Belarus
On December 22nd, the “Sovetskaya Belorussiya” newspaper
was published with blank spaces on the first two pages, where the editors
had intended to print the report to parliament of Deputy Sergei Antonchyk,
dealing with corruption in Alyaksandr Lukashenko’s government. Supreme
Soviet deputies were outraged, saying that such a thing had previously
only happened during the First World War and during the time of the State
Committee for the State of Emergency in 1991. Igor Osinskiy, editor-in-chief
of the paper, reported that on the evening before publication, he had received
a phone call from the Belarussian Printing House, subordinate to the President’s
administration, warning that the newspaper would not be published if it
contained Antonchyk’s report.
Similarly, according to BBC reports, editor-in-chief
of the “Narodnaya Gazeta” newspaper, Yosif Syaredzich, told the Supreme
Soviet that the presidential administration had banned an issue of his
paper and that the Belarussian Dom Druku Printing House had been ordered
not to supply print to newspapers which attempted to carry Antonchyk’s
report. Syaredzich said that, at the request of a group of deputies
and trade unions, his editorial staff had hoped to print the minutes of
proceedings at the Supreme Soviet on December 20th when Antonchyk made
his allegations. According to Syaredzich, Leanid Sinitsyn, the head
of the presidential administration, had told him that “the calumny stated
in Antonchyk’s report will not be carried by any Belarussian newspaper
until a commission verifies the facts that Antonchyk cited.”
On the 22nd, Parliament issued a resolution asking Lukashenko
to take action against officials responsible for the media blackout and
sack the head of state radio and television. It also asked him to
“take decisive measures on protecting the rights and freedoms of Belarussian
citizens,” although it did not directly accuse Lukashenko of ordering censorship.
An editorial in the government daily Zvezda made the point that Lukashenko
would be hurt the most by the censorship. “Leaders who permit such
things cast suspicion on their commitment to democratic principles and
freedoms,” it said.
Ukraine
The Supreme Council of Ukraine on December 2nd passed
the first reading of the law of Ukraine “On News Agencies” without defining
their status as those engaged in a specific activity, their institution
and registration procedures, and their rights and responsibilities.
Under Article 26, a news agency bears no responsibility
for supplying information that does not conform to reality, defames individuals
or organizations, or violates the rights and interests of individuals.
It also bears no responsibility if it obtains this information from other
mass media, if this information is contained in a reply to an enquiry,
is a verbatim reproduction of speeches by officials or materials published
by the mass media with reference to the former, or if a journalist obtained
such intelligence unlawfully. Nor is a news agency responsible for
changes to the original by the consumer who, in supplying it, edited or
abridged it.
Kazakhstan
Radio Max, the leading independent radio station in Kazakhstan, stopped paying salaries to its staff late last month after the government froze its bank account. The account was frozen because of a debt for two million tenge in back taxes. Sergei Duvanov, vice president and head of the news department, says that Max has since demonstrated to the government that the bill cannot be more than 500,000 tenge, but the account is still frozen. Max still plans to begin broadcasting, Duvanov says, despite financial problems.
St. Petersburg
In a now-familiar litany, there’s a threat that St.
Petersburg’s Channel 5 will shut down or curtail coverage unless it can
pay the booster or translator channels. Some of the stations which
carry Channel 5, including those in Omsk, Ulianovsk, Zlatousk and Tiumen,
were threatening to change their affiliation to NTV.
The inevitable problem of money was overshadowed by
a bitter dispute concerning Bella Kurkova, the long-time director of Channel
5. The nationalist Duma deputy, Alexandr Nevzorov, whose program
“600 Seconds” had been often condemned and sometimes censored (by Kurkova),
charged Kurkova with serious financial infractions. As part of the
charge, Nevzorov contended that it was illegal for Kurkova (and her fellow
officer Viktor Pravdiuk) to be founders of a new private television channel.
Daily Variety, in a January 10 story, pitched the events
as yet another pro-Yeltsin, anti-Yeltsin dispute over channels of communication.
A parliamentary no-confidence vote in Kurkova seemed, however, based on
financial improprieties. Support for Nevzvorov’s claim among Channel
5’s workers may be construed, as well, as a fight for jobs by employees
facing drastic downsizing in the face of budgetary exigencies. Employees
of Channel 5, worried about their fate, have called for a new management
team at Channel 5 and have sent indignant letters to President Yeltsin.
The future of Kurkova and the metamorphosis of broadcasting
entities may be most interesting displayed in the future of the new channel.
That company, called Telekanal 27, is being established jointly by British
backers, perhaps ITN, and officials from the Mayor’s office, as well as
executives of the old Channel 5.