their nuances.

Elena Rykovtseva: a Year ago, VTSIOM has changed the methodology, rumor has it that stopped like this figure, 27-30 – it is not enough for Vladimir Putin, so it’s better this technique, when given a direct question: would you trust Vladimir Putin? Try to answer that you don’t trust. Figure really became more. You to the Levada center is measured by both methodologies, the rating of trust? You have the second method, which polls have introduced only a year ago?

Denis Volkov: We have not introduced this question, we don’t need. All of these issues that have long been used, they invented us, when we and my colleagues worked in the polls until 2003. We continue to use them and after started to work at the Levada center. I agree that perhaps some confusion is. In the article itself do no crime I saw. I read, watched, these figures are not even mentioned in the text. So a little weird for me – all this fuss around these data. Because data is not new, they are in principle familiar, the process of falling goes a long time. No General news, we did not know. Indeed, the “Bloomberg” like writing about something else entirely. Polls have a lot of money, he can ask any questions that you want. An open question, when we do not offer clues, we measure from the entire spectrum of politicians, who in the mind of Russians have, and their ranking relative to each other. If we ask a separate question specifically about Putin, to compare it with other policies, for each policy we need to ask a separate question. But there is simply no money is not enough to monitor this.

Elena Rykovtseva: That is what is proposed by VTsIOM figures or he himself suggested, just expensive. What they began to do a year ago, just expensive. To figure became more solid, they had to pay for it? Them or their customers?

Denis Volkov: Of Course. I understand that they are measured in different ways, different issues. To their credit, they did not hide the questions on the previous methodology, they are all available, and everything you can look at them. The more language the better. But just need always careful to use it, see, because confusion is in any case occurs if all this do not understand. If you ask a separate question for each policy, imagine that it extends your profile, the value of this research increases. You could ask any other questions on other themes with the same result, in fact, to look at the dynamics, what happens, how it changes public opinion. Because to record the change in public opinion is the most important, some specific figures are not so important, because it is not always a completely exact science, it is still an approximation, is much more important to see what the trend is, up or down. Now the trend is certainly down, I would say, with pension reform for sure.

Elena Rykovtseva: Let’s look at the results of our survey on Twitter. Today we asked: what is the April the rating of trust to Vladimir Putin? a) 27% for the first poll VTsIOM, b) 67% of his second method) 100% outside of any methods, d) the “no confidence” is also outside of any methods. And imagine that over 27% voted 28%, 67%, Putin believes that only 5.6%, 100% Putin – thinking about the same, 5%, and “no confidence” says 61%. What should be the rating of trust to Vladimir Putin for a second technique to Valery Fedorov has lost his job?

Andrei Kolesnikov: the question is very Cruel. I think 67% of them are not satisfied. At the beginning of the year was 73%, not too much, but more or less, it would be better higher. I would not want to Valery Fedorov to be dismissed, it is quite a professional person. Secondly, it depends on emotional factors those people from whom depends the fate of the man who leads this kind of structure. It is not very clear who these people are. We can talk about Kiriyenko, but if the breast-band under a tail gets Vaino or breast-band under a tail and get someone else, I say: this figure is 62 quite intolerable that he allows himself, a disgrace Denis said that the issue is not removed from the site, thereby neatly behaved. Honestly, the secret to remove this question it would be safer for Polls, so there are no misunderstandings and problems. So it all depends on the emotional state, it is clearly heavy.

Elena Rykovtseva: for Example what number will plunge them into complete depression?

Andrei Kolesnikov: I don’t know, however, is very individual. Imagine a 50 – psychological balance is disturbed. Still in favor of my thesis that they are hysterical, all the surrounding reality is crying about it. The situation with the numbers of deaths – of course, there was the first very serious call.