The presidential administration advised state and loyal media outlets to use the word “ban” as rarely as possible in their coverage. Meduza reported this, citing employees of pro-Kremlin publications.
According to the outlet, these instructions began coming from the presidential administration several days ago. Sources also said editors were asked to write less in general about “bans, restrictions, and fines”, especially amid preparations for the September elections and falling approval ratings for the authorities.
As Meduza reports, editors were not told what wording should replace the word “ban.” As a result, media outlets began shifting to more neutral language. For example, a ban on filming drone attacks in Moscow started being described in publications as “restrictions” or a “tightening of security measures”.
The outlet’s sources claim that instead of news about new restrictions, editors were advised to write more often about the “positive initiatives” of United Russia members, including statements against certain bans and the easing of rules for importing medicines.
One political consultant working with the presidential administration told Meduza that this was an attempt to reduce the negative information climate surrounding bans. He noted that most such measures are initiated by the security services, and the presidential administration is not prepared to confront them.
“A ban on bans is simply putting a brave face on a bad situation,” he said.
Similar messaging has already appeared in the authorities’ official rhetoric. On May 19, Vladimir Yakushev, head of the general council of United Russia, said the party was “not a party of bans” and urged lawmakers not to descend into “prohibitionist absurdity”. About a month earlier, Vladimir Putin also said the authorities should not “fixate on bans” because that is “counterproductive”.