|
|
|
Rule of Law and the Media Several recent developments in the former Soviet Union quicken reflections about the “rule of law” and its application to government mass media policy. Recent decisions and statutes, some published in this and other issues of the Newsletter, underscore the importance of a habit in government of saying what the law is in advance and then following it. A related aspect of “the rule of law” is the existence of checking opportunities, opportunities of review, that assure that government bodies are, in fact, adhering to the stated norms. For those who search for elements of “freedom of the press,” one is the ability of editors and publishers to anticipate the response of government and to challenge illegal government acts. Uncertainty chills information flows. The action of the Judicial Chamber on Information Disputes—the new entity created by the government and described in earlier issues of the Newsletter—is one example. Recently, it issued a decision having to do with objectivity and accuracy, recommending that the editor of Express-gazeta be fired. (See Signs of the Times section). Allegedly, the paper used information that was neither reliable nor impartial. It probably did not help that the character of members of the State Duma was impugned. The question is whether there will be recourse to test the validity of the Chamber’s decision—and it may be within its power—and to determine whether the Chamber has, within its quiver, the right to urge the dismissal of editors. At the birth of the Chamber’s predecessor, the Information Tribunal—created to adjudge information disputes during the December election—the problem of scope of jurisdiction arose almost immediately. Quite understandably, the Tribunal criticized the fact that the head of Ostankino, Vyacheslav Bragin, was maintaining his broadcast position while running for the Duma. Bragin withdrew from the race, partly because of the Tribunal’s actions. And that was probably prudent on his part. But it was not clear that Bragin’s action was proscribed by the regulation giving the Tribunal power. The new entity may have done something that was desirable, but outside the rule of law. The award of broadcasting licenses in Moscow—and probably elsewhere—follows a similar pattern. Recently NTV, Igor Malashenko’s strong, bank-backed challenge to state television, was awarded provisional use of a channel by presidential decree. This was probably a good thing, though it is not at all obvious that it was done in a lawful way, particularly in light of Article 31 of the Russian Law on Mass Media which places licensing in the hands of federal and regional commissions. Several other institutions need “rule of law” scrutiny. These include the Committee on the Press and the Federal Television and Broadcasting Service. Boris Mironov, the Chair of the powerful RF Committee for the Press, published a statement on 30 March 1994 in which he condemned Obshchaia gazeta for its report about the alleged coup (the so-called Version No. 1), calling it “a deliberate step directed at destabilizing the society and undermining the constitutional authority.” He castigated as “political adventurers” those who “question the indisputable fact that Russia is now on its way to national accord.” It’s worth noting that the Judicial Chamber exonerated Obschaia gazeta a week later, calling the Press Committee statement overly hasty. There needs to be constant review, as well, to insure that subsidy policies are clear and followed objectively so as to minimize discriminatory practices. And even in the area of defamation, some monitoring is desirable to assure that, under the guise of law, lawlessness does not return. Of particular concern here is the increasing use of broad-scale discrimination actions to muzzle the mass media. Deputy Vladmir Zhirnovsky, for example, recently boasted of the dozens of libel actions he and his organization have filed with the clearly-stated goal of intimidating publishers and broadcasters by the threat of financial insolvency. The evolution of a rule of law—and its institutional and critical framework with respect to mass media—ought to be a continuing focus fort hose concerned with the transition. |
Last Updated: 11/20/99 |
|
© 1999 Post-Soviet Media Law &
Policy Newsletter |
