Post-Soviet Media Law & Policy Newsletter
Issue 18 Benjamin
N. Cardozo School of Law May 23, 1995
Growing Pains at Russian Public Television
1. This is the condensed text of an interview conducted by Aleksei
Pushkov with Sergei Blagovolin, the general director of RPT Moskovskiye
novosti, No. 22, April 2-9.
[Q] As I understand it, the state holds a controlling
block of shares in RPT, and it finances 51% of your expenses. Does that
mean that you are going to work for the government and for the President?
What are the criteria for your political line?
[A] Our criteria are the country’s stability
and prosperity, which cannot be attained unless there is rather broad concord
among various political forces. Forces that understand that what is at
stake is stability within the framework of a normally functioning political
system, not the stability of a concentration camp, and prosperity in the
true sense, not the monstrous universal leveling that used to pass for
prosperity.
[Q] What effect will the presence of the state
have on RPT?
[A] Well, we don’t hide the fact that we want
to help to implement the current political course, supporting not so much
particular individuals as the overall direction of the country’s development.
But this does not at all mean an absence of criticism, for if there is
no criticism then everything we say will be like firing blanks. As far
as interference by specific persons in the broadcasting network is concerned,
we have agreed — and I am going to follow this guideline very strictly
— that there will be no interference with respect to specific questions.
[Q] Not even with respect to such important
questions as Chechnya or the presidential election campaign?
[A] No. Naturally, if the President or the
Prime Minister comes to me with a request, I will be prepared — as would
an executive of any television company in any country in the word — to
consider that request. But there simply will be no day-to-day interference
by high-ranking officials, let alone by middle-level bureaucrats. s.
[Q] Your founders are eight major banks and
companies that, through the head of the Olbi concern, Oleg Boiko, have
urged that the elections not be held, citing the interests of stability.
[A] But the most important thing is that Boiko,
as I found out by asking him, didn’t say that!
[Q] However, the head of the Capital City Bank,
Aleksandr Smolensky, also urged that the elections be postponed in an MN
interview a week ago. Don’t these sentiments by certain of your founders
mean that RPT will support the kind of stability that involves not holding
the scheduled elections?
[A] We wouldn’t even think of that. Our objective
may be the best result for the elections, but it is not, in a narrow sense,
the success of any specific political parties. It is often said that Blagovolin
is from Russia’s Choice. However, I left the party when I became RPT general
director. . . . Under no circumstances will preference be given to any
specific political parties. . . .
[Q] What will your political line with respect
to the war in Chechnya be? The Independent Television Company [NTV] takes
an openly critical stance, and the Russian Television and Radio Company
is also rather critical. What will your position be?
[A] RPT broadcasts must present various points
of view and varying positions. But what our channel will not broadcast
is deliberate lies about what is taking place. Lies that, incidentally,
have been carried by many television outlets in the country. After all,
one can condemn the way everything has been done in Chechnya from both
a political and a humanitarian standpoint while basically supporting the
need to smash the Dudayev regime. Or one can oppose that military action
as such. But you cannot use lies as an argument. This has undoubtedly been
done by the government side (at any rate, for a certain period of time,
after which the situation began to change for the better from the standpoint
of information availability), but it has also been done and continues to
be done by many opponents of the Chechen campaign.
So, we will provide an opportunity to speak out
both to those who take a position close to our own and to those who take
an opposing position, but on one very simple condition: Please be so kind
as to use facts. . . .
[Q] What about advertising on Channel 1? After
all, you have announced that you will not carry any advertising for one
three-month period. What about after that?
[A] I would like to make a very significant
clarification here:
Our moratorium on advertising will not end three months from
now. It will be extended — not for all eternity, of course, but so far
we aren’t even thinking about a resumption of advertising.
[Q] But that means outright losses for your
private founders!
[A] Those private companies are prepared to
bear these losses for the time being. We don’t want to add advertising
headaches to the numerous problems we already have. . . .
2. The Current Digest of the Post-Soviet Media carried a story
by Aleksei Kirpichnikov published in Sevodnya, April 6 under the headline
“The Duma Wants to Turn Off Public Television.” Here is the complete text:
Russian Public Television began broadcasting on April
1. In doing so, it ignored the draft law “On Special Procedures for Privatization
of State Television and Radio Organization,” which the State Duma had adopted
on first reading. The draft stipulated that television and radio privatization
is to be conducted on the basis of a special federal law, and that privatization
in this area is suspended until such a law is adopted. The actions taken
to privatize state television and radio were declared to be legally invalid,
and the President and the government were instructed to bring their decisions
on the Public Television joint-stock company into line with the Duma’s
draft law.
The suggested action did not occur, however, and the
start of broadcasting by Russian Public Television [RPT] gave rise to the
prompt adoption yesterday—on third reading (which was moved to earlier
than usual), that is, as a whole—of the law “On Special Procedures for
Privatization.” Moreover, the text has been enriched with the fruits of
further creative activity by its authors—the Chairmen of the Duma’s Committees
on Property, on Labor and on Information Policy: Sergei Burkov (New Regional
Policy [NRP]), Sergei Kalashnikov (Liberal Democratic Party of Russia/Zhirinovsky’s
Party) and Mikhail Poltoranin (Russia’s Choice), respectively.
As a result, the original document’s article on the
suspension of privatization pending adoption of the law was supplemented
by another article containing four more suspensions, which halt: RPT broadcasts
on Channel 1; the allocation of money from the budget to RPT; the extension
to RPT of the legal procedures for economic management of the All-Russia
State Television and Radio Company; and the issuing of licenses to the
television and radio companies, with property and broadcast time divided
between Ostankino and RPT.
The draft law that was adopted as a whole is accompanied
by a Deputies’ appeal to the President. The Duma members are asking the
head of state to suspend his November decree on the founding of RPT, its
easy-terms financing and its broadcasting on Channel 1, giving as a reason
for their audacity the claim that violations of the Civil Code and the
Basic Principles for the State Program of Privatization After July 1, 1994,
were committed when Public Television was set up and that there were also
some ambiguities with respect to the choice of RPT’s cofounders and their
percentages of its authorized capital.
Despite the respectful tone of the appeal, the President’s
reaction is predictable. Therefore, the question arises of whether the
Duma will be able to muster the two-thirds vote needed to override a veto.
But that depends on the positions taken by the factions, which yesterday’s
vote on RPT divided into three groups: Suspending the privatization of
state television was supported by almost all of the Agrarians and Communists
and by nearly all of the Deputies from the Democratic Party of Russia,
the LDPR/ZP, Women of Russia and NRP; by approximately half the Deputies
from Apple, Stability and the Party of Russian Unity and Accord and half
of the independent Deputies; and by 5% of the Russia’s Choice Deputies
(1.7% was Mr. Poltoranin’s vote). A total of 276 Duma members voted for
the draft law, and finding the remaining 24 votes among absentees of undecided
Deputies will be a rather simple matter.
3. This is a condensed version of an article by Antonina Belyayeva
which appeared in Nezavisimaya gazeta, April 8. It was titled “RPT IN DANGER.
‘We’re Going to Continue Operating,’ Sergei Blagovolin Says.”
Russian Public Television operated in relative tranquillity
for only a few days. During that time, five new programs went on the air.
RPT executives had planned a meeting with the press after the first week
of broadcasting. However, they had to meet with the press, instead, to
discuss the proposed federal law “On Special Procedures for the Privatization
of State Television Organizations,” which was adopted on third reading,
and which jeopardizes RPT’s existence.
Present at the press conference were Sergei Blagovolin,
general director of RPT; Irena Lesnevskaya, general director of REN-TV;
and Aleksandr Lyubimov, vice-president of the ViD Television Company and
a representative of the Association of Independent Producers. . . .
At the press conference, it was noted that the law adopted
by the Duma is not legally valid: RPT is already operating and is already
using Channel 1 in accordance with the President’s decree. The RPT journalists
said that “Field of Miracles” [Pole chudes] will go on and that RPT will
continue broadcasting. What specific measures the RPT board of directors
will take could not be ascertained. If the President does not veto the
Duma’s federal law, it is quite likely that RPT will go to the Constitutional
Court. The Duma’s law will be sent to the Council of the Federation for
consideration next week.
[Sergei Blagovolin] I have not
yet thought about the possibility of meeting with the President on this
decree. Let everything take its natural course—there are laws in our country,
I hope. The Duma’s law is at variance with other laws, and above all with
the President’s decision. We were ready to address the State Duma in order
to present our viewpoint on RPT, and we are ready to address the Council
of the Federation. But, alas, we haven’t received any invitations . . .
.
[Irena Lesnevskaya] The State
Duma’s rejection of RPT is linked to the forthcoming elections. But that
is not the only point. Fascists and nationalists will find it difficult
to get on the new RPT. A “defense mechanism’ is in action there—normal
journalists who want to do normal television, not a politicized variety.
In the five days RPT has been in operation, there have already been changes.
. . .
[Aleksandr Lyubimov] If the State Duma were sincerely
concerned about democracy, it would find something more serious to busy
itself with—the war in Chechnya, for example. I think that the State Duma
took a deliberate action in opposition to the presidential decision because
it will soon be time for new elections. . . . .
4. The Central Election Commission has been wondering whether
the new Russian Public Television is a state-run media or a private television
entity. The issue of legal status will determine what rules the company
must follow in the upcoming election campaigns. The question was referred,
for an answer, to the President’s Judicial Chamber on Information Disputes.