|
|
|
Dangers and Opportunities for Independent Broadcasters A meeting in Moscow this June with several struggling independent television entrepreneurs, part of an evaluation visit for the Commission on Radio and Television Policy, turned up some novel perspectives on the difficulties of obtaining autonomy in the current environment. The entire situation of independent television stations is altering, with new dangers emerging in public policy, disfavoring independent stations, which must be taken into account. The economic structure of independence is changing, and that has implications—and opportunities—for the future. As to government, there is a proliferation of efforts by officials actually to use television, to produce and distribute information themselves so as to have greater control over the messages available to the public. This is reflected in the draft statute on the Coverage of the Duma, in which the Duma would have its own production capability and command time, at least on the state channels. In addition, many municipalities are gaining their own channels or participating in channels as joint ventures. Other points: a. Availability of programming is the lifeblood of independent stations. Many of them have made headway by the use of programming that was pirated or had questionable provenance. This system is being corrected, and that is as it should be. But while enforcement of copyright may be a good idea, in the current situation it may reinforce the power of state television. The intention may not be to stifle competition, but the elimination of piracy means that state-subsidized stations can be less worried about a competition dependent on pirated material. There has been no study to determine whether patterns of contracting for or distributing programming leads to discrimination that harms the small independent station (for example, whether the integrated ownership of Channel 6 in Moscow may mean that it is virtually impossible for any competitor or potential competitor who refuses affiliation to have access, at least on equal terms, to the TBS film library). b. Discriminatory pricing of transmission time also hurts independent channels. No details are available, on government pricing strategies, but the independent station owners suggested that government entities are specifically charged a lower rate than their private competitors. When the independents rent the microwave lines, the cost is sometimes twice the state channel. These differences are local. In Perm, according to one of the independents, the price for the signal was so high that development of television just stopped. The Ministry of Information establishes prices that constrain local officials who may wish to cooperate. In Ekaterinburg, the price of renting a transmitter has changed four times in the past years: doubling, doubling, tripling and doubling with the price set in Moscow. In addition, the Ministry of Information, in spring 1994, ordered that state television should, during a period in which the hours for state entities were to be restricted, for budget reasons, should not provide independent television entities with “windows” to transmit on state channels. c. One of the examples cited was that the state-run channels are free of one of the most substantial and important taxes affecting independents:. if they buy equipment abroad, they do not pay a 23% tax that the independents are obliged to pay. Similarly, the contention is that the charge for music rights and other intellectual property fees is higher for independents than for state stations, as a consequence of negotiations in which the state networks took part. d. The independents suggested that the market for advertising was being manipulated, consciously or unconsciously, to injure small independents. They claim, for example, that within the European Union, state broadcasters are limited in the number of minutes they have to sell so that there is a pool of demand for their competitors. Independents see the boundless appetite for advertising at Ostankino or Russian Television as a purposeful threat. They also feel that, with the benefit of their tax subsidies, these state monopolies can engage in predatory pricing, lowering the cost of advertising so as to limit revenues of their independent competitors. One recommendation was that in any community, there should only be one tax-supported broadcast entity. e. There is some possibility that the widespread use of judicial defamation actions, with large damage claims, can be an inhibitor of free expression, especially for independents. There does not seem to be any particular immunity for the criticism of public officials; quite the contrary is the case. f. Finally, the proliferation of government entities entrusted with “protection of the press” can end up being stifling. In the period of the “media wars,” prior to the dissolution of the Parliament, both the President and the Congress of Deputies had imposed governing boards to “guarantee press freedoms.” Competition to control the sphere led to greater constraints, not greater freedom. There is some indication that a new proliferation of competing “protectors” will emerge. The draft legislation for protection of the mass media published by a Duma committee this summer has been criticized on these grounds. Overall, there seems to be a need to establish a public ethic of recognition of independents. In some ways, this tradition has been easier to establish in the newspaper sphere where there are, no longer, government-established newspapers or government-run newspapers. There, a publishers association is forming for lobbying purposes, partly to preserve a strong public understanding of the role of journalism and emphasizing the need for a government policy that supports an independent press and that assures accessibility to printing presses, subsidies, distribution system and newsprint. There is no equivalent commitment on the electronic side to non-government entities. There, the commitment is to state television, perhaps as somewhat transformed and somewhat privatized. Small “independents” can function, but they are, at best, tolerated and, as indicated, often subject to discriminatory practices. Perhaps because of this general situation, there is a transformation in the independent television sector itself. Larger agglomerations occur: at least three entities now seeking to expand and become satellite-distributors with networks of affiliates. Early practices in the chain broadcasting rules: what control must be established for the local station. In the near future, the shape of the independent sector will be formed, whether there will be several large national competitors (with players like NTV, TV6, and the St. Petersburg Storyfirst group dominating), and whether smaller independent stations will survive. Internews has been working with such stations to establish and Independent Broadcasting System. As inevitable consolidation occurs, the question will arise whether there are any standards for public affairs and cultural programming for local independents as opposed to turning on the faucet and acting as agent for one of the emerging private networks. |
Last Updated: 11/20/99 |
|
© 1999 Post-Soviet Media Law &
Policy Newsletter |
