Post-Soviet Media Law & Policy Newsletter

Issue 23     Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law     November 27, 1995

ORT Head Muses on Election Pressures, Fourth Channel

    (This is an edited condensation of a press conference with Oleg Poptsov, the chairman of VGTRK, the All- Russian State Television and Radio Company, which operates its own channel and part of the fourth channel. The conference was held in mid- November.)
    I am deeply convinced that elections as such create a nerve-racking situation. This takes place in any state, in any country. Therefore, the task of the mass media is by no means to increase the amount of information as an element inciting nervousness, but as far as possible, to channel it into the bed of certain cultured human relationships. This is one of the main principles that the Russian radio and TV company will uphold during the pre-election marathon. 
    Secondly, a lottery for time has been carried out. There are two packages—state orders and free time, a paid time. We must realize very well that conducting elections does not necessarily mean creating ideal conditions for the candidates. Designing the electoral campaign means creating improving conditions for the electorate.
    I think that everything that will be done by the state TV and radio companies, according to the legislation, when presenting blocs of candidates for deputies, and thereby the state companies protect the rights of the candidates. But, here the protection of their rights ends. Further on, we face the task to protect the rights of the electorate. 
    This means to help the voter find his bearings in the program, to persuade a bloc or a candidate to explain their program, answer questions from the audience, in the case of the radio from listeners, and just to offer voters 44 different solo performances. You know, when the woodgrouse performs his love song he is deaf to everything else, being so absorbed with his song. By the way, the woodgrouse is most vulnerable at such moments. So, in order to prevent television turning into 44 woodgrouse songs, it is the task of journalists to put questions. Formally the blocs can say that they are against debates on television, as they are stating now.  Some do make categorical statements that they are for television debates, but when they are invited, they for some reason fail to appear. Instead they send video clips. They say that pressure has gone up, that there are displacements in the upper layers of the atmosphere, that there were traffic jams, that this time they failed to come but that next time, to be sure, they will be available for television debates.  
    We conducted the drawing of lots and I must warn at once journalists and everybody else. For instance, somebody drew No. 9. There will be no so-called black market of appearances. If somebody drew Monday, he will have to appear on Monday. If he changes times with the LDPR or some other party on such terms as “we give you Tuesday and you give us in return 1.5 of Wednesday,” we will not allow such swaps. The drawing of lots was determined by regulations, by the Central Electoral Commission. We will stick to the results of the draw. I understand that it would be convenient for some party to swap time or to buy time. That would be a violation. The Russian Television and Radio Company will not tolerate such violations, such as a private business might because we should show concern for the interests of the voter. So, if you drew the lot to make the TV appearance on Wednesday, you will appear on Wednesday. We want the voter to have a chance to choose. You know, the programs look so much alike that I hope there will be a difference at least in the sound of voices. 
    And the last thing. Quite naturally, if the blocs find it possible to ignore the interests of the electorate, if they refuse to answer questions, then it will be the right of the TV and radio companies to provide air time for electors to express their opinions. We have taken appropriate steps and we are doing appropriate work to make sure the rights of electors are met.
    Now about air time for pay. This is an emerging trend. Attitudes vary. For example, Vladimir Volfovich (Zhirinovsky) would be prepared to buy up all television time from morning to night. But there is no such provision in the law that would allow that. Under the rules, the duration of air time for pay may not be longer than free air time. My colleagues from the ORT network said they are not going to make available any air time for pay. It is up to them to decide. But in general, I think laws exist in order to be observed. 
    Paid slots will be filled. Some will stir into demanding paid advertising time later. Some people make a great show of saying that they are so poor they cannot afford it. Some, on the contrary, say we are so wealthy and why don’t you let us buy more time. I think the biggest demand for air time will be from the December 1 to December 15. But even now we have many requests for air time. The company can do only so much and as soon as enough requests have been filed for air time, we will stop accepting further applications. 
    Political advertisement will be put on free during the free air time, and the paid advertisement in the ordinary way, at the rates we established. Our charges are the most sparing ones. And we consider this to be correct. It is our Duma, it is our state, and we should from time to time think about this. It is our future—whether good or bad—but our legislative power and its quality will depend on us. I think that we will have enough embarrassing moments ahead, both during the elections themselves, and perhaps even more after the elections. So, let us be correct and respectful and honest.
    Paid political advertising in the morning is cheaper than in the evening. The evening rates for advertising are 14,000 dollars per minute. That is for peak time. The normal rate is 10,000 dollars. This is by a whole order less than on the other channels.
    It is very important that the journalists leading the political programs should always remember that Russia is a great country and the electoral campaign should not convince us of the contrary. That is the main thing and the main task of the program host is to exercise tact in conducting the shows.
    I have said that an atmosphere of politeness needs to be brought about. This is the first thing. We have a Judicial Chamber under the President and I think it will take a very active part in this process. As regards proposed political reels that will raise our doubts, I can say that obscene language is an element of language but it cannot be an element of campaigning. Whether any of the bloc’s leaders like it or not, it’s their personal business. Russian Television will not provide a rostrum for obscene language and it will not tolerate it on the air. 
    Censorship will only apply to elements of violence, rudeness, hooliganism and plain foolishness, as well as elements of provocations. A violent scene on the screen or sadism is forbidden, and if it is used as a campaigning plot, such a film will not see air on the Russian TV. If someone offers such a reel, we will tell him very clearly that such a reel is no go. We ask him to put it in order and remove all those things. We will have time for that. We will not postpone its going on the air because a candidate submits it beforehand, so we have the possibility of review.

What chances are there for independent candidates to get air time?

    Under the law we are only dealing with blocs. The candidates running in single mandate districts should go to regional television and radio companies. And we will stick to this arrangement. If a bloc of independent candidates has been registered and it took part in drawing lots for air time, it will get air time. But any other candidates should go to other companies. For example, MTK, the Moscow television company is a very good network. And I think independent candidates will get air time from them. 

How great is the likelihood that the government will reimburse Russian Television for its dedication of free air time?

   The government, of course, has not allocated any money for this. It has resorted to a very clever argument saying that we should manage on the same budget because after all, we are not increasing total air time. But we have to remove a certain number of programs, we have forego some advertising. Now, this is turning deaf ear and you know that we have sent an appropriate letter, together with Mr. Ryabov, addressed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said it was outside his frame of reference and it was up to the Duma to revise its law on 1995 budget. Today the Duma is reviewing the execution of the 1995 budget and discussing the 1996 budget. It is a stormy debate and we are monitoring it.
    I have already observed that this country is a country of unbridled fantasy. It can even hold elections on credit. That’s an interesting experiment. So far, we have no money. But I do not rule out that if we are not financed within the officially approved budget, and I can tell you that in the fourth quarter financing is acceptable. Now a third of the quarter has passed and we have received about 30 percent of the funding. But I must tell you that at the end of 9 months we had received about 49 percent of what was due to us. The situation then improved somewhat (to 64 percent), but we never rose above that level.
    The biggest problem that worries me as an official is that when the market entered the area of information and the press, the next day we all awoke in a different world. The moment information became a commodity, misinformation, too, may become a commodity. We should be very clear on this. Yet it is very important to ensure that journalists in these conditions retain a clean handwriting, be morally impeccable. I will use this expression although it is quite a dangerous one when referring to journalists. 
    We are also keeping track of hidden advertising during the political campaign and we take a tough stand on this. It is not by chance that I mention the existing danger and it must be addressed. An attempt to find a way on the air outside the official program, to contact individual directors or individual anchors (“See if you can give me a leg up, old man”). We have it under control. On the other hand, you should take a relaxed attitude. Specialists remain specialists. If a volcanologist who is on some party ticket goes on the air to speak about volcanoes on the eve of an earthquake, there should be an iron rule, not a word about politics or blocs, just talk earthquakes. As for waffles and chocolates, you see our programs and I don’t think we can be accused of providing preferential treatment to any of the blocs. I wouldn’t like to go back to this. Such an episode happened before. But that is all in a day’s work. There is a saying “They married me off in my absence.” First there should be free elections and the second time, there will be electoral ethic. 
    Naturally, we, the Russian television, have never supported extremism. If any extremism emerges during a broadcast, we will undoubtedly resist it. We have to learn how to use law. We have no such skill. The greatest success in mastering law is usually achieved by jailed criminals - it’s the situation that makes them do so. The society should understand that law should be consulted, as it contains rights and obligations. One should not be shy away from either the former or the latter. Of course, this is a very simplistic way to put it, as in reality everything is much more complex. 
    As to whether we put the government on television too much, one should draw a distinction. We cannot declare that as of today the government shuts down and beginning from today we will no longer give coverage to the actions of the government. This cannot be tolerated. The Prime Minister must work, the ministers must work, but they should work as prime minister and as ministers, and not in the capacity of members of Our Home Is Russia. We will cover the prime minister’s activities in his capacity of prime minister. Meanwhile, everything that has to do with the prime minister’s activities as the head of the Our Home Is Russia will be aired to the same extent as others. But when he goes on the air as prime minister, what can I do? I can’t replace him. 
    I have been asked about rumors that ORT will swap channels with RTR. us you. Rumors are an alternative vehicle for information. I know as much in way of rumors as you do. I can tell you that in principle the Russian TV and Radio Company will never initiate such moves. We are proud people, we, so to say, have turned the second channel into a full-blooded, competitive, not without blemishes and we are aware of this.
    The next stage is to carry out work together with the fourth channel, we shall do this and I hope and am confident that around the month of March you will see a different fourth channel. I think it’s not that the number of a channel matters. The first is always the first. As you understand, it is just so, for one’s own satisfaction. The main task is to make programs, but to make them honestly. And this is what we are going to do.
    As to the future of the Fourth Channel, I can tell you that the concept “time is money,” is not only popular in the United States. Time is money, as applied to television, is question No. 1. Time on television may be good and beautiful when there is money for this time. The main difficulty in  our developing the fourth channel is, of course, the lack of assets at a certain stage.
    Nevertheless, we have able to accomplish something. The conception of the fourth channel as I see it and as I uphold it. This is an information-cultural, enlightenment, sports channel. It’s a channel that ought to protect the gene pool of our motherland. It’s a channel that must be, must become a presentation of the Russian intellect. It’s a channel that must face the family. And the fact that on Saturday and Sunday the family channel, with pros and cons, but nevertheless, it sparked an interest instantly, no sooner it appeared. This is our credo. We will uphold it.
    There are two approaches to the development of television. One could create one more channel about the very same things, better or worse. It is necessary to have another channel. Any nation with self- respect should have a channel that raises issues of its education, school system, culture, science. This is very important, especially now when I know the figure that since 1985 a total of 652,000 intellectuals have left the country. These include major scientists in basic sciences, the most talented engineers. The most terrible thing is that this figure includes fourth and fifth year university students who have already signed contracts.
    And if the channel will help us rebuild our Russian intellectual potential, if the Olympiads that will be conducted every three months on this channel for our most gifted youngsters, if world-famous scientists will present prizes to the winners of these contests, I think this will be good and worthwhile. This channel will be outside of politics. It will deal with politics, though, if there are problems with education. It will deal with politics only in this sense. This channel will deal with our culture, with the fate of our traditions, with their development, with developments in science, etc. A new concept is now being worked out. Some of its fragments, better or worse, are already there. 
    We have a few extremely good programs on this channel. They could do honor to any channel. Take the program “The Facets of Beauty.” Take the Yesenin cycle. No other channel could even dream of such marvelous work. Or take the cycle on Russian statehood. No other channel could even dream of doing this. Neither NTV, nor any other channel. But so far these are only occasional products. It is necessary to turn this into a system. I believe there will be extensive personnel changes. We will turn to the contract system. We are dealing with this now. 
    Where will we get the money? We will get it where everybody else gets it. You know, it is the easiest thing to say that the House of Journalists is a good place, so hand it over to us, we will convert it into a casino, etc. I always believed that if you want to do something for your country and you have money, build a television center, launch a satellite, install digital equipment and make Russia a present of five more channels. Do that instead of taking over stores and converting them into casino. Instead, add one more store, this is needed by the country. 
    I’ve been asked whether I am implying that the 4th Channel is becoming a casin. I don’t have any opinion on what the NTV should be transformed into. I said that having excellent means, the NTV, if it is so anxious about the fate of our Motherland... First of all, I have to tell you that I had a hand in the establishment of the NTV. And maybe I played not the last role in it. I have always believed that real competition should be fomented. It’s very important, let it exist. But we have a system of references, you know, several dimensions, so let’s find the right dimension one should develop. 
    One should develop by adding. And I don’t think the NTV will be transformed into a casino. I know perfectly what the NTV does. I watch absolutely all its programs, I know the content and the concept of the NTV. I like some things and flatly disagree with some other. But I said in a principled way: another channel about the same things—better or worse—this is one question. 
    Another channel is a totally different concept. What we need is a different channel. Let’s take care of this. There must be somebody saying that 5 million children live in children’s homes. How will they develop? How will they study? What is this? It’s not an undertaking that promises gain. No advertisement can be placed there. And it’s hard to find a sponsor. But this is a state task and we should think about it. 
    And when my NTV colleagues told me about their difficulties: that they do not wholly own the channel, that they would like more time on the fourth channel, I ask, why should they own the channel wholly, why? Because they were unable to broadcast more information, sell information about Budyonnovsk? When there was a need to give information about Budyonnovsk, the Russian TV worked at night. No one barred the NTV from working at nighttime. We were working at nighttime. We were giving information. And nothing happened to us. We decided to switch over to a nighttime regime, since an emergency situation took shape in the country. 
    It is hard for me to speak about the NTV, because, maybe with the exception of Mitkova, Osokin, and Malashenko, the first stratum, and the second, and the third - they all came from the Russian TV. Alas, this is true. Sometimes, this is frustrating for us, sometimes we are happy for them. That’s why we have always regarded them as our colleagues and potentially like-minded people.