1. JOINT RECOMMENDATION OF THE CHAMBER AND THE RUSSIAN UNION OF JOURNALISTS ON THE FREEDOM OF MASS INFORMATION AND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF JOURNALISTS
(The Results of a Hearing of the Russian Federation Judicial Chamber for Information Disputes and the Russian Union of Journalists on June 15, 1995)
The mass media’s attainment of legal independence from authorities and from state interference in the professional activity of journalists is recognized as the most notable result of democratic transformation. The press has become an influential social force. It is no accident that along with the familiar phrase “as is the people, so is the government” it has been asserted that “as is the press, so is society.” This imposes on journalists and leaders of editorial staffs and publishing houses a responsibility that is not merely formal and on the books but moral and political.
This was the very subject of the hearing that was jointly held by the Judicial Chamber for Information Disputes and the Russian Union of Journalists on June 15, 1995. The result was elaboration of a recommendation that comprehends a wide range of problems.
The goal of the recommendation is as follows: in view of the very important political events that the elections for parliament and president will constitute and in light of the complex political situation, to draw the attention of journalists and mass media leaders to their duty to provide the populace with full, objective, and truthful information about everything occurring in the country and the world and to give professional and honest analysis of this information.
Under conditions of competition and a still incomplete market for information, many journalists and editorial staffs disregard the most elementary norms of the Law on the Mass Media. Untruthful information has been widely disseminated. Sometimes, this is done deliberately. More often, it occurs in the heat of competition for readers and viewers. At times, this is the result of an elementary failure to verify the accuracy of information. Often, it is due to lack of access to information, which has been covered up by the administration. Even reliable publishers commit violations with unverified reports and deliberate distortion of factual material for the sake of sensational presentation. They do so by hushing up unprofitable facts and overemphasizing sensational facts. Indeed, this irresponsible attitude towards reliability of information has prompted the abolition in many mass media of verification departments and bureaus. All this leads to gross violations of legislation and disregard for norms of professional ethics and damages the interests of society.
The Law on the Mass Media clearly stipulates the range of publications for the content of which editorial staffs are not liable. Yet, the heads of many mass media organs arbitrarily expand this category to include author’s columns, special pages, and individual contributions. They shift liability for the content to the authors personally or to subsidiary editorial staffs. This practice is contrary to the Law on the Mass Media. Mass media editors and editorial staffs bear full responsibility for all published materials, with the exception of those specifically named in the law.
Competition and pursuit of sensation has led to domestic journalism losing such traditional and popular genres as satires, pamphlets, and psychological essays. In their place are hastily cooked up items, containing undisguised crudeness and insults to the point of using an “abnormal lexicon.” In-depth and often dangerous journalistic investigation attracts the attention of readers and viewers. But usually accompanying this are ersatz commentaries, dubious versions, and irresponsible prognoses, concocted for ratings, as well as innumerable lists of the “richest” and “most influential” people. Very often such publications are not based on serious sociological research. Their goal is to inflate authority or to discredit political rivals. Such publications do not always contravene legal norms, but crudely flout journalistic ethics and discredit the mass media in the eyes of the populace. Several publishers, abusing mass information, sink to the level of all-out persecution of prominent politicians and officials without any concern for the authenticity of facts.
It is outside the traditions of responsible journalism to implant a cult of violence, racial superiority, and pornography, to relish horrors, and to spread propaganda for the occult and mysticism. Nonetheless, this is precisely the type of material many mass media use in their efforts to gain popularity. Other publishers have developed an enthusiasm for pornography, catering to people’s base nature. Not to mention the so-called “special” publishers, popular and circulation newspapers, which without cause or limits savor “klubnichka.” They pay no regard to the pernicious effect this has on the morality of society. Protection of the moral health of children and adolescents demands self-restraint and also the development of legal principles in this sphere.
At present, courts are overwhelmed with claims from citizens whose honor and dignity was insulted in print or on the air. In principle, such methods of defense are a normal phenomenon. However, the quantity of cases indicates that the mass media, which endlessly speak about human rights, with ease and extraordinary irresponsibility trample on these rights. They mix reputation with mud and do not hesitate to use deliberate slander. Battling diktat of authorities, several publishers themselves use their influence to secure diktat of the press. Freedom of mass information is often understood as unbridled freedom of the mass media. In the process, many publications “skillfully” exploit the legislative norm regarding the right not to disclose sources of information. If they lose in the courts, then they resort to worthless cliches: libel on the first page under a garish headline -- the refutation appearing in fine print at the end and, what is more, accompanied by insulting commentaries. At the same time, there are appeals to courts about threats from certain officials, who for the slightest criticism of them literally terrorize journalists. At times, these threats become means to work on newspapers.
Advertisements fill the press and air like hallucinations. Because they produce large amounts of money, they have begun to dictate the subject matter of publications in many cases. Concealed advertisements constitute a major source of enrichment. The relationship between advertisers and publications is complex and completely unregulated by legislation. Many editorial staffs attempt to decline responsibility for advertisements, an action that is contrary to law. Although to a lesser extent than previously, impermissible advertisement of alcoholic beverages and tobacco products continue in the mass media.
The amount of “bought” materials has increased, as has low-quality and at times obviously unscrupulous advertising. The authors of these texts bestow a “dubious benefit” upon both advertisers and themselves. They destroy the interest and confidence of readers, viewers, and listeners in both advertisements and media. They do not take into account the fact that the production of high-quality advertisements is a special, complex activity that has nothing in common with journalism as it is usually understood. According to the standards of civilized journalism it is absurd for one person to be both journalist and advertising agent.
The intensification of interethnic conflicts has raised difficult legal and ethical questions for the mass media. It should be taken into consideration that even the slightest lack of balance in a publication’s coverage or analysis of these problems can seriously influence the exacerbation of ethnic tension and perhaps cause a social explosion. Here, as nowhere else, caution and careful consideration are essential. Unfortunately, several publications take openly chauvinistic and nationalistic positions, which are fraught with the most ruinous consequences. Aspects of the relations between nationalities and the interaction between federal authorities and Federation subdivisions must be carefully weighed on a pharmacist’s scales since a mistake in the dosage can make a publication a poison rather than a cure.
Freedom of speech and independence of the mass media place on a completely different level the interrelationship between press and authorities. Unreliability, incompleteness, and distortion of information very often result from the inaccessibility of sources of information. Only parliament is sufficiently open to the press. As far as the presidential structures, government circles, and administrative offices are concerned, however, they are sealed off from journalists; they are more closed than the former party committees.
Press centers, press services, press secretaries, and others of their ilk have been established everywhere. In theory, they were intended to facilitate journalists’ access to information. In practice, they have turned into insurmountable barriers and supply only the information that is of interest to the given structure. And naturally journalists overcome these barriers by any means, including bribing officials and openly purchasing information. If these methods are beyond them, they resort to fabrication and conjecture. The procedure for supply of information by press services as well as the procedure for accreditation of journalists is unregulated by legislation. This is a serious detriment to objective and complete coverage of events. It is essential to strengthen immediately the legislative bases for journalists’ access to information and citizens’ rights to information and to implement other measures, including economic measures, to support the press.
These “Recommendations” are a verification of the state of affairs on the information market. They do not purport to have any regulatory status. Their chief goal is to draw the attention of journalists to their responsibility to society and once again to emphasize the necessity of observing the Constitution and the Law on the Mass Media and to urge the creation and realization in practice of ethical codes.
Judicial Chamber
A.B. Vengerov
Union of Journalists
V.L. Bugdanov
Published in Rossiiskaia gazeta on July 11, 1995, at 6.
Translated into English by Frances H. Foster.
2. ON THE APPEAL OF STATE DUMA VICE CHAIRMAN A. CHILINGAROV REGARDING PUBLICATION OF “SHOULD THE ICEBERGS BE SOLD?” IN MOSKOVSKAIA PRAVDA ON JUNE 16, 1995, July 13, 1995, No. 20(57)
State Duma Vice Chairman A. Chilingarov has appealed to the Judicial Chamber of Information Disputes regarding B. Vyucheiskii’s publication of “Should the Icebergs Be Sold?” under the “Voter’s Opinion” rubric in Moskovskaia pravda on June 16, 1995.
The claimant contends that said publication is untrue and contains a set of defamatory fabrications designed to discredit his political, social, and professional reputation and also to discredit the authority of legislative power.
After hearing the testimony of State Duma Vice Chairman A.N. Chilingarov, State Duma deputy Iu. P. Ivanov, Vice-President of the Russian Association of Polar Explorers Iu. A. Khabarov and after examining B. Vyucheiskii’s publication and other materials, including a letter from the governor of the Nenets Autonomous Region V.A. Vyucheiskii, the Judicial Chamber has established:
B. Vyucheiskii’s article “Should the Icebergs Be Sold?” published under the “Voter’s Opinion” rubric contains a negative analysis of the social-political activity of A.N. Chilingarov and also unfavorable evaluations of several of his personality traits.
The information cited as the basis for a certain Voter’s Opinion, however, did not receive any substantiation whatsoever at the Judicial Chamber session.
The Judicial Chamber, as it states later in this decision, notes especially the unprincipled and inconsistent position of the editorial staff of Moskovskaia pravda, which published the untruthful and unobjective article but avoided open and public discussion in Judicial Chamber session of the bases for the information cited in the article.
Taking into consideration the stated facts and in accordance with article 45 2 of the RF Constitution and articles 9, 10, and 12 of the Statute on the RF Presidential Judicial Chamber for Information Disputes, the Judicial Chamber has decided:
1. To recognize that the publication “Should the Icebergs Be Sold?” in Moskovskaia pravda was based on unreliable and false information and represented an abuse of the mass media, as stipulated in article 59 2 of the RF Law “On the Mass Media,” and a violation of ethical norms.
2. To reprimand Moskovskaia pravda editor-in-chief Sh. S. Muladzhanova for publication of B. Vyucheiskii’s article “Should the Icebergs Be Sold?”
3. To propose that the editorial board of Moskovskaia pravda examine the issue of disciplinary action against members of the editorial staff who prepared said article for publication.
4. To publish this decision in Rossiiskaia gazeta.
5. To recommend that Moskovskaia pravda editor-in-chief Sh. S. Muladzhanova publish this decision in Moskovskaia pravda.
Chairman of the Judicial Chamber
A. B. Vengerov
Published in Rossiiskaia gazeta on July 20, 1995, at 6.
Translated into English by Frances H. Foster.
3. ON THE APPEALS OF MOSCOW OBLAST’ DUMA DEPUTY R. IA. MURASHKOVSKAIA REGARDING THE LEGALITY OF THE TOO “KLIN TELEVISION’S” ACTIVITY IN PREPARING AND DISSEMINATING INFORMATION OF A PREELECTION NATURE, July 13, 1995, No. 21(58)
The Russian Federation Presidential Judicial Chamber for Information Disputes has received an appeal from Moscow Oblast’ Duma deputy R. Ia. Murashkovskaia, supported by the “New Regional Policy” deputy’s group of the Russian Federation Federal Assembly’s State Duma. The appeal relates to a series of broadcasts by the TOO “Klin Television” that, according to the claimant, were of a preelection agitation nature.
After examining materials presented to the Judicial Chamber, familiarizing itself with videotapes of the cited broadcasts, and hearing testimony from State Duma deputy A.A. Murav’eva, Klin Television Company “Poisk” official S.G. Sharapova, “Serp i molot” newspaper editor-in-chief Z.C. Maksimova, and the TOO “Klin Television” director Iu. V. Samsonov, the Judicial Chamber has established:
On May 20, 1995, the TOO “Klin Television” broadcast a recording of a meeting between the leader of the State Duma LDPR faction, V.V. Zhirinovskii, and residents of the city of Klin. V.V. Zhirinovskii’s entire speech clearly manifested characteristics of preelection agitation. It contained calls to vote in the forthcoming elections for candidates from the Liberal-Democratic Party of Russia and pejorative comments about possible competitors. Moreover, the speaker spoke rudely about the State Duma deputy from Klin, A.A. Murav’eva.
The recording of this meeting subsequently was used repeatedly on Klin Television broadcasts.
On June 5 and 20, 1995, on broadcasts of the TOO “Klin Television” “Priamoi Efir,” State Duma deputy V.A. Marychev appealed to television viewers to vote in the forthcoming elections for the director of the TOO “Klin Television” Iu. V. Samsonov. For this purpose, he used expressions of the following type: “Samsonov, as future candidate for deputy,” “Our chief task is to choose Samsonov as State Duma deputy,” “If Samsonov brings in (the LDPR) 7 thousand votes . . .”
The Judicial Chamber notes that the character and conditions for preelection agitation are established in the Federal Law “On Basic Guarantees for Electoral Rights of Russian Federation Citizens.” According to the meaning of this law, preelection agitation comprehends “Activity of Russian Federation citizens and social organizations in the preparation and dissemination of information that has the goal of inducing voters to participate in voting for or against some or other candidates (slates of candidates).” Article 26 of the same law stipulates that “Preelection agitation begins on the date of registration of candidates and ends on the day before the elections.”
Thus, said broadcasts of the TOO “Klin Television” were contrary to the norms of the Law “On Basic Guarantees for Electoral Rights of Russian Federation Citizens” since they had the characteristics of preelection agitation.
Acknowledging the fact that the “Klin Television” channel televised topics that were of the nature of preelection agitation, its director Iu. V. Samsonov plead ignorance of the requirements of Article 26 of the RF Law “On Basic Guarantees for Electoral Rights of Russian Federation Citizens.” In the Judicial Chamber’s opinion, however, this cannot serve as a basis for relieving Iu. V. Samsonov from liability.
The Judicial Chamber also notes that such ignorance of the rules for preelection agitation can result in disinformation of the populace, deception of potential voters regarding the dates and procedure for nomination and registration of deputy candidates and their participation in the election campaign.
The Judicial Chamber believes that the leadership and journalists of the TOO “Klin Television” were obliged to consider legislative requirements in the preparation of said broadcasts and to adopt necessary measures for preventing unlawful (premature) preelection agitation.
Taking into consideration the great social-political significance of rigorous compliance by the mass media with election legislation and guided by Articles 8 and 10 of the Statute on the Russian Federation Presidential Judicial Chamber for Information Disputes, the Judicial Chamber has decided:
1. To recognize that the content of the TOO “Klin Television” broadcasts of May 20 and June 5 and 20, 1995 with the participation of State Duma deputies V.V. Zhirinovskii and V.A. Marychev contravenes the requirements of the RF Federal Law “On Basic Guarantees for Electoral Rights of Russian Federation Citizens” in the part on commencement of preelection agitation.
2. To propose that the Russian Federation Television and Radio Service examine the issue of whether the TOO “Klin Television” has complied with the conditions of its broadcasting license.
3. To send this decision to the Russian Federation Central Electoral Commission.
4. To publish this decision in “Rossiiskaia gazeta.”
Chairman of the Judicial Chamber
A.B. Vengerov
Published in Rossiiskaia gazeta on July 28, 1995, at 5.
Translated into English by Frances H. Foster.