Vanity and the New Duma:  Establishing a Press Service, Regulating Coverage, Punishing Its Critics

        On 27 May, the State Duma, snubbing President Boris Yeltsin, established its own television and radio service.  In so doing, the Duma seemed to renew a very mild form of last spring’s “media wars,” the wild confrontations between President and Parliament that led to dissolution and furious conflagration last spring.  Vyacheslav Kostikov, Yeltsin’s spokesperson,  condemned the Duma’s action as “reviving encroachments on the free airwaves.”   The new service of the Duma will have a staff of almost 50 and will report on its activities.  Though it was not clear when we went to press, the Duma’s action may also have reserved a period of time—30 minutes or so—on state television for broadcasting the new service’s product.

        Law on Coverage of Duma.  The action of the Duma has a remote relation to the initiative, taken by Mikhail Poltoranin, and discussed in Newsletter #6, to establish a formal law for coverage of official acts.  That draft law, which has passed its first reading, is printed on pp.  7-10 of this issue.  The document is clumsily written in the original Russian, and we have been faithful to it in translation.  Of this proposed law, our Advisory Board member, Aleksei Simonov has said that “it is the same as regulating the mirror so as to tell it what image to reflect of its owner.”

        The Svanidze Affair.  On May 13, Nikolai Svanidze, the Rossiya TV commentator, reported that Vladimir Zhirinovsky had promised $500 to each LDP deputy in the Duma who voted for Zhirinovsky’s version of the budget.  The report gave rise to the latest sturm and drang in the history of Parliamentary ability to affect the press.

        The LDP demanded that Svanidze be removed from his position.  The Duma, taking the LDP claim seriously, requested a transcript of the program.  Based on the transcript, both the Duma’s leadership and Svanidze’s superiors at Rossiya TV concluded that the statement was inaccurate.  The First Deputy Chairman of the Duma, Mikhail Mityukov wrote Rossiya rendering the demand for dismissal more of an official one.

        Oleg Poptsov, chief of Rossiya TV, announced that Svanidze would not be fired, but he would receive a “disciplinary rebuke” for his “professional error,” particularly because the statement could be interpreted as a political attack on the LDP faction in the Duma.

        The LDP staged a walkout  because “the faction refuses to take part in the Duma’s work until it shows who wields power  in the country.”

        The head of the Judicial Board for Media Disputes.  Anatoly Vengerov, informed Ivan Rybkin, chair of the Duma, that the complaint of the LDP raised a question for the Judicial Board and indicated that the Board would render a decision.  Rybkin argued to the LDP faction that the Board was the proper forum for a decision in accordance with existing law.

        Ukraine Accreditation Sanctions.The tense relations between Ukraine and the Russian Federation has raised important issues concerning the rights of foreign correspondents to accreditation.

        All during May, Leonid Kravchuk, President of Ukraine, had stated that coverage, on Ostankino and in other Russian media, was biased on questions concerning Ukraine, and that the consequence was a weakening of support for the state.  Then three Ostankino journalists working in Kharkov, Donetsk and Odessa were denied accreditation.  The question was whether this action was in retaliation, was the start of a “media war” or had some other basis.

        An adviser to the Ukrainian Embassy in Moscow, Vadim Doganov, contended that the action was specific to these journalists and was  because of “nonobjective reporting” by them.  He claimed that the government acted in accordance with the new Ukrainian Media Law (See Newsletter, #7).

        A protest statement was issued, May 25, signed by Aleksandr Yakovlev, Oleg Poptsov, Boris Mironov, Vitaly Ignatenko, Vsevolod Bogdanov, Ivan Laptev and others.

        Old-fashioned censorship?  The RF Committee on the Press, the official agency headed by Boris Mironov, has been issuing “post-publication” censorship-like warnings, according to Vladimir Orlov, co-director of the Russian American Press and Information Center.   An official warning, for example, was sent to Izvestia, on the ground that a report titled “War and Peace in Suburbia, “served to rouse ethnic intolerance and discord.”

        Party TV.  The LDP decided to establish a party-oriented television and radio company called Zhirinovsky Falcon.  Zhirinovsky was named chair, with Aleksei Mitrovnov in charge of daily operations.  The LDP company will produce films and television programs, including commercials and will produce the programs for regional television entities and cable networks.

        Mongolia.  Punsalmaagiyn Ochirbat, the President of Mongolia, has ordered work to start on a law ensuring freedom of the press and the mass media.  According to the president’s press service, the statute should authorize state bodies to have their own publications for official documents and for comment and official information on these activities.  The service acknowledged that while pluralism “has become a reality,” the media are still not independent of political parties and the government.

        Estonia.  The Estonian government ended retransmission in Estonia of Ostankino on the ground that the Russian government has not made the requisite payments.  The Estonian action is consistent with a pattern elsewhere in the post-Soviet sphere.  Communications workers—who received relatively hard currency from Ostankino—scrambled to make up for lost income by raising the rate for local production and other services.  To compensate, state subsidies had to be increased.

        A report in Izvestiya by L. Levistsky on 12 April comments on a dispute concerning Rhava Haal, Voice of the People, one of the most popular and influential papers in Tallinn:

        Following Estonia’s proclamation of independence, Edgar Savisaar’s government made ‘Rahva Haal’ a state joint-stock company.  Throughout this period ‘Rahva Haal’ has been the Estonian state newspaper.  It has upheld its interests and those of the Estonian nation vigorously, forthrightly, and not always objectively in my view.  In terms of its number of subscribers it is Estonia’s second newspaper.  While ceasing to be an official press organ de jure it remained one de facto.  But the journalists, primarily the editor and the editorial collegium, did not identify the state with the latest government, or the Estonian nation with the ruling Fatherland party.  Journalists consistently opposed the government’s economic and social policy, and the authorities evidently grew tired of putting up with this opponent.  ‘Rahva Haal’ was put up for privatization.  Young and rich entrepreneurs from Fatherland party circles won the tender.  But the “victory was so equivocal that the privatization council, scared at society’s abrupt response, immediately canceled the results of the tender.

       Following the abortive cavalry charge with kroon in hand the government carried out a purely political attack—and dismissed Editor Toomas Leito.  Even the protection of Europe’s organizations of journalists did not have an effect although the government is usually sensitive to European opinion.  In last autumn’s municipal elections, the Fatherland party suffered a major defeat.  There will be parliamentary elections in a year’s time, and the Fatherland party is in a hurry to assert its ideological monopoly .  .  .  .

        Khazakstan.  Nursultan Nazarbayev, the President of Kazakhstan, has “reorganized” Kazakhstan State Television and Radio.  The existing company is to be dissolved and recreated under the direct administration of the government.  According to a dispatch on April 4, the head of the new entity would be Leyla Beketova, formerly the director of a local private and commercial channel.  She will report directly to the President.

        ITAR-TASS reported that the reorganization was caused by sinking ratings for state television—faced with stiff commercial competition.  Under the decree, the President has the power to appoint (and presumably disappoint) the director.

        Turkic-speaking countries.  A conference of heads of press agencies of Turkic-speaking countries—including Turkey and Cyprus as well as the Central Asian Republics-—met in mid-May in Bishkek, Kyrgystan.  The representatives  resolved to construct “a concerted information policy .  .  .  in the joint defence of national interests” including a  joint bulletin which would publish news of an economic and cultural nature.

Last Updated: 11/20/99

© 1999 Post-Soviet Media Law & Policy Newsletter
Designed and maintained by Peter Yu
Web Policy