|
|
|
Grantees: The Big Three Much of the government and foundation pie for media activities in the NIS goes to three organizations, here profiled. The three vehicles are very different, though their goals converge at some distant point. There are others: the International Media Fund while well-known, has not been an active operator in the FSU. The Freedom Forum Foundations have been active, but it is self-funded. The Commission on Radio and Television Policy is almost quasi-governmental: from the beginning, its principal arrangement was at the level of official television and radio in the former Soviet Union. With President Jimmy Carter as co-chair, its actions and mode of operation has an almost ambassadorial quality. And as the Commission has developed, the members from the FSU are, almost invariably, representatives of the state media. The focus, too, is on comprehensive policy—affecting the way elections are handled, the way ethnic groups are covered and appear on radio and television. To be sure, there have been efforts to clarify and strengthen the role of independents, but that is not the Commission’s main thrust. The Russian American Press and Information Center is print-oriented, though not exclusively so. Its emphasis, from the outset, has been on providing resources for journalists, libraries and data bases, publications as well as opportunities for training. It is expanding, partly in fact, partly in vision, to include additional programs around Russia and assistance in management, ethics, journalism curriculum reform and more. Internews is centered almost exclusively on radio and television and on the so-called independent sector, to the exclusion of official networks. More than the other two entities, Internews is hands-on, involved in long term production strategies and the development of cross-boundary networks of information gatherers and distributors. Commission on Radio and Television Policy Established in the waning days of the Gorbachev Soviet Union, the initial idea of the Commission, in the palmier days of bilateral cooperation, was to provide a joint forum for the major networks in the United States with their opposite numbers in Moscow. The American chair, from the beginning, has been President Jimmy Carter, and from the beginning Professor Ellen Mickiewicz has been Executive Director. Professor Mickiewicz, noted for her scholarship on television and public opinion in the former Soviet Union, is a Fellow of the Carter Presidential Center and a faculty member at Duke. (The editor of this Newsletter is a member of the Commission). For most of the Commission’s short history, the co-chair from the former Soviet Union has been Eduard Sagalaev, a principal in the independent television company partnering with Turner Broadcasting System and formerly a leading official of the state broadcasting agency, the Union of Journalists and, from time to time, other organizations. With the breakup of the Soviet Union, the purpose of the Commission altered and the convenience of its reciprocal structure—the notion of an exchange between two great powers—had to evolve as well. While the focus has always been on policy concerns, there has, in the last two years, been a search for the right structure, the right membership, the right definition of objectives. Currently, the Commission meets once each year, rotating between the United States and the Soviet Union. The modus operandi of the Commission is to identify an important subject—television and politics, coverage of ethnic minorities, economics of broadcasting—convene a Workshop to analyze the questions and make recommendations and then to have the Commission consider and adopt them. One of the Commission’s most effective products was the book on Television and Elections, authored by Mickiewicz and Charles Firestone, translated into Russian and being considered for publication in Lithuania, Kazakhstan and Georgia in other places and in other languages. The book, based on the Commission’s work, was cited by the Russian government this fall as a basis for the media election law and the information tribunal. A similar book is planned as a result of Commission findings concerning the coverage of ethnic minorities. The Commission has helped in the drafting of media laws and ethical standards for independent broadcasters. It established, at its last annual meeting, an ad hoc business market for programs and other services for American suppliers and FSU consumers. The Commission has considered taking on some operating programs as, for example, an ongoing broadcast program exchange. But it has proved to function best at its consistent core: as a forum for bringing people together, for exchanging ideas, for exploring policy alternatives and drawing on the strengths of President Carter, Professor Mickiewicz and the FSU counterparts. In a new program, a group of Media Policy Fellows, mostly younger researchers from the FSU, will be brought to Duke, under the aegis of the Commission, combining training and research there with a week at CNN in Atlanta. The Commission’s main office is in Durham, with staff also in Atlanta and in Moscow. The principal current funding source for the Commission is the John and Mary R. Markle Foundation, which provided a $553,000 grant for 1994-1995. The Eurasia Foundation has awarded the Commission $111,759 for 1994 as well. In the past, it has obtained grants from the Ford Foundation of $50,000 (through the Carter Center), and Archer-Daniels-Midland. Internews By far the largest recipient of USAID funds is Internews, centered, oddly enough, in Arcata, among the redwoods of Northern California. Established in 1982, Internews was best known through the eighties as the innovative producer of spacebridges, two-way satellite hookups for dialogues across national boundaries. Kiev. Its Kiev project, awarded $7.7 million for the period June 1993 to May 1996 by USAID, seeks to have an immediate, high impact, profound and pervasive influence in the fragile world of independent television journalism in Ukraine. In terms of funding and activity, the Kiev project—established at a newly created and expanding International Media Center—is the equivalent of the establishment of a major military outpost, though here the battle is to change the nature of the press. The Kiev center has a kind of drama and flair that is characteristic of the ambition and style of Internews. Just off the drawing board, for example, is an electronic media production department that is said to yield two hours of news and documentaries a day and a Ukrainian National Press and Information Center. Sweeping names are often followed by dogged efforts to live up to the stated objectives. The Creative TV and Radio Center, for example, proposes to provide meaningful production grants for independent producers in Ukraine. The International Media Center has a staff of 20 and with a supply of hard to obtain dollars, it has been able to attract some of the best Ukrainian journalists. The IMC provides library and studio facilities, seminars and training for journalists and managers. Consistent with a general Internews strategy, the IMC has sought to bring together a grab bag of Ukrainian stations and operators, in this case creating UNIKA-TV from some 20 independent Ukrainian television operators. These independent stations are often part-time and use government transmitters, but they represent the constituency—rather than state broadcasters—that are the target for Internews. The Kiev project has engendered local jealousies and bitterness, largely because of the preemption of the “independent” role in radio and television by Internews-related organizations. Internews had the money, the talent, the Western contacts, the know-how. A reorganization is taking place in which the news service and network is being spun off from the Center. Some in the American broadcasting world have criticized Internews for inexperience and amateurism in its production efforts. Another indication of the ambition of Internews—not only in Ukraine but throughout the region—is its announcement of the “Open Skies Satellite Exchange” which will link independent stations and media centers across the former Soviet Union and Eastern and Central Europe for the exchange of news programs. “Windows” a weekly compilation program to be produced at the IMC, from feeds from its independent affiliates, will be part of the exchange. Independent Television in the FSU. Internews received $2.2 million for the two year period June 1992 to June 1994 to help develop independent television in the FSU. The implementation of the grant reflects the Internews approach to transition, though its impact is far more diffused than is true of the Kiev grant. The purpose was to establish an independent news distribution system—with the dream of yielding a competitor to the state-delivered television news system, though it begins with acorns, not even seedling oaks. To begin this herculean effort, Internews launched a systematic effort to identify and train television journalists at sites spread throughout the FSU. After a series of workshops, selected candidates were brought to Moscow for further training and were provided with equipment. Internews also began training the managers of independent television entities, ranging from part-time users of government frequencies to those with substantial audiences and greater independence. From a hesitant and delicate network of these stations, Internews Moscow coordinated production of a weekly half-hour news program called Local Time. Sixteen stations contribute stories from their regions. The program is distributed on satellite time on the Russian Gorizont satellite covering the area from Minsk to Ekaterinburg. Internews will provide satellite dishes (TVROs) to be installed at some of its affiliated stations, three of which obtained them this year. Internews Moscow also produces a series of programs on the Rule of Law hosted by Vladimir Pozner, to be shown in prime time on Ostankino. As an example, one program focused on “citizens’ rights as defined by the new constitution, especially ethnic intolerance and national minority rights, and how nationalism can be addressed through the political process and government action.” A special reallocation or amendment of Internews AID grant was used for televising debates and town meetings in some ten meetings and, as described in its last quarterly report, “to support balanced and objective coverage of the parliamentary and constitutional obligations.” The money was deployed to “provide technical support, funding and human resources to regional stations to cover the election and referendum campaigns in a balanced, objective and in-depth way.” According to USAID guidelines, agreed to reluctantly, one condition of using federal money was a strict requirement that the participating stations refrain from editorializing and provide assured equal time for candidates and parties. In keeping with its headstrong style and global perspective, a reflection of its two leaders, David Hoffman and Evelyn Messinger, Internews has developed a “Plan for Independent Television in the Former Soviet Union.” The plan is said to include detailed reports on the independent media throughout the area. Centers like the Kiev IMC are supposed to be implemented, in the near future, in Vilnius, Lithuania and Minsk, Belarus. The Russian American Press and Information Center Housed in Moscow in a graceful building of the US Canada Institute, the Press and Information Center (unhappily acronymed as RAPIC) is a project of the Center for War, Peace and the News Media, located at New York University, though it has joint sponsorship with Russian Academy of Sciences. The Center has received a $500,000 two year grant from the Carnegie Corporation, a $125,000 grant from the Eurasia Foundation and a $50,000 grant from the Winston Foundation. It has been designated for a $600,000 grant from USIA (using USAID funds under the Freedom Support Act of 1992). Other funds have been received from Freedom Forum, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the John Merck Fund (for a staff member for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Project), and the Mertz-Gilmore Foundation. The Center’s strategy, at least at the outset, was to promote “objective, fact-based journalism” by providing a place where databases, library facilities and an environment of inquiry and critical analysis would be encouraged. In a recent paper summary of the Center’s strategy, Robert Manoff, the co-Chairman of the Center, used the following categories to identify RAPIC’s objectives: building democratic institutions; promoting a civil society and public sphere; promoting informed public opinion and open policy debate; creating an information culture; educating journalists on specific issues; providing skills training; providing management training for media executives; fostering high standards of ethical behavior and professional conduct; strengthening the regional media. One of the most successful of the Center’s initiatives over the last year was its series of press conferences and seminars—more than 100 in Moscow and other sites. The Center, which has a staff of 22 (plus 5 in other cities) was the site of yeasty and substantive discussions exploring the rise of press censorship, providing a popular forum, as one Russian journalist put it, “not over-politicized and willing to give the floor to the representatives of the opposition.” Under a special arrangement, the Committee to Protect Journalists made funds available for a CPJ Fellow to be based at the Center, to gather and distribute information on violations of press freedoms throughout the FSU and to hold seminars on press freedoms. The Center published (during, and not after the election) a study on Russian media coverage of the 1993 campaign for the new parliament that was meant both as a test of the wisdom of particular regulatory approaches (such as the search for objectivity) and a model of developing critical studies of press practices. Examples of training sessions for journalists include a two day seminar on nuclear non-proliferation (“Covering Superweapons”) to provide writers with greater expertise on covering security issues and an advanced seminar on economics and business reporting. At the time of the 1993 elections for the new Parliament, the Center imported, under a USIA grant, a team of experienced journalists, including Ellen Hume of the Washington Annenberg Center, who met with journalists in sessions at several sites throughout Russia. Other seminar have concentrated on business reporting, environmental journalism and ethnic and national conflict. At the Center in Moscow is a library facility with librarians and a set of cubicles, each with monitor waiting, hooked into databases designed to help journalists become more research-oriented. The Moscow Center has access to Lexis/Nexis, New York Times on Disk; Postfactum Databases and other international sources. This library facility, which was the subject of a USIA grant, is a vital part of the Center’s contribution to the creation of a culture of information in Russia. The Center has ambitious plans for expanding its role as a national media resource center in Russia. It has already begun work in St. Petersburg, Nizhny Novgorod and Nobvosibirsk and it hopes to include a number of other sites (in southern Russia, the middle-Volga region, upper-Volga, the Urals, Siberia and the Far East). The Novosibirsk coordinator is Anatoly Zabolotyny, business editor of Sibirskaya gazeta. In St. Petersburg, the Center’s designate is Anna Sharogradskaya, a professor of journalism at St. Petersburg State University. The Moscow Center’s growth was fitful during its first year, more or less a start-up phase. Co-chair Manoff has articulated a “web” approach, reaching out to media professionals to enmesh them in programs that offer immediate assistance and are designed to promote “permanent, sustainable, institutional change.” In the second year, and after the appointment of Dr. Elisabeth Schillinger in June 1993 as co-director, the expansion of activities was marked. Dr. Schillinger had been a visiting professor at the journalism department of Moscow State University and had already developed a reputation as a scholar in the field of Soviet media studies. The Russian co-director is Vladimir Orlov. |
Last Updated: 11/20/99 |
|
© 1999 Post-Soviet Media Law &
Policy Newsletter |
