In a recent exchange, ballerina Anastasia Volochkova spoke about her experience with a well-known television figure. She recounted that he had a role in a film produced by NTV titled “On the Same Couch,” a project connected to Ksenia Sobchak. The production included a six-hour video shoot featuring Sobchak for the YouTube channel “Attention Sobchak,” which drew wide attention across viewers.
Volochkova made it clear that her stance toward Sobchak was not one of condemnation. She emphasized that she does not harbor resentment toward the journalist and does not view him as an enemy. Instead, the dancer expressed a wish for Sobchak to find sincere personal happiness and described him as someone who is kind and intelligent.
In her remarks, she added a hopeful note: any missteps in Sobchak’s life or the harm he may cause others should be taken as lessons and experiences that could guide him toward greater kindness and humanity. The conversation underscored a belief in personal growth, even when public controversies unfold in the media.
On February 12, Sobchak announced his plan to pursue legal action, including defamation claims to defend his honor and dignity, following the broadcast of the two-part film about him on the NTV channel. He also indicated plans to sue for alleged content theft from YouTube and social media platforms.
Sobchak described the film as a disturbingly sensational effort to cast him in a negative light, saying that the program relied on information about his homes and movements that appeared to be sourced from his own social networks. The statements suggested that the material presented as investigative was, in Sobchak’s view, a compilation of fragments designed to persuade viewers of a particular narrative.
NTV previously issued a response to Sobchak’s decision to pursue legal action, noting their position while asserting the editorial independence of the program. The exchange highlights how modern media projects can spark legal and reputational debates when personal lives intersect with public storytelling.
The episode reflects broader tensions in contemporary television where high-profile figures navigate public scrutiny, legal risk, and the responsibilities of media outlets in portraying private life through curated narratives. Observers note that such disputes often lead to renewed public discussion about factual accuracy, consent, and the boundaries of journalistic inquiry in entertainment-focused broadcasts.
As the situation develops, audiences are left weighing the dignity of individuals against the public’s appetite for insight into personal histories. The dialogue surrounding this case illustrates how celebrity, media production, and the courts increasingly converge in an era of digital distribution and rapid information sharing. The enduring question for viewers remains: where should the line be drawn between reporting, commentary, and the protection of individual reputation?