Mikhail Nikiforovich Poltoranin, former Press Minister
and more recently Chairman of the State Duma Committee for Information
Policy and Communications, lost his Duma seat in the December elections.
In a news conference on November 27, Poltoranin, long a vocal advocate
of state economic support for the mass media, spoke about two new statutes
which became effective on January 1, 1996: “On State Support for the Mass
Media and Book Publishing in the Russian Federation,” and “On Economic
Support to District (City) Newspapers.” The statutes establish a range
of taxation, foreign currency retention, and customs privileges for mass
media outlets, including exemptions from payment of import duties on paper
and audiovisual equipment, as well as a system of state grants for certain
types of broadcast programming.
Moderator: Today we have
our regular meeting of the Press Club. Our guest is Mikhail Nikiforovich
Poltoranin, chairman of the State Duma Committee for Information Policy
and Communications. Recalling the struggle that was conducted for
two and a half years for the adoption of the law on state support for the
mass media and book publication in the Russian Federation, there is no
doubt that Mikhail Nikiforovich was the man who made a tremendous contribution
to the drafting of that law. He also did much to ensure that the law was
adopted and signed. . . .The event that has happened and which, in my view,
has not been properly yet appraised by all, the importance of the adoption
of this decision for the mass media, for the creation of a normal civilized
market for the media, this fact still requires analysis. It is also necessary
for the organization of journalists, for the community of journalists to
think about this event. You see, this law requires that we reorganize our
work. Without giving up the struggle for the market, the press should now
move on in its development, move on to working out relationships with those
who give us work, with the managements of our publications which will get
economic benefits, which will get the possibility to work normally, in
a civilized manner without having to worry about where will they get the
money needed for this. Professional problems are now coming to the fore,
rather than the search for sources of financing. I am now giving the floor
to Mikhail Nikiforovich.
Poltoranin: . . . [I]n order
for this law [ed. note—the Statute on State Support to the Mass Media and
Book Publishing] to begin working—it costs R1.5 trillion. This money has
not been included in the budget. We submitted amendments to the law on
the federal budget to include this amount, but there are disagreements
over the sources of funding. We suggested raising this money by reducing
the funding of administrative structures because they devour huge sums,
by using the benefits of the agreements on disarmaments and on the elimination
of weapons—that’s about R1 trillion—but there is no money in the budget
for this. Since there is no money in the budget, naturally, our task is
to help the government and the President find sources of funding.
What depends on the government today is that customs services, and the
law will become operational soon, the Finance Ministry, the Ministry of
Economics, the Committee for State Property receive timely instructions
to provide the necessary conditions for a normal operation of this law.
The second law which has been signed by the President
is a law on economic support for district and city newspapers. We have
given the most favored nation treatment regime to all the mass media. We
did this by the law on state support. We have given newspapers, magazines
a possibility to cut their production costs. We have also made it possible
to reduce the cost of production of copy books, various stationary as well
as books. Books, of course, are associated with education, science and
culture. I believe that by means of this law we will now start a
boom in the creation of independent television and radio companies.
Just as the law on the press exploded the situation
and we got as a result a mass of independent newspapers and magazines,
similarly after this law, after it goes into operation we will have a mushrooming
of independent television and radio companies. Why? Because, firstly, of
the abolition of all taxes. But most important, because today it is possible
to buy audio and video equipment, to buy all the necessary equipment manufactured
throughout the world without customs duties.
Those who are in this business realize how important
this is. You also know that with the help of this law we will put pressure
on our monopolists. I mean the monopolists in the paper industry. They
were scaling down the production of paper all the time and jacking up prices.
Today, and I will not repeat the statistics because you all know them,
today when our paper on our domestic market costs three times more than
the world average price, today people will start looking for purchases
of paper in Finland, Austria, China, I believe, Siberia will start buying
paper in China, and our monopolists will face the problem of growing unsold
stocks of paper and as a result of this, to avoid bankruptcy, they will
be forced to push down their prices. Thereby we will get a result that
we need. This applies to the whole of the mass media. But there are
media outlets in our country that are on the verge of disappearance. These
are the district newspapers and newspapers in small towns. I have travelled
recently and seen things for myself. First of all, they are perishing economically,
secondly, very serious administrative pressure is put on them. Whereas
in Moscow there are numerous newspapers and many television companies and
when somebody is hurt, it is possible to unite and to protect one another.
But when there is just one small newspaper in a district and when the head
of the district administration, when all the local authorities start putting
pressure on the editor of this newspaper, there is simply nobody there
to give him a helping shoulder.
That is why, being aware of this situation, we incorporated
the following key principle in the law. This is the principle according
to which district and city newspapers are financed out of the federal budget.
Thereby these district and city newspapers get economic independence. Also,
in the draft charters . . . The draft charters have now been sent out to
all the regions. Well, in these draft charters we included the following
norm, I mean the charters of local self-government, the norm that the editor-in-chief
of a local newspaper financed out of the federal budget, that this editor
should be elected just as the head of the local administration.
I think that this will also depend on the presidential
structures, on the presidential administration to ensure the preservation
and approval of this norm. Then it will come out that the editor of the
district newspaper will be independent both politically and economically.
Thereby we are creating the vertical of the fourth estate. Of the independent
fourth estate, starting with the districts and ending with the squares
in Moscow. I am grateful that these laws were adopted.
I am particularly grateful to Nikolai Nikolayevich
Gonchar, the committee chairman, who understood the essence of these laws.
He understood this after we had discussions with him, he understood that
these were fundamental principles for the creation of the mainstays of
democracy in our country. He understood that if we gave the peasants, that
is, journalists, freedom, that we did this by the law on the press, but
did not give them land, that is, we did not give them economic independence,
he understood that the abolition of serfdom without this was fruitless.
Today, with this law, the peasants, that is, we
journalists, also got land. Now everything will depend on us, now our own
survival and our own work are in our own hands. If this law involving state
support costs 1.5 trillion, the law on district newspapers costs 350 billion
rubles. The President has signed it but, although we warned that we will
manage to get this law adopted, we warned the government officials that
contrary to their expectations we would railroad through this law, we warned
them that we would succeed and that it was their job to find the necessary
funding of these laws. We told them that if the laws would not be adopted
this money could be put to other use. But, despite all these warnings,
the government officials did nothing. All that we encountered from government
officials and government structures was only resistance to these laws.
Today we will have to get together again and start
looking for the necessary sources of funding. We will do this regardless
of what government structures want or not. We will do this. . . .
In this connection, speaking of financing our laws,
I would like to note the following for you. We studied the concept of state
informational policy in Russia, conducted parliamentary hearings, we extended
an arm of mutual understanding both to the presidential administration
and to the government, inviting them to a joint solution of these problems.
We should not have a situation in which the various branches of power would
be able to tailor something exclusively to suit their needs.
This would leave us only with the ruins of Ostankino
or some other of our structures. We should know what we want and where
we are heading. And in this connection I would like to say that back in
1994 when the creation of the ORT was being planned I warned the President
and Chernomyrdin and Boris Berezovsky that their plan and the promise given
by Berezovsky and other bankers to the effect that they were capable of
financing Channel I, these promises were untenable.
Because people did not do their sums properly, they
listened to some ill thought out advice and embarked on an adventure. And
it is now becoming clear that it was an adventure. This accounts for Blagovolin’s
letter to Chubais asking the government to introduce an amendment in the
1996 budget to allocate the ORT 350 billion rubles for 1996.
I understand that ORT needs money, I understand
that the Channel has to function, but it will lead to no good if some people
think up of ideas and other people think up of other ideas. So all the
representatives of the authorities and the Union of Journalists and the
prominent journalists should sit down together where we can pinch and save
and where we will have to seek financing.
Once again I congratulate you on the adoption of
our main law On State Support for the Mass Media and Book Publication.
Let me repeat that the wave that was provoked immediately after it was
adopted, when the government started to pull the blanket towards its own
side, this will be to no good. We should just sit down and see how to make
this law work.
But for that all the leverage that is in this law
and the other laws we have adopted will have to be pressed into service.
Q: I have two questions, but they are all about
the substance of these laws. First, I represent a regional paper, the newspaper
Avangard published in Saratov. It’s a large industrial region, about 50
million people. It has been financed by large factory. What about the fate
of other regional papers? A similar newspaper is Vspolye, published in
Vladimir, also sponsored by a tractor plant which is now at a standstill.
How are these papers financed?
Poltoranin: You will get together in your city,
representatives of the public and the officials and enter the paper in
the federal register. The federal register begins to be compiled in the
regions, then it comes to the central government, to Roskompechat and then
the federal register is approved by the State Duma.
It is not revised, the Duma does not look at every
paper, but Parliament has to be in the know what sort of paper it is. There
are few districts which have many local papers. There are by contrast many
papers in the oblast centers. For example, 30 papers are published in Omsk
and some of these papers have colossal circulation. There are some papers
which have a circulation of 230,000, 180,000 and so on. But in the districts
there are one or two papers.
But one paper has to be chosen by the local community
for inclusion in the federal register so that this paper should not be
the paper of some particular party, that it should represent the interests
of the whole district.
Q: What is your Committee’s view of the current
election campaign on television and in the press? Last week the Duma introduced
amendments to the law on television and radio broadcasting. Television
journalists are a bit worried that this may signify a return of monopoly
to the coverage of parliamentary affairs.
Poltoranin: The television marathon, the election
marathon . . . It was interesting to observe it from below. When I was
in Siberia . . . When you watch this campaigning on television here in
Moscow, it is one thing. When you watch it there, you get a different impression.
You see, you go to enterprises and meet with people all day and in the
evening you come to your hotel, turn on the television and you are exposed
to a barrage.
But whatever you may say Moscow is disseminating
inferior culture throughout Russia, which is a matter for great regret.
Sometimes the low level of culture is blamed on the mass media. But politicians
themselves fail to set a good example. The culture of political discourse,
the culture of debates on television is deteriorating. If you compare the
debates in 1989 when we were running for the Supreme Soviet of the USSR
and the debates in 1990 when the Supreme Soviet of Russia or the Congress
of People’s Deputies of Russia were elected.
Of course, in those days we still were wedded to
old habits, but in any case the debates were more orderly. There was more
decency. Today it is a free for all. I don’t have to tell you who does
it and how. Now about the amendment. In my absence two laws have
come out. The law On Television which comes out against its privatization,
and the amendment. As far as I know when we were drafting the amendment
it was not concerned with the substance of your question. I don’t know
what the final amendment is.
But our amendment said that the ORT—because the
Russian government is one of its co-founders– should be regarded as a television
channel with the participation of the state. That is, if it organizes TV
debates. This was our amendment, but I don’t know which amendment was
adopted.
Q: (inaudible)
Poltoranin: The outlays for Rossiiskaya Gazeta and Rossiiskiye
Vesti are—as far as I know the government has also approved a women’s magazine
for RIA Novosti. A government magazine. I am told that Shumeiko is seeking
to establish his own paper, a paper of the Federation Council. It has already
been approved. All this will siphon off money. Support of periodicals
. . . state support of periodicals founded by the bodies of executive and
legislative power—47,059,000,000. The bottomline is that there will be
two papers, Rossiiskaya Gazeta and Rossiiskiye Vesti.
Government support of district and city papers will
cost 279,815,000,000. I repeat that 500 billion have been earmarked for
school textbooks. And financial resources have yet to be found for the
implementation of the law On Support of Mass Media and Book Publishing.
But if the floodgates are opened, the customs tariffs, the state will not
have to spend anything. If taxes are abolished, then taxes on profits and
VAT will be abolished and the state will not lose much because there are
few papers which make a profit in Russia today.
The state will only lose because the newspapers,
Russian radio and television will pay the communications and utilities
rates according to standards set for cultural institutions. And that is
much less than you are paying now.
Poltoranin: To begin with there were just 270
deputies present. It is very difficult to overcome veto because in order
to do that you have to agree with the factions in advance to send in their
representatives. But in general it’s a pity we have failed to overcome
the veto because the law should be adopted in company with the law On State
Support for the Mass Media.
Why? Because at present when we offer preferential
treatment to independent television and radio companies the licensing officials
will be throwing spanners in the works. Officials don’t want to see many
independent mass media. And under the law on television and radio broadcasting
licensing ceases to be in the hands of the officials and is handed over
to the federal commission. And the federal commission has its regional
branches and the people in the federal commission are mostly independent
representatives. That is why this law is so fiercely debated.
Q: Can you tell us how many papers exist in
Russia now? How many papers were shut down during the four years?
Poltoranin: I always want to have substantive
dialog. That is I would like the journalists to read the laws that we adopt.
When I read in the newspaper Izvestia, for example, that Poltoranin is
pushing through the law on state support of the mass media and publication
in order to influence these papers I am simply amazed. I think to myself,
“what the hell, why don’t you read the law?” It does not have as much as
a hint.
We specifically renounce subsidies of papers and
we provide equal economic conditions for everyone.” It does not matter
if you are leftist or rightist, it does not matter if you support Moslems
or do not support them, it does not matter if you are Russian Orthodox
or you are not Russian Orthodox, everybody has a similar status, everybody
has equal conditions, everybody equally is freed of taxes, everybody is
equally freed of customs duties, and so on. The only thing we failed
to get through the conciliation commission was the unlimited nature of
the law.
We wanted all these benefits regarding taxes, customs
duties and so on to be unlimited in their duration but the commission decided
to introduce this for a period of three years. I believe you know about
this. We agreed to this because we think that it is good to have this for
at least three years and then, so to say, we will see.
Prolonging the law will be, hopefully, a matter
of technique. This will be the more easier because the conditions of our
life will worsen, something that I have no doubts about. Even the novelties
that we are introducing will not be enough for some media outlets to survive.
In the course of the previous year and in the course of this year, I do
not remember the exact figures, some 10,000 newspapers perished in Russia.
But, on the other hand, many new newspapers have come into being. Some
are vanishing and new ones are appearing.
I expect problems. Journalists will be held to blame
for everything. You see, one may find loopholes in these laws. We are doing
everything to keep these loopholes as narrow as possible, narrow enough
to prevent a cockroach from slipping through, but loopholes do exist. Using
the law, for instance, it is possible to set up a newspaper. This newspaper
will not be printed but it will be used as a cover for the creation of
a company that could operate using the benefits provided to the newspaper.
This should be prevented by the tax inspectorate.
But I assure you that all journalists, people working in the press can
with the help of this law buy foreign cars abroad and not pay customs duties,
as is the case today. It will be possible to buy a Mercedes or a Volvo
for the newspaper or magazine because, even if we have a circulation of
only 200 copies, you can say that the cars are necessary for purposes of
delivery.
Q: You said that the editor-in-chief of a district
newspaper should be elected just as the head of the local administration.
Who will be the voters?
Poltaranin: I am grateful to God that here
in Russia we already have democracy, though, admittedly, a much criticized
one. Who will be the voters? The people. In short, elections are held in
a district, local government elections. And elected at them, among others,
is the editor-in-chief of the district paper. This will be a contested
vote, there will be several candidates. In my opinion, this is a very serious
matter and it will exert much influence on the local moral climate.
In the fall, there was some skirmishing between
Igor Malashenko and Oleg Poptsov over the fate of the fourth channel.
It will be recalled that NTV shares the channel with a “Russian Universities”
program which Malashenko considered unimportant and worth sacrificing so
that NTV could obtain the full channel. Poptsov, retaliating, indicated
that the universities program should be fully revamped and the channel
made more important for Russian culture (with a possible hint of expelling
NTV).
Now, Rossiskiya gazeta has published the text
of a December 15 presidential directive which orders the implementation
of a new program concept for Russian Universities TV which includes the
introduction of sports. The following is the text of report by the
Russian newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta’:
In accordance with the Russian Federation Presidential
decree of 6th October 1995 “On Improving Television and Radio Broadcasting
in the Russian Federation” and in order to implement the Russian Federation
Presidential decree of July 6, 1995 “On Developing the Concept of Legal
Reform in the Russian Federation” :
The presidential directive
1. The All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting
Company VGRTK, the Russian Federal Service for Television and Radio Broadcasting
FSTR, the Russian Federation Presidential Coordination Committee for Physical
Culture and Sport and the Russian Federation Presidential State Legal Administration
are to develop a new format, within one month, for Russian Universities
TV educational station operated by VGTRK, which shares TV channel four
with independent station NTV, the aim of which must be to provide informational,
cultural, legal and other forms of public education and promote the mass
physical culture movement and sport in the Russian Federation.
2. The Russian FSTR is to follow established procedure
and make the necessary changes to the broadcasting licence and registration
certificate of VGTRK as a medium of mass information, with a view to joint
use of the Russian Universities TV channel and stipulating that the channel’s
new-look programmes created in accordance with the first point of this
directive be broadcast between 0230 and 1800 Moscow time and furthermore,
that broadcasting begin no later than 1st July 1996.
3. The Russian Federation government is to draw
up and approve within one month a targeted federal programme providing
for the development of the new direction to be taken by Russian Universities
TV.
[Signed] Russian Federation President B. Yeltsin
On December 31, Anatoliy Lysenko, director-general of Russian Television operated by VGTRK, and Oleg Poptsov, VGTRK’s chair, commented on the directive, as reported in Rossiyskaya Gazeta’ 4 January 96 :
“The analytical style is becoming increasingly popular
on television: why something did not happen, why something is bad, why
something is good,” Anatoliy Lysenko, director-general of Russian Television
operated by VGTRK, said. “I would describe our plans as being to improve
the channel. Without fear of seeming unpatriotic, I do not like what is
happening on the channel at present. I direct this complaint primarily
at ourselves. There is criticism of the service and also of socio-political
programmes. There are broadcasts which are simply out of date and should
be consigned to a museum. But this is always difficult, because behind
these broadcasts are real people with real lives.”
Q. “Russian Universities TV remains
under the wing of VGTRK. But there are rumours that it is going to be handed
over to showbusiness entrepreneurs. Do you have any comment?”
A. “As you know,” Oleg Poptsov,
chairman of VGTRK, said, “the Independent Television Company NTV, which
shares channel four with Russian Universities TV appeared as a result of
Ostankino giving up its share of channel four in the hope of getting 14m
dollars for it. I do not know whether it was successful. We have always
believed that the presence of a strong competitor, as a constant reminder
of the need to change, can only be beneficial.
“The Russian Federation president’s directive defines
the concept of Russian Universities TV as the provision of informational,
cultural, legal and other forms of public education and the promotion of
the mass physical culture movement and sport. We intend to operate within
this framework. You must remember that the Russian Universities TV channel
does have an audience: students, senior-grade school pupils and, on holidays
and at weekends, families. Music and entertainment programmes must appear.
I have a dream of people becoming involved as family units again.
“I am convinced that studying foreign languages with the aid of television
is absurd nowadays. That was how you got started in the past. Studying
foreign languages has become a mass phenomenon these days, which is why
it must take a different form on television: competitions, for example,
that will be interesting to viewers.
“The fact that some television programmes are successful
still does not make the channel interesting. It must become different.
“Rumours that the channel has been farmed out to
someone are fairy tales. We have no intention of selling it. We will take
the opportunity to attract investments, if any should appear, in order
to develop the channel. This can only be for the good.”
(Igor Malashenko’s comments on this subject are
included in his interview directly following.)
This interview with the president of the independent
TV station NTV was published in Argumenty i Fakty,’ on January 18.
I believe that we tend to exaggerate greatly the
role of television. This appears to be a reflex we have inherited from
Soviet times. Back then, if we heard on television that such and such had
made gross mistakes, we knew that tomorrow he would be dismissed from his
job. Although now everybody understands that this is not so, at the subconscious
level people continue to believe that what is said on television will materialize
tomorrow. Well, we have to accept finally that this materialization of
spirits does not happen.
Q: What about all
this talk that television can make a person a deputy or a president?
A: No, of course it
cannot. The most it can do is bring a certain initial capital in the form
of name recognition, but not much more than that. Just as news programmes
do not make the news, they only cover it, television does not create politicians.
Yes, the coverage can benefit or cause harm, but in principle everything
depends on the politicians themselves. Provided, of course, that television
does its job honestly and professionally.
TV coverage of the elections
Q: Can you say this about
television in the recent election campaign?
A: I can say that the campaign
was conducted on television in a much more respectable form than two years
ago. Although things did happen nevertheless which, in my view, should
not have happened. Like the programming schedule being changed, albeit
rarely, to insert something campaign-related. Or the country’s prime information
programme beginning with a segment that “briefly”—for about eight and a
half minutes—covered an insipid press conference on the subject of the
three-year anniversary of Prime Minister Chernomyrdin’s government.
By the way, I believe that the 10 per cent, no more,
the NDR Chernomyrdin’s Our Home is Russia party won—partly as a result
of the fact that the bloc behaved like they owned television—has demonstrated
its very low effectiveness.
Moreover, ads that were good from a television standpoint
not only did not bring in votes but apparently actually proved counterproductive.
In particular, Ivan Rybkin’s ads. They were good and funny, but I am afraid
that the electorate did not particularly like being compared to ruminants,
despite Ivan Petrovich putting himself in the same image.
And third, naturally, we are very happy that a week
before the elections we managed to hold small debates. Although the discussion
was not always high in content, we proved that under certain circumstances
politicians do not shy away from such a form of electoral competition and
even behave in a respectable manner.
Communist election success threatens media freedom
Q: One way or another, the
elections took place, and we are now dealing with the results. Tell me,
is the NTV television company afraid of the communists?
A: What do you mean by “afraid”
? You should never be afraid of anything. But it will indeed be bad. There
will be an offensive against freedom of speech and civil rights in Russia;
economic reforms will be rolled back—all of this will happen.
As for NTV, I can tell you only one thing: We will
continue doing what we have been doing. Strive to cover as fully and professionally
as possible everything that happens—first of all in our country. It is
strange: When we speak of railways, for some reason everybody understands
that trains can only run on rails. When we speak of television, however,
people think that everything is permissible: kneading journalists like
clay, sticking anything you want into information program. It does not
happen this way—our business operates on the same strict principles as
a railway, and they cannot change. We will continue. And if our society
can no longer live without freedom of speech, if it cannot disregard the
reaction of the outside world, we will survive.
Q: And what if it can?
A: Then anything could happen.
Even without the communists. I spoke as far back as October about the offensive
against the freedom of the mass media in Russia—in connection with shutting
down some program on ORT Public Russian Television.
Q: Yes, but it looks like it has
run aground. Perhaps, in keeping with tradition, we were saved from the
enemy offensive by the Russian frost?
A: No. It is more like a
respite. It was simply impossible to put on more pressure at the peak of
the election campaign. Now they can do it again—more or less until April.
Unfortunately, our conversations with members of the political elite, a
certain pulse-taking of it show that this elite is in a virtual state of
psychosis on the subject of the upcoming presidential elections. Already!
I am horrified to think what the situation will be like later. Although,
if they stay within the boundaries of the law, maybe nothing will happen.
But we are talking about the law—and you and I live in Russia.
The pressures on NTV
Q: Igor Yevgenyevich, NTV
has been in existence for more than two years, and all this time was either
under pressure or feared it. Do you not think that this is turning into
a phobia?
A: I do not know. Perhaps.
This is called a siege mentality, which, of course, is a dangerous thing.
But it is true that they do not let us relax.
Here, do you know the latest reason why the higher-ups
are seriously vexed with us? Somebody seriously did not like the fact that
on New Year’s eve we had puppets in our program, including the puppet that,
shall we say, bears a strong resemblance to the first person of state.
We are being suspected again of shaking the foundations, and are hearing
hints that draft documents already are being prepared that will put us
in our proper place. This is simply absurd!
NTV’s relations with Russian Universities TV
Q: What about a draft document
that will finally transfer the whole of Channel 4 to NTV—any hint of that?
NTV shares the use of “channel 4” with Russian Universities TV, operated
by the All-Russia State TV and Radio Company, RTR.
A: You know, this is no
joke at all. Everything we do in this direction, we do publicly. Including
sending letters to the president asking him to consider such a possibility.
As of now we have sent exactly two letters. We are trying to start a discussion,
in an attempt to prevent a lobbied decision. We will not take the road
of endlessly treading the corridors of the Kremlin and the White House,
whispering in people’s ears. Instead, like Cato the Elder in ancient Rome,
who concluded every speech with the words: “And by the way, Carthage must
be destroyed,” I will not stop saying in every interview: “And by the way,
Russian Universities’ uses Channel 4 inefficiently.”
Q: You are convinced that
NTV will do it better?
A: I would not be
talking about it otherwise. I would not be conducting negotiations with
the head of RTR, Mr O. Poptsov, offering different options for cooperation.
And Most-Group director Mr Gusinskiy NTV’s main financial backer would
not be participating in these negotiations and providing all conceivable
guarantees of financial support. Mind you, in words Mr Poptsov warmly
supports it every time, and then time passes and . . . .
And on a practical level, “Russian Universities”
continues to sign strange contracts with whoever comes along, who take
channel time piecemeal, turning it into a strange quilt. While we sit and
wait. Wait probably for the moment when sufficiently farsighted people
come to power who realize that the expansion of NTV is in the interests
of society and, if you wish, the stability of the state. Well, we will
keep waiting—as they say, drop by drop.
Between 6 and 9 December 1995, fifty television
channels in the Voronezh region were under threat of closure and four commercial
channels which serve the city were prevented from transmitting, after Vladimir
Zhirinovsky’s election visit to the area was broadcast on a commercial
channel.
On a flying visit to Voronezh on December 3, V.
Zhirinovsky gave a press conference to the local media in Voronezh airport,
during which he criticized the mayor of the town, Mr. Tsapin, and the governor,
Mr. A. Kovalyov. Mr. Zhirinovsky had taken offense that not a single
member of the local administration was at the airport to receive him and
threatened to have them both thrown out of office and taken to court for
misconduct. Mr. Zhirinovsky asked his aide for the names of the town
mayor and governor, saying; “I am a member of the State Duma and leader
of the leading party in it. The protocols have not been observed
according to the requirements of a statesman’s visit. This may be
exactly what I would expect from provincials like Tsapin and Kovalyov,
but I’m not going to stand for it.”
Voronezh State TV and Radio Company did not broadcast
the whole press conference, although a remark was made on the local news
program on the substance of his comments. On December 4, Channel
4, a commercial TV station, broadcast the entirety of the press conference
as part of a Liberal-Democrat financed election advertisement.
On the evening of the 6th of December, the main
engineer at the regional TV/Radio transmission center received orders signed
by Boris Bayarsky, head of State Communications Supervision in Voronezh,
instructing him to close down transmission on TV channels 4, 31, 33 and
41. The orders also referred to the possible need in the near future
to shut down all remaining 45 commercial channels operating in the region.
Bayarsky stated that the reason for closure was “purely technical.”
The official explanation of closure due to a “technicality”
referred to a recent memo from the Ministry of Communications, sent on
December 5, which stated that TV companies operating without a license
should be shut down. On the morning of December 6, Boris Bayarsky
informed local TV stations that this did not affect them.
Television and Radio companies must, by law, acquire
two licenses for permanent transmission; the first is from the Ministry
of Communications and is received upon beginning transmission and the second
is given by the Federal TV and Radio Broadcasting Service. The second
license is applied for at a later date once the station is up and running
and able to prove that its technical and legal standards are acceptable.
In the Voronezh area only the State TV and Radio Company has the second
license. Channel 4 had applied before November 1995 and had received
a response from Moscow, informing them that their license would be processed
by the beginning of 1996.
In a newspaper funded by the regional administration,
the Head of Voronezh Regional Administration, A. Kovalyev, made a statement
on December 7, in which he deplored the media’s poor judgement in broadcasting
Zhirinovsky’s comments on air. He stated: “It is completely
obvious that this appearance [Zhirinovsky’s press conference] in and of
itself constitutes a provocation and attempt at destabilisation, at the
same time as being a cheap advert in the run up to the elections . . .
It is completely obvious, that such appearances rudely destroy legal and
ethical norms . . . . Respecting as I do the right of Mass Media
to freedom of information, nevertheless it is still necessary to observe
moral and egalitarian standards . . . .” [Voronezh Kurier, 7th December
1995, p.1]
When the local correspondent for Komsomolskaya Pravda,
A. Sineilnikov, contacted the head of the Commission of Mass Media for
the regional parliament, Sergei Rudakov, he said he had no idea who had
given the order to close down commercial TV stations or why.
On December 8, the director of the regional Social
Defense Department and also the representative of the regional Commission
for Maintaining Order in Broadcasting, Yuri Savenkov, called a meeting
with representatives of the mass media. He declared that a decision
had been taken to allow transmission of all channels, excluding Channel
4. The Commission had recently solicited Moscow for a more speedy
release of the second license for Channel 4, but following the appearance
of Mr. Zhirinovsky, Mr. Savenkov had sent a telegram to Moscow requesting
an end to this solicitation. He stated that a decision on Channel
4’s future would be made following consideration of Channel 4’s “unethical
behavior,” which might call for a “judicial enquiry.” The attempts
of rep re sen ta tives of Channel 4 to prove that the Federal TV and Radio
Broadcasting Service had given them a temporary license were unsuccessful.
Mr. Savenkov said: “We have considered the political situation before
the elections and as a result have allowed the other channels to go back
on air. Regarding Channel 4, however, we will require a thorough
check of their technical and ethical standards.”
Despite the fact that the original statement regarding
the necessity for closing four commercial TV channels explained the
reason as being linked to a failure to receive the second license, the
public statements of the Head of Administration, Mr. Kovalyov and the head
of the Commission for Maintaining Order in Broad casting, Mr. Savenkov,
linked the closure specifically to the showing of an irate electoral statement
by Vladimir Zhirinovsky by one specific TV station, Channel 4. This
action was universally understood by the press in Voronezh as an act of
revenge directed against Channel 4 and an example to other TV companies
and journalists. Alarmingly, the administration had shown itself
capable of threatening closure of all private television stations in order
to punish one. In addition, on the same day as governor A. Kovalyov’s
statement was published in Voronezh Kurier, a front-page article entitled
“Journalists are Shown the Door,” laid out plans of the local administration
to require all journalists to apply for accreditation to gain entrance
to the local parliament. The last word on any accreditation will
be given by the governor, A. Kovalyov himself. Permission from the
local administration can be removed if a journalist is considered to have
“broken certain acceptable norms of behavior in parliament.”
Lena Fanailova, local correspondent for Radio Freedom,
said: “Kovalyov’s statement following the shutting down of local
channels and the announcement on accreditation was seen as a slap in the
face to the press here. Even if it was a coincidence that they appeared
on the same day, the implications were lost on no-one. They could
interpret “breaking certain acceptable norms of behavior” as asking a question
which offended the Head of Ad min i stra tion, and you could lose
your accreditation for parliament. That’s pretty much what seemed
to happen to Channel 4, but of course, on a much bigger and more expensive
scale.”
On the evening of December 9, Channel 4 was allowed
to return to air, but no compensation was offered by the administration.
The technical obstructions to Channel 4’s continuing transmission disappeared
without explanation.
In an interview on December 25, Anatoly Vengerov,
head of the Russian Federation Presidential Judicial Chamber for Information
Disputes noted that they were not looking into events in Voronezh.
“Local governors do abuse their power and sometimes shut down newspapers
and TV channels, but I am convinced that this is not a frequent occurrence.”
However, it should be considered that the Judicial
Chamber does not act as a “watchdog,” and generally responds to a situation
only where a specific complaint has been made. In the circumstance
that newspapers depend on administration funding to survive and complaints
could potentially result in sackings or withdrawal of funds, reluctance
to make official complaints would be understandable.
Commercial television channels in Voronezh are not
dependent on state funding, but learned they could be subject to the whim
of the administration if they were perceived to overstep the line.
All four channels lost much in advertising during a three-day period when
they were also unable to earn revenue from political campaigning in the
region. Local people, having originally seen Zhirinovsky’s appearance
as a comic interlude in an otherwise fairly tedious election campaign,
saw its consequences as a worrying return to old methods. Voronezh
representatives of the Liberal Democratic Party reported that almost a
thousand people joined up in the days following the closure of Channel
4.
These events illustrate several different trends
in state/media relations in the provinces. Firstly, that a local
governor can abuse the power of the Federal TV and Radio Broadcasting Service
to shut down a commercial channel which has not broken the law but which
has caused offence to him. Secondly, he can close three other non-offending
channels and threaten closure of almost 45 others in the process.
Thirdly, he can employ representatives of commissions in the regional parliament
who are supposed to deal with social justice and protection of the press
(Department of Social Defence, Commission for Maintaining Order in Broadcasting)
to justify his decision. Finally, perhaps more positively, pro longing
a process which is contrary to federal Russian law, may prove more problematic
than it is worth—as in this case.
Gillian McCormack, Language and Media Department,
Glasgow Caledonian University
On December 9, 1995, the President’s Judicial Chamber
on Information Disputes issued the following Statement [no. 3 (14)], “On
several cases involving violation of election campaign rules,” concerning
the conduct of the election campaign. This was one of many actions of the
Chamber during the election period.
The election campaign has entered the final stage.
The final week of the period allocated for election campaigning can be
decisive in determining the political preference of voters.
How sound these preferences turn out to be depends
to a considerable degree on the mass media and on strict observance of
election campaign rules and procedures.
The legislator has guaranteed candidates and electoral
associations various conditions for access to the mass media. On
the whole, these norms are observed.
However, the Judicial Chamber has received numerous
appeals from participants in the electoral process complaining of some
violation or other of the election campaign rules on the part of television
and radio companies.
An utterly intolerable situation occurred in Moscow.
The “Moskva” television and radio company, whose founders include a government
organ (Moskomimushchestvo) and as a result is required to provide free
airtime to Moscow candidates for deputy, categorically refuses to fulfill
this legislative norm and disregards the lawful demands of the Moscow City
Electoral Commission and the Judicial Chamber.
Complaints against the All- Russian Television and
Radio Company are also piling up. Several of their leaders have “forgotten”
about the legal orders contained in point 1.3 of the RF Central Electoral
Commission’s Instruction “On the Procedure for Allocation of Airtime on
State Television and Radio Company Channels . . .”
No one, of course, has deprived journalists, including
employees of state television and radio companies, of the right to provide
commentary on the election campaign. But what does this right, which
is safeguarded by law, have in common with the unexpected appearance on
the “Gentlemen” program by the leader of the “Forward Russia” electoral
association, V. Fedorov, with his political anecdotes (VGTRK, November
24, 1995)? Or the constant references to the association “Our Home
is Russia” on the “Brain- ring” program (ORT, November 11 and 18, 1995)?
Under what category of election campaigning can
one place the hour program on S. Kovalev, one of the leaders of the “Russia’s
Choice—United Democrats” bloc, which aired on the GTRK “Petersburg-5th
Channel”? There are a sufficient number of such examples to demonstrate
that television and radio company leaders have clear political preferences
and just as clear disrespect for the law.
The criticisms of many candidates for deputy and
voters about the content of state television news programs are justified.
The frequent appearances on these programs by the head of the Russian government,
who is also the leader of an electoral association, have gone beyond the
bounds of the permissible.
Unfortunately, again and again it is established
that candidates for deputy mandates themselves disregard electoral legislation
requirements and ethical norms. Many of these issues have already
been the subject of Judicial Chamber and Central Electoral Commission examination.
Yet they appear anew.
For example, during the December 6th election airtime
of ORT, the head of the Liberal- Democratic Party of Russia, V.V. Zhirinovskii,
proposed his method for “implementing order” in the Caucasus: “If
even a single shot is fired from any village, if even one Russian soldier
is wounded or killed (if you vote for the LDPR), I will give the order
to destroy that village! We will destroy 5-6 villages, burn them
down completely with napalm, and then there will be no war.”
Is this not incitement of nationalist hatred and
a gross violation of the Constitution? For his “weapon of retribution”
(against women, the elderly and children!) Zhirinovsky has chosen napalm,
the use of which has long been denounced and outlawed by the world community.
Another monopolist of the “Russian idea”—N.N. Lysenko,
leader of the National- Republican Party of Russia—who has declared himself
to be virtually the only person concerned with the interests of the Russian
people, proposed a similarly simple and “effective” prescription for the
crime problem (aired on Russian television on November 29, 1995).
The solution, it turns out, is simply to remove from Russian territory
the “mafia hordes of the Transcaucasian and Central Asian Republics.”
To support his position, N. Lysenko referred to a certain young Moscow
sociological association unknown in sociological circles and cited farfetched
statistics that go beyond the bounds of common sense: 60-90% of the
most serious crimes in Russia are allegedly committed by those very “immigrants.”
Of course, he failed to mention the overall level of criminality and its
social and legal aspects.
The Judicial Chamber considers it necessary to point
out that the election campaign is likely to “continue” even after December
17—in the form of the already numerous lawsuits concerning violations of
the election campaign rules.
In evaluating the course of the election campaign,
the Judicial Chamber declares its intention to use all means to eliminate
violations of election legislation and to hold violators legally accountable
for their actions.
In sending this statement to the Central Electoral
Commission, electoral associations and blocs, and the mass media, the Judicial
Chamber expects that in the time remaining until the election all participants
in the electoral process will rigorously observe legislative requirements
and will not create by their actions grounds for casting doubt on the results
of the people’s expression of its will.
Chairman of the Judicial Chamber
A.B. Vengerov
Published in Rossiiskaia gazeta on December 14, 1995, at 6
Translated into English by Frances H. Foster