Post-Soviet Media Law & Policy Newsletter
Issue 26 Benjamin
N. Cardozo School of Law February 26, 1996
Long-time Yeltsinite, Oleg Poptsov, Ousted as Head of
Russian TV;
President Replaces him with Eduard Sagalayev
On February 15, President Yeltsin sent a poisoned Valentine
to Oleg Poptsov, relieving him of his job as Chair of the powerful Russian
Second Channel, an enterprise that had risen from a subordinate part of
Ostankino to Moscow’s leading state channel.
Yeltsin’s action was announced on the same day as he
proclaimed his campaign for reelection and was accompanied by a statement
criticizing RTR for “blackening” Russia’s movement toward democracy. He
accused the company of lying instead of presenting the truth, referring
not only to economic change, but possibly to RTR’s candid coverage of the
conflict in Chechyna.
Agence France Presse, reported that the statement
said the president had criticized RTR chief Oleg Poptsov “more than once”
for what was regarded as the “biased manner” in which some programs covered
Russian events.
The most contentious programs, the statement added,
dealt with “key questions regarded reinforcing democracy and the state.”
Despite the president’s warnings, according to the comments
from the President’s office, Poptsov “did nothing” to change the tone of
programming on RTR, created in 1991 at Yeltsin’s initiative and, more recently,
increasingly critical towards the authorities.
Yeltsin’s office added: “The president has, in repeated
fashion, expressed his unconditional support for press freedom. . . . His
decisions concerning officials do not signal a change of mind.”
Yeltsin claimed that RTR had been broadcasting news
that was “too morbid” and ignoring positive aspects of Russian society.
Olesya Usina, writing in Kuranty, reflected a common
view, namely that “the wish of Boris Yeltsin to make all the media a continuation
of the presidential press service are quite understandable, but the trouble
is that while the media can help the authorities, they cannot replace them
and no TV channel and no paper can make these authorities popular among
the population.” On the other hand, Pravda, in an interesting comment on
February 20, mocked the President claiming that both the first and the
second state TV 1 channels, ORT and RTR, “compete in a ‘democratic’
brainwashing of TV viewers and in expressing deep respect for their President.”
Champion of the Press
On February 21, according to ITAR-TASS, President
Yeltsin, addressing journalists, asserted that appointments to head the
state television and radio companies were within the presidential prerogatives.
He used the occasion to stress that he “remained a champion
of the free press” and, according to the TASS report, added that he had
always backed Oleg Poptsov even though he was aware of the fact that the
company chairman “allowed some mistakes to happen.”
The President “expressed the hope that the new leadership
would be able to strengthen the company, including in the purely professional
sense.”
Yeltsin also “confirmed that he remained the constitutional
guarantor of the freedom of speech and safety of journalists and told journalists
to feel free to approach him every time they faced threats or persecution.”
Sergei Filatov, Yeltsin’s former chief of staff, who
was appointed by the president to a committee to aid his re-election campaign,
told ITAR-TASS that the dismissal of Poptsov could undermine support for
him.
“A negligent attitude to people could alienate from
the head of state those who for many years have worked alongside him out
of conviction,” Tass reported.
Filatov supported Poptsov for creating the democratic
basis for Russian television, saying that “The negative evaluation
of Poptsov’s activity does not accord with reality.”
Some Sample Press Responses
In Moskovsky Komsomolets, Andrei Stepanov wrote
the following:
“By firing Russian Television’s chief Oleg Poptsov for alleged
misrepresentation of what he believes to be the real situation in the country
Yeltsin has in effect cut the ground from under his feet: since its inception
the Russian Television company has been a consistent supporter of the President
and his democratic policies.
“Indeed, Russian Television together with a score of
newspapers have largely shaped Yeltsin’s image as a democratic President.
“At the time of the 1993 putsch when there was an almost
total TV black-out only Russian Television remained on the air supplying
the public with information about the dramatic developments of those days.
Poptsov and a group of other journalists had put their careers at risk
in view of the uncertain outcome of the drama. Russian Television continued
its broadcasts when heads of other channels had shut them down for fear
of repercussions.
“As he announced his decision to fire Poptsov Yeltsin
accused the company of lying without supplying any evidence in support
of the charge. Apparently, for all its talk of freedom of speech the Kremlin
has now decided that the best method of dealing with journalists is suppression
rather than persuasion, a time-honored tactic echoing Communist strategy.”
Stapanov quotes a member of the Zyuganov Duma faction,
Yuri Ivanov, as urging a radical review of the Media Law and threatening
to get rid of the Constitutional Court if it stands in the way of Communist
attempts to subjugate the press to a Communist government. The difference,
Stepanov argues, between Yeltsin and the Communists, “is that the Communists
intend to clamp down on the media after coming to power, while the President
has chosen to do so here and now thereby disenchanting even those who still
regard him as the lesser evil.”
In Izvestia, shortly after the sacking, Irina Petrovskaya
wrote as follows:
The reason the President gave for sacking Poptsov was
that “. . . instead of presenting the real facts, RTR was demonstrating
only ‘chernukha’ (from chernoye, or black) i.e. ‘muckraking.’
“I disagree with the label that the President has pinned
on RTR and Poptsov. What concerns the ‘political line’ of RTR Channel,
it was precisely, in the normal sense, pro-presidential: it supported all
the reformist efforts of the authorities; in a correct and decent way it
criticized the failures and errors that were made on this way, and the
main thing--it never allowed ‘benefit performance’ of extremists on the
air.
“Oleg Poptsov was with Boris Yeltsin since 1990, and
together with the President started building up democracy, brick by brick,
in 1991 and 1993. But, the author writes, it appears that Poptsov has stepped
on the President’s corn.
“In the President’s present accusation against Poptsov,
the most amazing thing is the word ‘chernukha.’ To accuse RTR of ‘muckraking’
would be the same as accusing ‘2 X 2,’ of advocating classical music (the
channel offers almost 100% hard rock and pop), or to charge that NTV was
leaning too heavily towards educational and enlightenment programs.
“This, therefore, obviously indicates that the President’s
‘informers,’ just like Yeltsin himself, do not bother to watch TV.
Yet, the author continues, there must be a reason for Poptsov’s dismissal.
And indeed, there is.
“Last year, Poptsov published a book entitled A Chronicle
of the Times of Tzar Boris. In it he writes: “The President himself
has admitted that his family is extremely ‘politicized.’ He himself has
no time to watch TV. The closest people around him are engaged in this
thankless work. In particular, The President’s wife Naina Iosifovna monitors
Russia [RTR] Channel. And it is the duty of the Chief of the President’s
Security to ‘know the mood’ in the family of the leader of the state.”
“Add to this, RTR’s straightforward coverage of the
Chechen war, and one can understand why those in power ‘have smashed the
mirror into which they were looking.’ Exit Poptsov.”
Reassurances from Eduard Sagalayev
On February 16, Russian Television interviewed Eduard
Sagalayev. Here is a text of the interview.
[Sagalayev] Of course Russian Television does
not paint a black picture [President Yeltsin had charged the Russian TV
channel with blackening the picture of emerging democracy]. I consider
that Russian TV is a big supporter of democracy and that President Boris
Nikolayevich Yeltsin, the Russian government, Oleg Maksimovich Poptsov,
Anatoliy Grigoryevich Lysenko [director-general of VGTRK] and the entire
workforce have made great contributions to the establishment of VGTRK.
Russian TV is now an established and inescapable part
of our public life; a very serious and significant part. Perhaps it is
our civic responsibility and our duty as journalists to see not only what
is glaringly obvious but also what is actually happening, because in Yekaterinburg
I met a lot of people and heard from many of them that the press as a whole
pays too little attention to some of the positive aspects of our lives
and is rocking the boat too much.
[Sagalayev] Firstly, I am not intending to make
any radical changes at VGTRK. I consider that however this transfer of
power at the company came about, there should be continuity. The structure
that has been lovingly developed must in no way be demolished, only improved
and further developed. I think that there can hardly be anybody among the
viewers or my journalist colleagues who would accuse me of careerism or
of striving, as it were, to serve those in authority. Nor do I intend to
do so, because Sagalayev will remain as he always has been, and I do not
intend to change my views and my conscience in this regard.
It seems to me that the problem is a different one and
lies in the fact that VGTRK has a vast audience, it is a professional body,
and a specific situation exists with regard to Oleg Poptsov. Indeed, I
telephoned him today and we agreed to meet. I do not think, if the president
does not change his decision-and that is a matter for the president-that
Oleg Maksimovich will prefer some kind of protracted warfare, so to speak.
I think that he and I will be able to discuss how to preserve what has
been built up over the years by thousands of people, and not destroy it.
`Personally, I will be honest with colleagues, viewers and the country’
s leadership. If anyone wishes to organize the television company in line
with their own ideas, and not with real life, I will react fairly harshly.
[Presenter] We do not know yet how this will end,
and whether President Yeltsin will listen to our journalists. Nor do we
know about our working future. You have heard the position of Eduard Sagalayev,
the company’s new head. It was only the staffing issue, the main issue
at present, that was decided in the old way when, on just one day, 14th
February, both of President Yeltsin’s decrees ere signed.
[Sagalayev] It was suggested that I take up this
post. After thinking about it and realizing that the situation was irreversible
and that someone else would be put in the post, I answered certain questions
for myself-concerning my present work and the general state of the country’s
television broadcasting-and I agreed provisionally, anticipating further
talks and meetings that would influence the final decision and of course
an in-depth conversation with the president, Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin.
Besides this, and in any event, I was expecting to have
a meeting with Oleg Poptsov before any publication of a decree and the
adoption of the final decision. However, when the president flew to Yekaterinburg,
I was invited to accompany him on the trip along with a large group of
journalists and figures from the field of art and literature. So I flew
to Yekaterinburg with my colleagues in the press aircraft and attended
Yeltsin’s speech and his press meeting. There was no talk about the subject
that is now agitating not only you but certainly me too.
I returned to Moscow, and upon arrival I discovered
from various evening news bulletins, including [Russian TV’s] “Vesti,”
that the decree had been signed. When the decree was published, I wondered
what I should do, and decided that in this difficult situation I could
not ignore the president’s decision.
On February 18, Sagalayev, made his first visit to the
“Vesti” [news programme] editorial office. . . .
[Presenter] The “Vesti” staff have been waiting
for this meeting with the new head of our company. For many days now, the
subject of every conversation in the editorial office has been: what will
happen to us in the future? After President Yeltsin accused our television
channel [Russian TV], and above all “Vesti,” of holding different views
to his, a tightening of screws and an imposition of ideas could have been
expected. But Eduard Sagalayev came to Russian TV with a different aim.
[Sagalayev, addressing journalists] I agreed to
this proposal because, simply, I know that I can withstand attacks, and
that I will be able, to the best of my ability of course, to defend the
company, above all “Vesti” , from the aspirations to turn it into a leash
of the election campaign or a servant of some individual or some latest
idea.
[Presenter] Sagalayev’s past career includes the
creation of “The 12th Floor” programme, “Vzglyad,” “Seven Days” and the
TV6 private television channel. Among television people he is considered
to be a professional and reformer. And let us hope that this is how he
will be in his new capacity.
“Everything is normal,” declared Poptsov as he took
the announcement of his dismissal like a real man. “Everything is normal.
That is the way it was bound to turn out.”
“In reality Poptsov and RTR seem to be an obstacle in
the way of those in power, especially on the threshold of the presidential
elections.”
Malashenko, Formidable Competitor, Praises
Poptsov
At a press conference on February 16, held by Oleg
Poptsov, Igor Malashenko, head of NTV and competitor of Oleg Poptsov’s
Channel 2, made the following laudatory statement with implications for
the status of independent television:
We are witnessing the conclusion of a big stage
in the development of Russian television and the completion of a big phase
in Russian politics. Oleg Maximovich Poptsov and his team have succeeded
in doing what nobody has ever done before and is not likely to accomplish
in Russia in the future — they created an alternative state television.
That was the first alternative television in Russia.
In this sense we are all products of Russian television,
including NTV and the other companies. Just as Russian literature has emerged
out of Gogol’s “Greatcoat.” I do not think that the authorities like alternatives.
This was demonstrated by the President’s decree.
But I do not want to be a big pessimist and do not think
that the All-Russia State Radio Company can turn into something else just
because its chairman was replaced. The main achievement of Oleg Maximovich
Poptsov is that his brainchild rests on a very solid foundation which precludes
its conversion into something else. A whale cannot be turned into an elephant.
The VGTRK will not be turned into something else. I am very well aware
of this as a manager. I know very well the solid organizational and economic
foundation that VGTRK has. I know how close-knit the team here is. That
is why I am sure that this alternative television will continue to exist
regardless of whether this pleases or displeases the authorities.
This no longer depends on the authorities. It is important
to understand this and this is a very big accomplishment of Oleg Maximovich
Poptsov and his team. And yet another point. I think the people who prompted
the President to adopt this decision have made a mistake, a mistake they
are repeating many years in succession. In Russia politicians have a naive
faith that television is an absolute weapon and that he who controls it
can win elections. But the history of Russian politics of recent years
points to the opposite. He who controls television—loses.
Television cannot be controlled. It is a sphere of professional
activity. If you start controlling railways, trains will start running
off the rails already tomorrow. The same applies to television. The people
who are trying to force journalists to engage in the propaganda of some
information in the long run undermine their own chances of success. And
my final point. Unfortunately, I fear that the resignation of Oleg
Maximovich has confirmed yet another unpleasant truth about Russian politics
that it’s not all that much important who sees something.
It’s much more important who tells the boss about what
he has seen in his own way. As Oleg Maximovich has already said,
the President is a very busy person. It’s very unlikely that he watches
television and it is most likely his impressions are based on what he hears
from his aides. Frankly speaking, I know this from my personal experience,
I’ve got the impression that people, even politicians, very rarely get
insulted by the materials they read or watch themselves.
But materials retold to them by others outrage them.
Apparently, something like that happened this time, too. Unfortunately,
we are talking now about part of Russia’s political culture and it will
take many years before the one who sees will become more important than
the one who tells about what he has seen. But in any event, we will get
rid of this vestige and I would like to note once again the huge work that
Oleg Poptsov has done to do away with this vestige.
And the very last thing. The television broadcasting
company NTV can pledge one thing to our friends and colleagues from VGTRK:
we will always stand by you and you can always count on our professional
help, the help of your friends and colleagues with many of whom you have
worked together.
News Director Nekhoroshev: “Poptsov
is an Epoch”
At the February 16 press conference of Oleg Poptsov,
Alexander Nekhoroshev, director of the news program Vesti, made the following
statement:
We ask the President to receive a delegation of
our work collective, or come here and talk with us. We do not accept Poptsov’s
dismissal.
We do not agree with the assessment made by the President
yesterday in Yekaterinburg. He accused us of lying and negative reporting.
We asked Eduard Mikhailovich Sagalayev to refrain from accepting the post
of chairman of the VGTRK before the matter of Poptsov’s resignation is
clarified. Although, as we understand, the decree was signed on February
14 and legally Sagalayev is now the chairman of VGTRK.
He has been so for two days already. There is yet another
circumstance that is worth mentioning. The General Director of our television
and radio broadcasting company, Anatoly Grigoryevich Lysenko, a well-known
and popular person in television circles, an academician, has repeatedly
said that if Poptsov resigns he will immediately step down as the general
director. If he has changed his mind, I have not heard of that and so I
believe that he will leave the company together with Poptsov.
And the last thing. You know, in the past people said
that there were nestlings of Peter’s nest. By that they meant the consequences
of Peter the Great’s reform. I am glad to say that for the remaining part
of my life I can consider myself as a nestling of Poptsov’s nest because
we all witness a very important event. Poptsov is not just a chairman or
a bureaucrat, not just a writer or an awful person who is impossible, but
very pleasant, to deal with.
Poptsov is an epoch. Poptsov has set a trend. He is
a unique person who has made a tremendous contribution to modern Russian
and international journalism. From this point of view, I am now appealing
to the academicians who are preparing Teffi awards for 1996 to take my
proposal into account and award Oleg Maximovich Poptsov for his outstanding
contribution to modern television. Poptsov: Let me clarify one thing.
First of all, it’s a little bit untactful. What do you mean, Anatoly Grigoryevich
said—this is not how things should be done. First of all, Anatoly Grigoryevich
has a right to express his opinion and no one should voice any opinion
for him in his absence. That’s wrong. Secondly, I would like to tell you
that we have been doing this job together with you for almost six years.
For you and for us these premises, comfortable and uncomfortable—we
started in the street. We did not have even a table or a chair or a car.
We took off from our established positions and went nowhere. But we succeeded
in launching a new channel and building a new company. We created the atmosphere
and the outlook of this company. I think we have even created the spirit
of teamwork. One may, of course, criticize us saying that our work has
not been always smooth and even, but this sense of teamwork should be preserved.
I wouldn’t like our team to fall apart after I leave.
After all, each of us should first of all think about our common cause.
That’s the purpose of our life and work here. You know, wherever we go
we always talk about our work. And about politics too. You’re right. But
politics is part of our work. When I was asked some time ago—when I refused
to run for parliament—if I was quitting big politics, I said that the Duma
was just a small part of the huge politics that we cover as television
and radio journalists. But then there are still the presidential elections.
I could nominate myself a candidate. Why not give it a try? It is fashionable
now. We all should concentrate on the preservation of what we are
doing, on the preservation of our accomplishments so that we could further
advance. If we all rise and leave—what will this produce?
Every one should decide for himself. I am grateful for
these words that speak of solidarity. But I repeat that each should decide
for himself.
Workers at Russian Television Lodge Appeal
to President Yeltsin
As a consequence of the dismissal of Poptsov employees
of RTR wrote the following appeal to President Yeltsin:
To President Yeltsin, the Kremlin, Moscow.
Esteemed Boris Nikolayevich: We learned today from news
agency reports that Russia has two television channels-one that is good
and another that lies and continually carries only black reports. You also
spoke of your intention to remove Oleg Poptsov, the chairman of the VGTRK,
since he had allegedly not heeded your recommendations of the need not
to lie but to work properly.
There is nothing more shocking for journalists whose
creative and human destinies are linked in the closest way to the reforms
and the establishment of democracy than to hear such injustice-and to hear
it from a president whose reform policies, despite the numerous counteractions
by political opponents have been consistently and honestly covered in our
television and radio company’s programs.
We were alongside you in June and August 1991 and in
October 1993. We defended the reform policies and were loyal to state television
and radio, rejecting the temptation of a comfortable existence in the commercial
structures. Our position also remains unchanged now, despite the grave
threat to the fate of democracy in Russia.
The company was set up and led throughout these years
by Oleg Maksimovich Poptsov, a person who is infinitely dedicated to the
ideas of the reforms. It was he who directed the activities of the company
during the periods of crisis for the new Russia and earned the hate of
political opponents. It is not surprising that the attempts to have the
president impeached and Oleg Poptsov dismissed coincided. The opponents
of the country’s leaders and our company’s leaders have been and still
are the very same people.
It is therefore all the more shocking that the wish
to remove the chairman of the VGRTK has now been expressed by you, the
reforming president, on the day that you announced your decision to stand
for election for a second term.
We know that the law allows you to sack Oleg Poptsov without
giving any reasons; but besides the law there are also human and professional
codes. In accordance with them we cannot at this difficult moment betray
our leader, who was elected to his post by the television and radio company’s
workforce, and fail to express our opinion to you in this regard.
In the same address in Yekaterinburg you stated that
you as president will be a reliable guarantor of the freedom of the mass
media in Russia. We should like to believe that this is not simply a pretty
phrase in an election speech but the conscious and unshakable position
of the country’s political leader.
On behalf of the workforce the appeal was signed by
Nikolay Svanidze, Aleksandr Nekhoroshev and Yelena Dmitriyeva, members
of the workforce’ s council.
Poptsov Reflects on His Fate, His Future
and Free Press
The following is an edited transcript of a press
conference held on February 16.
Moderator: Slightly more than a year ago we
also assembled in this hall and the reason was the same—a decree was being
prepared on the dismissal of Oleg Maximovich Poptsov. That decree did not
appear then. It appeared a year later. The most bitter thing in this entire
situation is that the authorities are consistently rejecting the more talented,
the more active, the more viable and loyal people. But what can be done
in a situation when the decree is already signed? But one thing that we
cannot do is to keep silent. So, we are having a press conference by Oleg
Maximovich Poptsov.
Poptsov: I believe that we are gathering not for
the purpose of holding hands. We are holding hands, as it is, every day.
When we have such situations we gather in order to exchange information
and, proceeding from this information, to adopt decisions. I will not be
making any statements. I do not see any need for them. The fact is there.
As it is said, the deceased has been brought and he can be inspected. For
this reason I would like to move on at once to your questions.
Q: The President’s decree on your dismissal, does it
reflect Yeltsin’s departure from democratic principles or does he really
perceive your channel’s programs as trash?
Poptsov: Perception of life is subjective and
we should understand very well that as a viewer the President is as subjective
as any other person. What does it mean—you are showing only in black hues?
What colors life consists of—we show these colors. This must be clearly
understood, that our task is to show reality, our task is to discuss reality,
our task is to speak about miscalculations, we must speak about the reasons
why reality is not changing and it is our task to show the changed reality.
And together with the whole of society we should rejoice at these changes.
I believe that our company implemented precisely this concept. The company
functioned and its information flows function. But answering further your
question, or expounding on it, I must say that there is a different understanding
of what “truth of life” means. It always differed.
The truth of life perceived by the authorities and the
truth of life in reality have always been two different truths. I don’t
think we can say that a person who has power is blind. No. It’s just that
he often says, we are working day and night, but you show only our mistakes.
It has always been like this. I say, we can show that you work day and
night, but then our viewers will ask for results. Then we show them the
results, but you begin to complain that we do not show that you work day
and night. And I say, OK, we’ll show that you work day and night, but no
results have been achieved in this or that particular area. And he tells
us that we show trash.
The concept of management of a company has nothing to
do with the methodology of crossing out bad or good quotes. The concept
of management of a company presupposes process monitoring and an ability
to use our limited resources to make, depending on the situation, a cultural,
economic, information or technological breakthrough. . . . If we say that
a company defends democracy, this company should be permeated with democracy.
You cannot defend democracy in a jail. If this area of democracy—trust
and professionalism are not only inside, but also outside of you, that’s
democracy. And I can tell you that the company and its staff have always
abided by these principles. Does the company have flaws? Lots of them.
Lots of mistakes. In creative life there are always more failures than
successes. So, this is creativity, too.
I believe that we should have different channels and
that’s where I disagree with the President. You see something on one channel,
and something entirely different on another, and this should be so. This
should be so, indeed, something entirely different. Otherwise, why do we
need seven channels if all of them show the same thing? Then, the viewer
will have no choice, and he will say that we do not need so many channels.
Incidentally, many people already say so. Why do we need so many
theaters? One should be enough. And we also have too many libraries, and
just one newspaper will be enough. But this is a delusion. And we
are told that information should be verified—yes, it indeed should, everything
should be balanced.
For example, yesterday Zhirinovsky complained that he
did not appear on our channel every day. This means that we do try to achieve
some sort of balance. This is normal, you see, but I think that Vladimir
Volfovich cannot be quite so angry with us because he figures in our information
flow continuously. But this is no credit to the broadcast company. If there
are events, the media follow them; if there are no events, the media cannot
be blamed for focusing on Petrov, rather than Vasilyev. The point is that
Vasilyev is not a news-maker. As soon as he begins make news, he will become
a figure in the information flow.
This is what professionalism is about, this is what
honesty is about. I keep saying that there is no such thing as objectivity.
Objectivity is a sum total of subjectivities. And professionalism also
means to be able to show this sum total and, if you are a man of conviction,
to identity the key subjectivity which should provide guidance to society.
Did we always manage to accomplish that? No, not always. Not always because
occasionally we lack professionalism. But the authorities often believe
that we should put something in a way they would have put it. But this
is impossible.
I think that one accomplishment of our company is that
we have always been loyal to and followed the principles of open politics,
that same open politics which the President proclaimed when he took oath.
We have been supporting that principle, and we believe that we are working
within the domain of open politics. This means that society knows about
politicians and that politicians know about society. Society knows about
the authorities, and the authorities know about society, and they are using
opportunities offered by the TV channels to learn more about society, to
learn as much as possible about it. And our task is to tell society as
much as possible about the authorities, their plans and their achievements.
Indeed, these are the principles of open politics, without which we cannot
have any democratic development, any development of civilization. And I
believe that it will be very hard to uproot all that in the All Russia
TV company. And I don’t think that the man who is going to take my place
is going to do that—anyway, he should not do that.
Q: Moskovskaya Pravda. When the rumors of your
resignation started circulating, did you have a meeting with the President,
did you have any conversations on this matter with him?
Poptsov: I have not been meeting with the President
for quite some time. Perhaps, for more than a year after that first round
involving my resignation. But, friends, we must have a feeling of professional
pride. If the President develops doubts whether we should work or not,
if the President has questions he can invite the head of one of the companies
and tell him all this. You spoke about rumors. Well, the rumors are
circulating from 1991. I have survived three attempts to sack me by the
Supreme Soviet. I was dismissed at every congress. There were nine of them.
And I was dismissed at each of them. I was dismissed also at virtually
every session of the Supreme Soviet. I remember that I would enter the
hall and the first thing that was told me that “they have just discussed
you,” “have you heard what they have just said?” I would not say that I
have become accustomed to this, but when one sits on a volcano one should
constantly remember about this.
I think that this has become a tactics of sort. They
say, society has tired. Remember when the decision was being made on whether
to liberalize prices or not? We made a lot at that time, we understood
that this was going to happen at any moment. And we kept saying that this
is going to happen at any moment. Society got tired of this and when the
prices were liberalized everything passed quite painlessly. This type of
psychological training exists in daily life and in politics. And I believe
that certain forces used these tactics on me. . . .
I believe that Boris Nikolayevich has always been very
sensitive to our materials, and that’s natural, but the President, due
to his busy working schedule, tremendously busy schedule, simply has no
time to watch television. Physically, he has no time. That’s why very often
he makes assessments based on the materials provided by his aides. But
in that case this is an assessment of not the President, but rather of
the person who prepared these materials. After all, we are always
hostages of several opinions of the people in power. You know, it’s like
circles: you go through the first cordon, then the second one—the first
one says no. The second says not just no, but awful. And the third one
says that it’s nothing less than sabotage. Summarized, no means sabotage.
So, if it happens like this, it’s a very dangerous phenomenon, especially
at a time when we are heading for elections.
The President is changing his team. His understanding
of how this team should operate—a discussion of whether or not there should
be a presidential channel in Russia has been going on for quite a while.
This is what Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev dreamt about. I think that many
of the steps taken around ORT were an attempt to implement this idea. Has
this attempt been successful, that’s a different story. So, of course,
this is connected with the elections and I don’t think I should pretend
that it’s not.
Some believe that—any election campaign is based on
some ideology. Our Home Is Russia used one ideology. Presidential candidate
Gennady Andreyevich Zyuganov is using obviously another ideology. Boris
Nikolayevich Yeltsin will build his election campaign on yet another ideology.
Proceeding from this ideology not only the contours of the edifice are
designed but also the floors.
I must say that in the election campaign ideology there
is one delusion. And everybody has it. The mass media can help but cannot
substitute for. You understand, the mass media can help, but it cannot
substitute for what does not exist. I believe that in this election campaign
the illusion that everything will be resolved by television and radio is
very much present. In my opinion the elections will be won by good strategy
in the provinces. Success in the elections will be determined not by talk
on the scale of a region, but talk on the scale of social strata.
Q: BBC. The staff of the All-Russia TV Company
have asked you to officially protest against Yeltsin’s decree removing
you from the chairmanship of the company. Will you do that? Second,
as far as I know, following the sending of Russian troops into Chechnya,
when the Russian TV channel dared to broadcast not just the information
provided by the presidential press center, the pressure for your removal
from the post was especially high, and Shakhrai took your side in the President’s
inner circle, saying that your removal from the post in that situation
would have caused serious repercussions in the world community. At present,
the staff of the company also cite such repercussions in their statement,
saying that this move is contrary to free speech, of which the President
is the guarantor. What is your view of the situation in this context?
Or do you think that in view of the series of resignations, as it were,
related to the beginning of his election campaign, your resignation will
not be so noticeable or cause repercussions?
Poptsov: Well, I think that those repercussions
are calculated by people who make appropriate steps. I think that they
would like those repercussions to be as localized as possible. This is
a normal desire, and I do not have any questions on this score. Indeed,
when that problem arose during those events in Chechnya—I will make no
secret from you that this was in the air in 1993—I think, it was in the
air in September, as well, since certain circles kept insisting on that—but
then, October came about, and the situation was reversed. But, well—I should
tell you that after that meeting of the Security Council at which all that
happened a year ago, I, naturally, as the chairman of the company, met
very many members.
I have to tell you that the six people that I met told
me that they had voted against. So, as far as I understand, in this particular
case, I believe I should think that I was saved collectively, although
I do not really know whether that’s true or not. In this sense, the
allusion to the geese that saved Rome is probably not very correct. Perhaps,
Shakhrai was not alone. Very often I heard that everything was different.
Indeed, it was all very different. At first I said, then he said, then
you said and only then did Shakhrai speak.
However, Shakhrai sees it differently. He says that
I was the first to speak and that he spoke after me. I know that some were
against. The President made a proposal—I know that the opponents included
Kozyrev and, as I hope, Sergei Mikhailovich Shakhrai and others. But that’s
natural.
Now, about the reaction. I have already told you that
there is such thing as psychological fatigue. It’s quite possible that
when a package is proposed, attention loosens. You know, it’s like a net
of fish and you do not know which one to choose. For different people
different things are a sensation. For some of them the sacking of Poptsov
is a sensation. For others a sensation is the arrest of Ilyushenko in the
street. It depends on the approach. I think that you, as a professional,
were right saying that it was a designed tactic, this package proposal
in order to disperse attention and reaction and that’s what happened at
the elections when people did not know which bloc to vote for. Now
we see the results. So, I believe that your supposition is very correct.
Q: Will there be a court appeal of the President’s
action?
Poptsov: We live in an entirely different society
now, so different that I haven’t gotten used to this novelty yet. I can
hardly picture myself appealing to the court against this presidential
decree.
Let me tell you objectively that I was appointed by
Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin. When he appointed me he was not the President,
he was the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet. You probably know that I actively
resisted and it was Mikhail Nikiforovich Poltoranin and Bella Alexeyevna
Kurkova who played the crucial role and put the pressure on the President
at that critical time.
At that time we all lived in some sort of democratic
euphoria. Everybody loved everybody and everybody worshipped everybody.
Logically, I should not object to the fact that this same person has now
done the opposite, although there is the Civil Code which contains a provision
on an unitary state enterprise. Under this provision, the head of such
an enterprise is appointed by the prime minister, etc., etc. But these
are minor things. There is no use crying over spilt milk.
Q: (Off mike).
Poptsov: I believe that there should be neither
government, nor parliamentary television. We have in Russia state-owned
television. It is duty bound to service, to cover the activities first
of all of the President, the government, the State Duma and the Federation
Council. For this reason if “pocket” TV companies, radio companies and
newspapers are set up [entities in the pocket of particular bodies of government],
this will bring us back to square one when the CPSU Central Committee was
the founder of virtually all newspapers in the country.
As an exception, regional party committees were the
founders on the regional level. The Komsomol Central Committee was also
permitted to serve as a founder. Trade unions were also granted this permission.
And that was all. True, there were also sectoral newspapers like “Lesnaya
Promyshlennost” of the Ministry of Timber Industry, “Vodny Transport.”
I think this is wrong. We don’t have that much money.
The state, the power structures should work out a normal, sensible mechanism
of relations with the mass media. The incumbent President of Russia is
facing this question again. In his time the President won the likes of
the democratic press without any effort. Indeed, it is necessary to make
journalists like you. Indeed, it is necessary that journalists trust you.
Indeed, one should put up with the professionalism of journalists and their
information should be valued. Indeed, one should endure rebukes and needling
from them and sometimes certain excesses.
But such is the world of journalism. It is like this
in virtually all countries of the world. No bans, no subordination will
produce a true result. These measures may produce a result, however, create
the image of a President, head of government, chairman of the State Duma.
You know, sometimes a minister calls on the phone and says that he liked
very much some program. My answer is: “You know, our task was different.
Our task was to please viewers”. And this is the essence of the matter.
Something may please a narrow circle of persons but
be a total failure with the audience. The viewer is intelligent, the viewer
says “who are they taking us for? Who are they trying to brainwash, who
are they trying to hoodwink?” That is why I am categorically against these
trends. I consider them to be very dangerous trends. No doubt about
it, this is a blow against democratic development. But there exists also
another problem. All contact has been lost with such a world as the world
of newspapers. Yes, all newspapers have been freed and it is difficult
to cope with them. The authorities will have to get accustomed to this
and they must work out a different system of relationships.
Look what is happening. Life is developing faster than
the perception of life. Perception of life is constantly lagging behind.
Perception of life is functioning according to the old model. But life
is already far ahead. That is why it is said “people have forgotten the
times when there were queues”. True, they have forgotten that. And if they
have forgotten about the queues and only remember some sort of good times,
the authorities, too, remember the good times, when they just pushed the
button and said: “To heel!”
You see, life has changed, but perceptions are lagging
behind. This is normal, but this is one of the difficulties confronting
us. So, our task is—I have always pointed this out—to explain to the authorities
that they have the good fortune of governing society, but at the same time
they do not cease to be a part of that society.
Just like society, they go to the cinema and watch TV,
they read books, like the rest of society, and at that time they cease
to be the authorities, they become TV viewers, readers and listeners. And
then, they have a similar right to perception that you have or I have.
And we should summarize these perceptions, these viewpoints of what we
show, report or write.
Q: In spite of all that, what is your forecast
of the situation, in principle, for the mass media as a whole?
Poptsov: This action is not a departure from democracy.
This is another understanding of democracy. Every person perceives democracy
in his own way. So, we are dealing with a different understanding of democracy.
But I think the going will be tough for Eduard Mikhailovich,
should he decide to change the philosophy of the collective that works
here. It was motivated not by earnings but by defense of ideas, defense
of principles. I will not conceal from you that at that stage it was supporting
ideas embodied by Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin.
It was for the reforms and it, this collective, was
a trailblazer of these reforms. And all that we have, all that we have
accomplished will be counted as a plus for us. In fact, we have done more
than enough for democracy, we have done more than enough for the reforms,
including by way of sacrificing ourselves. And it will be difficult to
expunge this out of us with ease. I do not think that the collective will
easily surrender its principles and beliefs. I believe that Eduard Mikhailovich
has the brains not to attempt this.
Q: Your resignation marks the end of this five-year
period. It gives one a feeling of some threshold. Yesterday many were shocked
by the coincidence of the decision on your resignation and the opinions
concerning the activity of our company voiced by the communists, the LDPR
and the President’s suite since we have agreed that it’s unlikely that
the President watches our programs himself.
I have the feeling that he is irritated with the company’s
operation not so much because of, say, Santa Barbara, as with the work
of our information department. He mentioned trash which he said we show.
I can’t say that I was greatly upset with such a coincidence in the opinions
of the communists, the LDPR and the President’s suite. For one thing, it’s
good because it means that we do not try to please someone particularly,
it means that we equally irritate all of them and that’s normal.
I don’t think I should remind you now about how our
relations, I mean the relations between our information department and
you, developed and how many times we quarreled and failed to understand
each other in critical situations. But the thing is that in this company—I
don’t think I will say something new— that the attitude towards information
and the information department is very tense, inside the company. In you
we always saw some last resort, the ultimate judge to resolve our disputes
and difficult situations. (Inaudible) . . . in a very difficult situation.
Your resignation leaves our future uncertain. That was a very long introduction
but my question will be actually very short. Oleg Maximovich, do you have
any feelings of regret about something that you haven’t done for the information
department to make more secure and more independent?
Poptsov: I have a lot of things to regret about,
a lot of things that I haven’t done. As I have already said, I have much
more creative plans than accomplishments. I believe we have accomplished
a lot with the information team. We created the program Vesti. We developed
a totally different pattern of information. We did a lot to protect the
information team. We decided that information was the priority direction
in the development of the company. We did a lot to create conditions for
modern work. On a visit to Japan I saw equipment in the new building of
the TBS company. On seeing it I thought about the miracle we worked here.
There a hall with an area of 1,000 square meters crowded
with people, with lots of paper littered everywhere. But here we see an
elegant, civilized company that services a much larger tract of territory.
On the other hand, of course, many of our plans were not fulfilled. We
did not fulfill our plan of putting the Vesti program on the 4th channel.
That would have raised its prestige. What else have we failed to do? You
must understand that the attitude to information on television and radio
has always been special. Information outstrips events and is very independent.
I think this concept of independence we did materialize. I think that Vesti
is already such an established team, such a powerful team that it will
manage to stand up for the interests of its viewers. I am confident of
this. I am not saying for the interests of Vesti, I am saying for the interests
of our viewers.
Of course, I have regrets. A lot of things remain undone.
We were not against the establishment of NTV because they were genuine
competitors. They made us angry, they made us experience disappointment
when we saw that some things we did not do the right way. Of course, we
also wanted to do some things better than they. There are many things that
remain unfinished, I admit, and I regret this. But let us put it this way—it
is not evening yet. Life continues. New television companies will be set
up. New channels will appear. It is possible that at some stage we will
meet again and our paths will cross. I repeat again that a lot of work
remains unfinished.
Q: RIA Novosti. What are your plans for the future,
what will you be doing?
Poptsov: I have already said that perhaps I should
take part in the presidential elections . . . .
Q: In what capacity? Poptsov: As a candidate,
of course. One should always go for the highest stakes. But perhaps it
would be interesting to have a debate with competitors on the theme of
what is a lie and what is truth. But this is just in passing. But then,
it is necessary to think a little, to look around, to have a good sleep—as
I said in this very hall a year ago. Really, that desire to have a good
sleep has not disappeared, it has even grown stronger, if anything. And
then, getting down to business, which, of course, will be related to journalism,
with writing. And if that business is related to TV or radio broadcasting,
thank God—we’ll see. On the other hand, today I had a few phone calls suggesting
that I immediately go most actively into politics. There are parties being
formed anew, whether it is the right time for that or not—well, we’ll see.
Won’t we, Tamara? We’ll see. Perhaps, I’ll yet become the boss of Pravda—can
you imagine that?