Moscow Letter:The death of Alexander Litvinenko may have proved an irresistible spy story across western Europe, but the Russian media remains disdainful towards it, despite the well- known national love of a good conspiracy story.
Perhaps most surprising has been the overall lack of coverage, rather than the precise tone of much of it. Although there is a wide variety of newspapers, talk radio stations and TV channels in Russia, the story just hasn't demanded great interest and when it has, it's generally been in step with the Kremlin's view.
In fact, Russian journalists haven't jumped to the same conclusions at all as their western counterparts, about who was behind the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, although a few unexpected theories are being aired.
Amongst the most lurid rumours, aired on Ekno Moskvy radio this week, was that Mr Litvinenko may have left behind a video, containing accusations about President Vladimir Putin's personal life. The possibility of a planned suicide, intended to blacken the country's reputation, has also been mentioned, although it has been dismissed in London both by friends and family of Mr Litvinenko.
For some reason, though, few have rushed to blame the country's intelligence services for Mr Litvinenko's death, limply looking elsewhere - if they look at all - for alternative causes.
Kommersant, which is considered the national paper of record, wrote about the various theories behind the death, including both the suicide allegation and the possibility that he died naturally from cancer.
It was also suggested that perhaps another mystery poison had in fact killed Litvinenko after he handled contaminated paper and that the polonium 210 was only a ruse to mask it.
However, many papers do report the possibility that the polonium 210 which killed Litvinenko may have originated in Russia. Whoever was behind it, the former KGB agent's death "threatens to damage further the Kremlin's reputation in the West regardless of who masterminded it and why", reported Izvestia.
It is widely believed that the Kremlin has significant reach into the editorial decision- making of the three main TV networks and also carefully watches most large circulation publications. However, it does not mean that critical voices do not appear anywhere.
Nevertheless, even in the most recent edition of Novaya Gazeta, the usually robust biweekly paper, where murdered journalist Anna Politkovskaya had worked, there was scant coverage, confined to a mention in a report on last week's EU-Russia summit in Helsinki.
Perhaps the paper has been more focused on the security of its own staff, after the editor-in- chief revealed that two journalists there had received death threats in recent days.
One had been investigating his colleague's murder and the second was following the ongoing tensions in the Caucasus.
Elsewhere, the tone and positioning of articles sought to play down the significance of the death, avoiding the obvious link to the long list of previous KGB victims or that the poisoning might be another attempt at suppressing critical voices, like that of Ms Politkovskaya.
For example, reports after Litvinenko's death in Saturday's government-friendly Rossiiskaya Gazeta only made page three and even then, it took great account of President Putin's comments in Helsinki, robustly rejecting any connection.
The popular tabloid, Komsomolskaya Pravda, which has a circulation of more than two million, also took the same line, although it also managed to both point out Litvinenko's "forgotten" status at the same time.
"The potential list of those who stood to benefit from Litvinenko's death is a long one. One thing is certain, however: a scandal such as this one was not something in the interests of the Russian authorities in the run-up to the signing of a new agreement between Russia and the EU. It is now being used to put pressure on the Kremlin . . . The poisoning of a dissident who'd almost been forgotten has kicked up a tremendous fuss. If the truth is ever learnt, however, it will be only once the fuss dies down, although it was precisely for a scandal to erupt that this crime was committed," it suggested.
Since the poisoning first became public, another quite uniform line has emerged, looking first and foremost to Boris Berezovsky and not the country's intelligence agencies as the perpetrator, out to damage national interests.
The comments from the Duma's United Russia deputy, Alexander Khinshtein, that Litvinenko's death "is only advantageous to Berezovsky" were widely reported, while the accusations from London-based emigres against the Kremlin were not.
Although the exiled London- based Russian billionaire Berezovsky was apparently both a friend and benefactor of Litvinenko, he has been accused of offering him up as a sacrifice, in order to weaken the image of Mr Putin.
But on a website owned by Mr Berezovsky, there was one clear voice of dissent. One commentator on the popular portal grani.ru wrote the death was a "catastrophe" for the country's image internationally.
"It is very difficult to talk to a country which poisons political opponents with thallium or something else," wrote Yuliya Latynina.