On April 10, 1996, The Federation Council, the upper
house of the Russian Parliament, rejected a draft act on television and
radio broadcasting, by a 100-vote majority against 29, with 12 abstentions.
The law, approved by the preceding parliament, was
vetoed by President Yeltsin. On March 20, 1996 the Duma, the lower house
of Parliament, sought to overrule the presidential veto, approving the
earlier edition of the law, despite objections fromboth the government
and the media.
On April 9, 1996, Mr. Valentin Lazutkin, the chief
of the Federal Television and Radio Broadcasting Service, the Russian Federal
Service for TV and Radio Broadcasting, FSTR, testified before the Federal
Council which was discussing the bill; a law on television and radio broadcasting,
he said, “must create conditions for the development of broadcasting in
the country, but the draft act proposed by the State Duma contains elements
designed to constrain its development.” Work on the new law has been
proceeding for three years. The president of the Russian Federation vetoed
it claiming that some of its provisions were at variance with the constitution.
Lazutkin, who represents the interests of one of
the “subjects of law” in the debate, told journalists that the draft act
was “imperfect because it failed to incorporate in full measure principles
of protection of the national broadcaster and the interests of Russia as
a major broadcaster.”
Lazutkin said the new bill failed to take into account
that Russia had recently joined the Council of Europe. With this in mind,
Lazutkin stated the need to muster “courage and to take a broader look
at the new law instead of trying to patch it up, as has been done for a
long time.”
He said numerous fundamental problems—including
economic—were connected with television and radio broadcasting, in Russia.
He added, that since the budget revenue was not replenished as planned,
the broadcasters were finding themselves under-funded even during the election
period.
In this context, he said, “the new bill “provides
no answer to the question about how television and radio broadcasters can
survive and how the activity of broadcasting companies must be licensed.”From
ITAR-TASS reports.
According to an article by Sophia Coudenhove, in
the Moscow Times, the broadcasting bill, which will most likely be amended,
in May or June, would have replaced the State Television and Radio Broadcasting
Service with a 15-member regulatory commission. A third of the members
would be nominated by the president, a third by the State Duma, the lower
house of parliament, and a third by the Federation Council, the parliament’s
upper house. The president would have final approval of all appointments,
and would name the director.
The committee would monitor broadcast media and
could revoke licenses if firms were deemed to have violated rules governing
pornography, violence, andabuse of the Russian language among other issues.
Coudenhove wrote that the next step, according to
Aleksey Artishchev, an adviser to the Council’s committee on science, culture
and education, is for the two houses to try to modify the bill.
According to Coudenhove’s account, Artishchev disputed
contentions by critics that the proposed commission system could be a potential
form of censorship. He stated that, “the bill simply suggested that the
broadcasting media not be entirely in the hands of government organs,”
. Artishev believed that it was rejected "because deputies close to the
government don’t want the broadcasters to be more independent from them.”
The Federation Council’s decision to reject the
bill after approving it once before coincides with a presidential election
campaign in which Communist challenger Gennady Zyuganov has accused the
media of pro-government bias.
Some opponents of the Communist Party say limiting
its access to the airwaves should be the first priority. “This bill would
give them far too much freedom and let companies broadcast anything they
wanted to,” said Georgy Kuznetsov, chief of the broadcasting department
at Moscow State University.
“It’s all very well to talk about freedom of speech
in the West where differences of opinion are minimal,” he said. “But in
Russia you have to do something so that you don’t have the Communists constantly
on television screens because in this country freedom of speech can lead
to tanks on the streets again.”
In a front-page article, the daily Rossiskiye Vesti
said passing the bill would give the opposition “the means of having an
influence on broadcasting that would in effect give them powers of censorship.”
Free airtime for presidential candidates has been
reduced to 20 minutes a day, a third of that granted during the State Duma
elections, in December. Nikolay Ryabov, the chairman of Russia’s Central
Electoral Commission, said that the two main reasons for the decision were:
1)the smaller number of candidates; and 2)the fact that the state had still
not paid its debts to state television and radio companies for the Duma
campaign.
Other issues covered by the instruction on the
mass media, approved by the commission on April 5, include redefining the
term “state TV and radio company,” paid election coverage in printed media
and roundtable debates. The text of a report by ITAR-TASS news agency follows:
Moscow, April 8, 1996, ITAR-TASS correspondent Tamara
Ivanova: In the presidential election campaign, the daily airtime which
the state television and radio companies will grant to Russian presidential
candidates for electioneering free of charge has been cut to a third. This
is one of the main innovations of the so-called instruction on the mass
media regulating the procedure for granting airtime on state television
and radio channels that was finally approved last Friday, April 5, 1996,
by the Central Electoral Commission.
According to this document, every working day beginning
on May 14, Russian presidential candidates will be given 10 minutes airtime
between 0700 and 1000 hours and a further 10 minutes between 1800 and 2300
hours, bearing in mind local time. During the December State Duma elections,
a total of one hour was allotted for electioneering under a similar instruction.
The proposal to reduce free airtime was made by
Nikolay Ryabov, the chairman of the Central Electoral Commission, himself
at a conference with the heads of regional television and radio companies,
in Moscow, last March. The proposal was warmly supported by participants
in the meeting. The chairman of the Central Electoral Commission stressed,
in an interview with an ITAR-TASS correspondent, that there were two main
reasons behind the decision. Primarily, he predicts that the number of
participants in the presidential campaign, will be far smaller than during
the State Duma elections. As a result, they will not be limited by the
overall volume of airtime. On the other hand, the state has still not paid
its debts to the state television and radio companies for the Duma campaign.
The total loss borne by the 89 regional television and radio companies
stands at tens of billions of rubles.
The new instruction has also somewhat altered the
approach to the definition of the term “state television and radio companies.”
Whereas in the document which figured in the Duma elections a company was
regarded as a state company if its founders included state structures,
the main criterion now has become the fact of state financing. This raises
many new questions, in particular with regard to Russian Public Television.
As is known, the state owns 51 per cent of the shares of this company,
but budget financing of the company has not yet been started in 1996. Although
the management of Russian Public Television has already promised to provide
free airtime, the Central Electoral Commission has sent an inquiry to the
Russian Federal Television and Radio Broadcasting Service about which television
and radio companies can be regarded as state companies.
The instruction’s other innovations include the
fact that partially state-owned periodicals and municipal printed mass
media are providing space for electioneering for a charge. Every presidential
candidate can also use publications founded by them for electioneering,
but these must be financed out of the candidate’s election fund.
Nikolay Ryabov also explained that free airtime
is only being granted to presidential candidates themselves. Whereas, their
campaign groups will have to pay to carry out electioneering.
Finally, the instruction contains recommendations
on the holding of debates, round tables,” “hotlines,” etc., during the
campaign. Legislation does not allow candidates to be forced to resort
to these “ genres” of electioneering.
Assessing the document as a whole, Nikolay Ryabov
said that the instruction had been compiled taking all sides into account
and “makes it possible to achieve the objective set.” He also stressed
that he attached particular significance to the work of regional television
and radio companies because, “the battlefield will be in the provinces
rather than in Moscow.”
Eduard Sagalayev held his first informal meeting
with journalists, March 27, after his appointment to the post of chairman
of the All-Russia State Television and Radio Company VGTRK.The following
is from an interview in Izvestiya.
Despite promising not to make any radical changes
at the channel, he has, however, already taken a series of steps designed
to bring about a fundamental reorganization of the company’s management
structure.
He has removed several chiefs, appointed new ones,
combined three unwieldy sister associations within a single organization,
and begun staff cuts.
According to Sagalayev, VGTRK’s problem does not
lie in a lack of budget funding—used judiciously there would be enough
for 15 channels—but in its obsolete, ineffective management structure with
its great number of meaningless rules.
It transpires that the company, formed in 1990 as
a democratic and progressive organization, has turned into a museum piece
of the stagnation period. Here, it is impossible to make the simplest of
decisions and, it is necessary to have them cleared with many offices,
which, in turn, are bound by absurd rules.
For example, the VGTRK chairman cannot give Svetlana
Sorokina a pay rise. The Russia TV “star” receives 400,000 rubles and with
bonuses her pay reaches one million rubles. Sagalayev’s “proteges” Flyarkovskiy
and Gurnov, who are soon returning from whence they came, ask him “you
want Vesti, a Russia TV channel news program, to compete with NTV Moscow
independent television under these circumstances?”
Sagalayev really does want to compete, and is courting
people versed in management science and modern financial mechanisms who
possess a taste for and experience in working both for state and commercial
television.
One of the goals of the company’s restructuring
is, in the words of its director, for it to pay its own way completely,
and to direct the advertising revenue into creating programs that promote
national culture, literature, cinema and theatre.
An association is being created within VGTRK to
produce its own television films—both feature films and documentaries—to
avoid buying them. Today, this unique area of Russian television is in
complete decline.
Eduard Sagalayev told journalists what the president
wanted with regard to the second channel:
First, we must show more provincial life on television.
Second, news and comment programs should not drive
viewers to despair because of the large quantity of rubbish, which was
the reason for Oleg Poptsov’s, former head of VGTRK, departure from office.
When Sagalayev asked for clarification of the term
“rubbish,” it was explained to him that this referred to reports on Chechnya
and improper behavior, which in no way reflect the positive processes taking
place, in Russia, in the fields of science and culture, in the economy
and people’s lives. The VGTRK chairman agreed in principle that when an
entire program consists of politics, this is evidence of there being something
wrong with the news service.
Russia TV’s election role
Of course, the subject that has engendered most interest
among journalists is the coming elections.
“To a certain degree, I agreed to join the second
channel because I think that in this particular position and at this time
I will be able to have an influence on Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin through
direct contact and television programs, helping him not just to stay in
power but to realize what is sensible in his opponents’ programs as well.
Which is why his opponents—the Communists and national-patriots—must definitely
be shown on state television, although there can be no question of their
being given the same opportunities as the president.
“Today the channels are openly in favor of the president.
It is television’s job to convince both the electorate and Yeltsin’s political
opponents that his presidency is the guarantee of the freedom both of Communists
and non-party people.”
Eduard Sagalayev does not agree that state television
is incapable of mounting an effective election campaign, which is precisely
why Yeltsin invited NTV President Igor Malashenko to join his consultants.
“It is clear that state television will indeed do
what the president requires. By inviting Malashenko, the president is accomplishing
another task: that of making allies not only of an independent television
company and its intelligent and professional leader, but also of the powerful
financial group backing NTV.”
According to an article by Simon Saradzhyan in The
Moscow Tribune, March 30, Sagalayev “no longer finds it necessary to conceal
VGTRK’s once camouflaged support for President Yeltsin.”Also, Sagalayev
is chasing Oleg Poptsov’s “chernukha” (gloom and doom) from the screen.
He “vowed to wipe Chechnya and mafia gloom and doom from VGTRK’s news coverage
and provide more diversified coverage of Russia’s daily life, devoting
more time to ‘positive processes and cultural events.’”
Presidential candidate Gennady Zyuganov held a press
conference on April 9. Among the subjects discussed was his attitude toward
the media.
Q: Gennady Andreyevich, what do you think
about the press coverage of your election campaign?
Zyuganov: What I think? The way it is being
covered is no news for us. We were inwardly prepared for this. I feel sorry
for your gifted pens and for your camera skills. I see that many of you
are taking pictures, but there is no adequate reflection of this on the
television screens and in the newspapers. The first channel of television
for all practical purposes has been privatized. It is no longer public
television. It reflects only one certain point of view. There have been
personnel changes on the second channel. As a result, not only Zyuganov
and his election campaign, but also many others have vanished from its
news coverage. As to NTV, which is called Nezavisimoye (Independent—FNS)
television, they will have to part with the letter “n.” For instance, on
returning yesterday from my meeting with Kwasniewski, I suddenly learned
that the meeting will not take place, that I was not invited and many other
things. And this despite the fact that at the meeting I saw Kiselev. And
I hope that today he or his program will apologize to me and will clarify
this matter, and will amend yesterday’s report. On the other hand, we see
wide-scale support on the part of the local media—district, city, regional
newspapers. They are more independent in their behavior. Although very
tough orders were issued to them, the industrious Russia is continuing
in her best tradition. But we will give thought how best to react to the
massive effort to ignore our election campaign. We also hope that those
who are duty-bound to do this will react to this situation. I also believe
that you, too, will react to this.
If someone doesn’t like anything, he may express his point of view, but this does not mean that we have no right to implement what has been expressed by the entire nation and what has been supported by the highest legislative body. This is the essence of democracy. As for the mass media and the attitude towards them on the part of Lukashenko and others, it’s not a secret that we have no democratic mass media. What is going on on Russian television and the radio goes beyond all the norms. I have lately met representatives of the foreign mass media. Seventeen people accompanied me on my trip to Ryazan. They themselves shrugged at the realization that they didn’t understand what was going on. Our information services often refer you to foreign sources of information if you want to find out the truth about a visit, the nature of talks or about assessments, because ours delete everything. Just today, I read Komsomolskaya Pravda. It seems to be a respected newspaper, but what it writes is not just a lie, but complete nonsense. Why didn’t they find the documents, just for the sake of decency, and read them — I have never been a USSR deputy, I have never been a deputy of the RSFSR. Not only did I not vote for any of the things they write about, I had no legal right to vote. And the rest you can just skip because it is basically a lie that has nothing to do with my real political activities. If you look at legal standards, they should be brought to account. But one gets such things every day and it’s impossible to bring everyone to account for all these variegated lies. I believe that journalists don’t enjoy. The article in Komsomolskaya Pravda has no byline. I know many guys there and I have high regard for them. The article is bylined: Political Desk. Well, this is a “desk” which has inherited the worst of what they tried to get rid of. . . .
I have met with Russian writers and 90 percent of
Russian writers, including young ones, support our trend and many provisions
in our platform. And when they address audiences, I can assure you they
will speak their mind on the situation and support our bloc. The same happened
with many movements. I recently met with the coal-miners’ union. There
were representatives of all the coal-mining areas from Sakunain to the
Leningrad open-cast mines. They were strong, robust, competent people and
they speak for 95 percent of miners. We found a common language on a number
of problems. Every day at least 1,000 people work for us throughout Russia
spreading our word. Tomorrow we will be in Voronezh. The day after tomorrow,
we will be in Lipetsk and then in other regions. And anyone who cherishes
Russia is only too glad to accompany us. And I expect that representatives
of all the 26 districts, all the officials of labor unions would come to
a village in Smolensk region which I visited. And they decided to support
me and to make as many copies as possible of our documents. I can give
you the viewpoint of students. The University in Smolensk was the 44th
university which I visited recently. The students came up to me and said,
Gennady Andreyevich, bear no grudge against Kukly. We know you from this
show and we do not watch news programs. But now that we have met you in
person, we see that that far-fetched image of yours falls apart. And people
start looking at you differently. Psychologists know this very well. As
for NTV, I have asked them once to somehow mark the role of the puppet
that portrays me, because if my puppet and one other puppet are removed
from the show, it will be closed immediately.
1. Text of report by the Polish newspaper Wprost, April 21, 1996:
The SLD Democratic Left Alliance, government party
gave up the leadership of the national television Polish TV very easily,
but maybe not for long.
In early 1997, the station’s Supervisory Board will
be changed, and the SLD will be able to have full control over Polish TV.
The task will be facilitated by the fact that it is Ryszard Miazek, its
new chairman, who will assume the burden of removing former chairman Walendziak’s
people from the company. What is more, according to information received
by Wprost’, the appointment of Miazek is part of the “binding contract.”
In return for the support of his candidacy, the
SLD is said to expect that the PSL Polish Peasant Party will accept a business
concession for the capital group Polish Media SA, backed by some SLD politicians.
The National Radio and Television Council KRRiTV
is about to grant a license for operating television networks. As many
as 53 bids have been submitted.
Until now, the council has treated two applications
seriously for building large networks, and there is enough bandwidth for
both of them: Antena 1 is a venture of Marion Terlecki, former head of
Polish TV, who is now an independent television producer and widely considered
to be a man of the opposition. Antena 1 can also count on support from
PSL members, because its Supervisory Board is headed by PSL deputy Tadeusz
Sytek.
Another contender is TVN, a company founded by Mariusz
Waler, head of the film producer and distributor ITI holding, who once
created “ Studio 2”, a popular television program. These companies are
well established in the television industry and have a strong financial
standing. They both applied for a concession last time and lost to Polsat.
This time, it is Nasza TV Our Television, promoted by the company Polish
Media SA, that is running as the dark horse in the race for the frequency
allocation.
Industry insiders say that the main asset of that
company is its people. These are the seven founders of Polish Media SA
: January Goscimski (holding a stake of 18.66 per cent in the company),
Leonard Prasniewski (16.66 per cent), Iwona Buchner (6.69 per cent), Janusz
Wojcik (20 per cent), Janusz Przezdziecki (10 per cent), Lech Jaworowicz
(6.66 per cent), and Henryk Chodysz (21.33 per cent). In this group, only
Jaworowicz has worked in television. The only thing that we know about
Chodysz, the company’s chairman, is that he is a friend and neighbor of
Marek Siwiec, until recently an SLD representative in the KRRiTV and currently
a minister at the Polish presidential office.
The company’s authorized capital looks miserable
against the costs connected with getting a network up and running. In comparison,
a monthly charge for using a satellite transponder is Z500,000. Although
the stockholders declare they would raise the capital to Z10m after a license
is granted, it remains unclear what sources would finance the whole venture.
Polish Media expects that a portion of the new share-offering
will be bought out by local authorities. So far, only the Centrum Centre
Warsaw district has submitted a letter of intent. Therefore, the main burden
of raising the capital by Z9m will be assumed by the seven businessmen,
who are pointing to their stakes in their own companies. The latter, however,
have either been losing money for several years or have never registered
their balance sheets with the court, and their financial condition is unknown.
According to the company’s calculations, it will
cost Z32m to activate Nasza TV. With the above Z10m taken away, there is
still a problem of raising Z22m. Polish Media hurried to assure that with
a concession in hand, it would receive this money from four institutional
investors: Sobieslaw Zasada, owner of Mercedes car retail network; Petrochemia
from Plock; the Szczecin Construction Enterprise, Espebepe (whose stocks
sharply dropped on the stock exchange); and the Elektrocieplownia Warszawska
SA thermal power plant in Warsaw.
Those assurances were not too convincing. Two weeks
ago, Bank Inicjatyw Gospodarczych Bank of Economic Initiatives hurriedly
held out a helping hand, issuing a promissory note for Z25m in a long-term
credit that will be provided if Nasza TV obtains a concession.
Meanwhile, the essential part of the bid submitted
by Nasza TV often elicits amusement. The businessmen are planning that
the primary source of their income will be commercials which should rake
up 88 per cent of all revenue, taking up only 2.5 per cent of the air time.
They proposed “programming for average people, a self-governing television,
one for a neighbor, television promoting such values as dignity, honesty,
tolerance, respect, and punctuality” as published. The television’s strength
is supposed to be its local orientation and daily local news. This is why
it plans to employ . . . 16 journalists.
So, what we see here is an application that was
earlier viewed as a collection of unrealistic plans, conceived by entrepreneurs
unfamiliar with the business, becoming a favorite bid of the government
coalition-backed part of the KRRiTV. The group of businessmen is supported
by the SLD. An important role here is played by private connections and
interdependent interests dating back to PRL [Polish People’s Republic]
times.
It would be enough to trace the history of the Prywatny
Bank Komercyjny Leonard Private Commercial Bank Leonard founded by Prasniewski.
The bank was managed by Zdzislaw Pakula, who was the NBP National Bank
of Poland chairman in the PRL. Until 1994, the position of the bank’s deputy
chairman was occupied by Bazyli Samojlik, finance minister in 1986-88 and,
before that, an economic adviser to General Wojciech Jaruzelski.
Two years ago, Samojlik became deputy chairman of
the BIG Bank. January Goscimski is a BIG stockholder in the FoKa company.
The UOP State Protection Office is reviewing the
applications of Antena 1, TVN and Nasza TV.
2. The new head of state-owned Polish TV (TVP), Ryszard Miazek, has criticized the policies followed by his predecessor and outlined his own ideas concerning TVP’s future. Miazek said he wanted to end the conflicts between politicians and television and make sure that TVP becomes more objective. The following is the text of an interview published by the Polish newspaper Zycie Warszawy.’
“A journalist must follow guidelines set by his superiors”
Q: What do you think was the biggest mistake
TVP made under the leadership of former chairman Wieslaw Walendziak?
Miazek: It defined its mission as serving
society at large, not the state or the government. In reality, however,
society is the state and its democratic structures, and television should
offer its services to them. It should not aspire at expressing independent
opinions, because such opinions are formulated by parliament and other
representatives of the state.
Democracy makes a distinction between those who
follow the instructions of the state and those who do not. Politicians
who follow their instincts in fulfilling the wishes of their voters fall
into the second category.
The claim that a journalist is a representative
of society defies the distribution of roles in a democratic state. A journalist
must follow the guidelines set by his superiors.
Q: What do you think the mistake—as you call
it—in defining the tasks of public television has led to?
A: There was a conflict with the entire world
of politics, not with just a single group. In interviews carried out by
journalists with politicians, each party interpreted their role differently
and could not reach agreement.
Q: What do you suggest?
A: These contacts should become normal. The
world of politics is one of the many worlds that television shows. There
is no reason why it should be treated any different than business or science.
Equally critically and independently, but without provoking conflict from
the very start.
Q: What specific measures do you intend to
take to eliminate those conflicts?
A: I think that once I begin talking with
journalists, we can reach agreement very quickly. Managers have not talked
with journalists so far. Special meetings should be held during which basic
guidelines and issues of style and language should be decided. Journalists
generally comply with the intentions of the leadership very quickly.
More than 1,000 journalists are employed in television.
We have to analyze ways of coordinating their activities, decide who runs
television, and who defines its style.
Q: How do you intend to dissuade television
from claiming a right to speak out on behalf of citizens?
A: There are many ways of doing that. The
board issues resolutions and memos in which it instructs the team what
to do. Certain principles and criteria of evaluation are being elaborated.
This has to be done from the very start. Some might find these principles
unacceptable and resign.
Q: What will the main principles of the television
headed by you be?
A: They are implicit in the Radio and Television
Law, as well as in documents issued by the National Radio and Television
Council KRRiTV and the TVP Supervisory Board. Had they been obeyed, we
would not have any conflicts.
It turned out, however, that the previous board
gave the heads of programs and other television structures too much freedom,
without interfering with the programs in any way. However, the truth is
that the board is directly responsible for programs. The head of TVP has
to pay a fine the equivalent of one and a half year’s salary for mistakes
in programs.
Journalists must obey guidelines set by their managers
because it is the managers who are held responsible before the citizens
and the state.
Q: Let us return to what you consider to be
the fundamental mistake made by TVP—namely, claims to the right to speak
on behalf of the entire nation, taking over this role from parliament.
After the last elections, as much as 30 per cent of citizens do not have
their representatives in any state structures.
A: Television has a right to voice the opinions
not only of governing parties, but also of extra-parliamentary groupings.
Thus far, such opinions have been voiced with keen insight, and that is
how it should stay.
Q: Does that mean you no longer claim that
TVP exclusively addresses the political expectations of the right?
A: The right-wing parties stated so themselves
when, in time of crisis, they joined forces to defend TVP. If they defended
TVP, it must have satisfied their expectations.
Q: Do you have any other examples proving
that TVP is right-wing?
A: Every Sunday the Movement for the Reconstruction
of Poland holds a news conference which is reported for five minutes on
the main “Wiadomosci” newscast. Or, a working meeting held between Olszewski
and Krzaklewski is reported. Is an equal amount of time devoted to any
other party that gathers on Sundays, or a meeting between Polish Peasant
Party Chairman Pawlak and the leader of farmers unions? Other politicians,
seeing these things, claim their parties are not treated fairly.
Once the criteria according to which politicians
are to appear on the TV screen are clear, there will be no informal pressure
exerted on television.
Q: What would these criteria be?
A: We should work out some sort of code together
with the journalists. A general code consisting of seven basic principles
has already been developed. Now, those principles have to be specified
in greater detail. They should define objectivity and independence in particular
situations, specify how to report government sessions, etc.
Zycie Warszawy, Warsaw, April 15,1996
1. The Hungarian broadcasting company, Antenna Hungaria, responsible for the transmission of radio and television programs, may soon fall into private hands. This was announced at a press briefing, April 25, held by the State Privatization and Assets Management Joint-Stock Company APV Rt. According to Eva Vajda, the APV Rt will invite tenders for the privatization of Antenna Hungaria before June 30 1996. The company is searching, before taking this step, for a financial consultancy firm which would assist in the privatization process.
2. According to MTI, the State Privatization and
Holding Company (APV Rt) and the Infrastructure Ministry bids would be
due 60 days after the announcement, Imre Bolcskei, deputy state secretary
at the Infrastructure Ministry. The privatization is expected to be concluded
by October, Mr Bolcskei said.
An earlier attempt to privatize Antenna Hungaria
in 1995 fell through as the price offered by the only bidder, Telediffusion
de France, was less than the minimum price set in the tender invitation.
The successful bidder in last year’s tender could have acquired a majority
stake in return for raising the company’s registered capital by HUF 8bn.
The government decided on March 7 that one of the
conditions of the new tender invitation will be that the successful bidder
can acquire a 60pc stake if they carry out a HUF 4bn capital injection.
The new media law introduced early this year, which
establishes Antenna Hungaria’s broadcasting role, improved the chances
of the company’s successful privatization, Mr Bolcskei said. The media
law stipulates that the company will set up seven national radio and television
broadcasting networks within two years, including the third national TV
channel and four FM radio channels.
The company estimates that the implementation of
these plans will cost around HUF 4.5bn, which will require either borrowing
and/or a capital increase. An EGM scheduled for late February was supposed
to discuss a HUF 2-3bn capital increase. The EGM was postponed until early
March and was then not attended by the State Privatization and Holding
Company (APV Rt), which holds 83.2pc of the company. This means that no
capital increase can take place before the company’s AGM in May.
Simultaneously with the invitation of tenders for
the privatization of Antenna Hungaria, tenders will be invited for the
national broadcasting rights concession. Antenna Hungaria has a good chance
of winning the concession as any other company would have to invest many
times more than Antenna Hungaria to carry out broadcasting in Hungary.
Antenna Hungaria, which has registered capital of
HUF 7.849bn, has debts of HUF 3.2bn.
According to earlier press reports, Telediffusion
de France and the Hughes Corporation are interested in acquiring Antenna
Hungaria.
MTI Econews, March 29, 1996
3. The MTM-SBS consortium confirmed its intention
to bid in the Hungarian television privatization. Due to MTM Kommunikacio’s
previous activities, its knowledge of the market, and the television companies
and advertising agencies standing behind the consortium, the company would
be able to fulfill the requirements of a public television broadcasting
company, MTM Kommunikacio’s president and CEO Ferenc Tolvaly said at a
press conference in Budapest on Wednesday.
MTM Kommunikacios Rt signed a consortial contract
last August with the Scandinavian Broadcasting System (SBS) on the operation
of a commercial Hungarian ground TV channel, also fulfilling public television
functions. Herbert Kloiber, owner of the Tele Munchen group announced that,
under a recent agreement, Tele Munchen, which primarily deals with production
and which also has an interest in RTL 2, will acquire a 49pc stake in MTM
through a HUF 500m capital raise. Richard Spinner, SBS-co-owner and European
president of ABC Capital Cities, operating television and radio channels
in five EU-states, expressed support for the bidding endeavors of the consortium.
ORF managing director Andreas Rudas said that Austrian
public television signed a letter of intent with the MTM-SBS consortium.
ORF wishes to back the implementation of the public television endeavors
with its experience accumulated in public television broadcasting.
The concession fee of the channel to be offered
for privatization will be determined by the market situation, Ferenc Tolvaly
told MTI, adding that they are not yet informed of the amount. He said
the company has good chances for success in the tender and is not afraid
of its—also well-prepared—rivals.
Tenders for MTV2 and MTV3 will be invited by June
1 this year and the results will be announced by November 1. Other bidders
include CEDC, headed by former US ambassador to Hungary Mark Palmer, the
French TF1, the US ABC and the Hungarian Nap TV, which enjoys the support
of the National Sports Organization (OTSH), as well as CLT of Luxembourg.
The state-owned broadcasting transmission enterprise
Antenna Hungaria announced, April 11, that it would take Duna TV and Hungarian
Radio to court to recover the over 500m-forint debts it is owed by the
two broadcasters, but later the same date reported that Duna TV’s debts
would be paid.
Hungarian Radio said that Antenna Hungaria was not
allowed by law to cease the transmission of programs by public broadcasters,
but it had to have the money before its impending privatization.
Antenna Hungaria’s action is not aimed against the
media organizations, its spokesperson said, since it is aware that the
1996 funding of Duna TV and Hungarian Radio has not yet been solved, but
it has to have the cash because it is to be privatized soon.
Hungarian radio also reported that, according to
its deputy technical director, the institution was unable to pay on time
because in the first two months of this year 140m forints less than expected
revenues were raised from subscription fees. Bills for a proportion of
radio commercials are also being settled belatedly, he said, adding that
at the same time the technical costs of programs had risen, including higher
electricity, telephone and heating charges.
4. A commercial Hungarian television station, Maros TV, has
started broadcasting in Romanian and Hungarian in Tirgu Mures, in Romania.
In an interview for Hungarian radio, the channel’s technical manager says
Maros TV intends to build cultural bridges between the Hungarian and Romanian
communities, and to fulfill public service tasks in order to ensure its
commercial viability. The following are excerpts from a report by Hungarian
radio:
Today, 15th April, is a significant date in the
history of Hungarian television broadcasting in Romania. True television
broadcasts in Romanian and Hungarian by Maros TV began for the first time
today. Peter Marvanyi spoke to Antal Katyi phonetic, technical manager
of the commercial television station in Tirgu Mures known as Marosvasarhely
in Hungarian.
Q: Why is the first local television station
beginning broadcasts in Tirgu Mures in 1996?
A: There was an attempt in 1990 which was
halted from one day to the next following the March events clashes between
Romanians and Hungarians in Tirgu Mures. At that time the team of TV producers
broke up and moved to different parts of the world ranging from Hungary
to Sweden, and the whole project was halted. There are two cable companies
in Tirgu Mures. Neither of them really tried to make local programs; they
were satisfied with rebroadcasting satellite programs.
What we did was madness: launch a television station
without money, or with very little money. We attempted a formidable task,
because we are not a cable network; we are a television company which covers
almost half the county over-the-air.
We are one of the few television companies in Romania
which broadcasts in Hungarian; there are some television companies which
broadcast bits in Hungarian in Timisoara and Brasov perhaps . . .
It is bilingual—understandably so because the proportion
of Romanians to Hungarians in the town is about 50:50. The question has
been asked as to whether this was forced on us. The reply is no. I believe
that we are a commercial company and therefore we must exist in these surroundings
. . .
Q: A strange situation has developed in which
an expressly commercial venture must perform public service tasks.
A: We have public service tasks partly because
we are the first local television station in Tirgu Mures, and partly because
of our bilingual nature, and we accept this.
We must also take commercial considerations into
account—we have no state or budget support. I could say definitely that
we are independent at the moment. We have accepted this public service
duty and the fact that we should be an information service for the town
. . .