Post-Soviet Media Law & Policy Newsletter
Issue 33-34
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law November, 1996
AZERBAIJAN
LATVIA
LITHUANIA
UKRAINE
UZBEKISTAN
AZERBAIJAN
I. Independent TV stations closed in licensing
row.
On 26th June this year the acting minister of justice,
Sudaba Hasanova, sent a letter (No 10/6-72) to all chief executives of
the regions of the republic. According to the Centre for the Human Rights
of Azerbaijan, the letter reads that due to lack of the law on functioning
of commercial television and radio companies, they should be closed till
the adoption of the relevant law.
The same source reports that [a] similar letter (No
15/1403) was sent on 9th June 1996 to the heads of chief executives of
the regions. The letter was signed by the head of the Social and Political
Department of the Office of the President, Ali Hasanov.
On the basis of the above letters, commercial television
stations in Divichi, Gusar and Shemaha were closed.
At present only the television company ANS-TV, Sara
in Siazan and Channel-6 in Ganja have relevant licences of the Ministry
of Communication. The appeals of the rest ones to receive licences are
declined according to the letter from the Office of the President.
In his talk with Turan correspondent, Head of the Department
for Registration of the Juridical Persons Fazil Mamedov confirmed the fact
of temporal [temporary] closure of the above television stations. According
to him, about 15 television companies in the regions of the republic have
not the right to broadcast, as their activities do not provide such services.
According to Mamedov, the activity of the above-mentioned
television stations will be banned until the Cabinet of Ministers issue
relevant instruction on regulation of the activity of private television
stations. Fazil Mamedov also noted that the above-mentioned television
stations had not been registered as the mass media.
Turan news agency, Baku, September 24, 1996
LATVIA
I. How Latvia pulled the plug on Russian public
television.
By Gennady Lnkashov
Last week, Russian Public Television’s last outpost
on state-run television in the Baltic countries collapsed. Now in
Latvia too, RPT programs can be seen only on cable and satellite television
networks . . . .
Residents of Riga’s outlying housing developments now
watch programs from Moscow on relatively inexpensive cable channels.
Those who live in the central part of the city had a choice between subscribing
to the pricey Baltcom cable service, which often a whole package of Russian
and West European programs, and acquiring a satellite dish. Those
who can’t afford any of these three choices are now forced to watch the
local company, LNT [Latvian Independent Television], instead of RPT.
Poor non-Latvian pensioners, for whom RPT was the last independent window
on the world, have become unwilling viewers of LNT. The new television
company has promised that, besides its own programs, it will show the TV
serials that viewers have become so fond of, as well as entertainment programs
from Moscow such as “Field of Miracles” [Pole chudes], “Name That Tune”
[Ugadai melodiyu], “What, Where, When” [Chto, gde, kogda] and “Love at
First Sight” [Lyubov s pervovo vzglyada] . . . . The Russian Independent
Television [NTV] company’s “News” [Novosti] program will also be carried
by agreement with that company.
Ojar Rubenis, chairman of the national Radio and Television
Council, maintains that there were no political motives behind the decision
to pull the plug on RPT. He is backed up by his colleague from the
once popular “Labrit” (“Morning”) program, Edwin Inkens, who is now a Deputy
to the Saeima and who calls RPT “one of the best television companies in
the world.” They both say the reason was money.
However, let us run through the major milestones in
the history of relations between Ostankino and official Riga. Back
in 1992, programs from Russia’s Channel 1 began to be supplanted by rather
dull programs from Latvian television. The writer and satirist Mikhail
Zadornov, speaking out at that time in defense of Russian TV viewers in
Latvia, even announced that his Commonwealth foundation would assume the
cost of broadcasting Ostankino programs [in Latvia]. In February
1993, the consul at the Latvian Embassy in Moscow sent a letter to the
Latvian parliament’s foreign affairs committee, He called for an end to
the rebroadcasting of Russian television to the republic, deeming it “propaganda
for the ideas of Great Russian nationalism” and “incitement of Russian-speaking
residents of Latvia against the country and the government.” Then
one of the influential parliamentary factions also went after Ostankino,
calling for it to pull what the faction considered its most pernicious
programs. In April 1994, the Radio and Television Council decided
to cut back the amount of broadcasting from Moscow . . . . In July,
the “Russia” channel was cut off and Ostankino was left alI by itself.
. . . In January 1996, the Bis-TV company ceased to pay for the transmission
of RPT’s morning programming. And finally the plug was pulled.
Peteris Burmistrov, president of the Bis-TV company,
which had been the sole coy rebroadcasting RPT in Latvia, denied rumors
that the reason was that Moscow had not been paying its bills for the broadcasting
. . . . But he does believe that the political motives that once
played a substantial role in relations with Russian television have now
faded into the background. The major reason for the cutoff of RFF
is indeed money—because Burmistrov’s firm was the only one making any money
on advertising on that channel, a situation that was bound to displease
competing companies. Those complies ultimately got what they wanted:
Latvia put the lid on RPY. Now the profits will flow to them.
Undoubtedly, all this occurred against a favorable political backdrop.
But that was not the major factor . . . .
Obshchaya Gazeta, No. 35, September 5-11, p. 5. (Condensed
text)
II. Appeal to take TV company off air turned
down.
The National Radio and Television Council will not
annul the broadcasting licence of the television company Latvijas Neatkariga
Telekompanija [Independent Latvian TV company—LNT], because its president,
Andrejs Ekis, as a private individual does not own share capital in three
broadcasting organizations. Therefore, Ekis has not breached the radio
and television law.
Four television companies sent a letter to the Radio
and Television Council and to the commission for supervision of monopolies
asking them to annul LNT’s broadcasting licence. According to the authors
of the letter, Ekis had breached the radio and television law by controlling
three broadcasting organizations: LNT, Picca TV and NTV 5.
Latvian Radio, Riga, September 23, 1996
LITHUANIA
I. Law on national radio and television adopted.
On [8th October], the Seimas [Lithuanian parliament]
adopted a law on Lithuanian national radio and television. The law governs
the setting up, management, operation, reorganization and liquidation of
Lithuanian national radio and television, as well as rights and duties
of the radio and television. The adopted law represents the seventh draft
version of the document, which was in preparation for two years.
The new law says that the channels of the national radio
and television must ensure diversity of topics and genres, and the programming
must be aimed at different parts of the society. The programmes must give
national culture priority, and mass culture programmes must not exceed
in duration the programmes devoted to elite and national culture.
The Lithuanian national radio and television will be
subordinated to the Lithuanian people via the Lithuanian National Radio
and Television Council.
Lithuanian Radio (external service), Vilnius, October 9, 1996
UKRAINE
I. Independent TV begins broadcasting on third
channel.
Changes took place on Ukraine’s third television
channel on 20th October. The channel started to broadcast Ukrainian Independent
Television Corporation [UNTK] programmes carrying the “Inter” video caption.
The development was met with dubious reactions. In particular, many people
were unhappy with the fact that popular programmes from Russian Public
Television [ORT] suddenly disappeared from the air. To clarify the situation,
the leadership of the “Inter” company held a news conference.
Oleksandr Zinchenko, manager of the new corporation,
emphasized that the UNTK had received a licence from the National Council
for Television and Radio Broadcasts, which granted the company the right
to 12 hours of airtime per day on the third television channel. According
to the licence, the evening bloc of “Inter” programmes was supposed to
start at 1800 and last until midnight [1600-2200 gmt]. Oleksandr Zinchenko
pointed out: “We hoped that our evening programming would look as follows:
regional television studios would simultaneously broadcast their news bulletins
between 1835 and 1900 [1635-1700 gmt]. At 1900, ‘Inter’ would start its
broadcasts, around 90 minutes of which would be rebroadcasting of ORT programmes,
including the ‘Vremya’ programme [main news bulletin]. The remaining airtime
would be filled with UNTK programmes (both produced by the UNTK and bought
from other companies).”
Such were the provisions of the “gentlemen’s agreement”
between the UNTK and the Ukrainian State Television Company. However, the
“Ukrayina” twin channel unexpectedly appeared on the air, broadcast between
1600 and 2000 [1400-1800 gmt]. Zinchenko underlined that the most interesting
thing was that he had learned about the “surprise” from newspapers when
he read a television schedule. Even a day after, on Saturday , nobody was
able to explain to him the affiliation of “Ukrayina.” However, how can
one start broadcasting without the National Council’s licence? This is
a violation of the Law “On Television and Radio Broadcasts.”
“Ukrayina” is thus occupying two hours of “Inter” airtime
without any legal grounds. Nobody takes into account the fact that the
“unwanted guest” is upsetting the new channel’s planned rhythm. “Inter”
has thus been forced to introduce urgent changes in its programming.
However, given that even the UNTK leadership had problems
sorting out the situation, what can we expect from ordinary viewers? Viewers
are addressing their complaints to “Inter,” since they believe that “Inter”
and “Ukrayina” are “one and the same.” On the other hand, local television
studios are complaining about “Inter” because they have not been given
the promised simultaneous airtime at 1835.
Oleksandr Zinchenko added: “Personally, I have nothing
against ‘Ukrayina.’ However, I do not see any logic in the activities
of bureaucrats who sign some illegible documents and provoke opposition
between two companies. Is there really a need for the two companies to
share the same channel? So far, ‘Ukrayina’ has not shown any serious, professionally
made programmes. This is understandable, given the haste with which the
association was established. However, why use a name which coincides with
the name of our state?”
The UNTK director emphasized that “Inter” intends to
broadcast professionally produced Ukrainian programmes. In addition, the
channel is broadcasting foreign programmes—Russian, as well as British,
French and the like. In the immediate future, “Inter” plans to air its
own programmes, including “Planet of Health,” a series of talk shows, and
the “Aspects” programme devoted to international events. “Inter” is also
engaged in producing a big entertainment programme. It has purchased many
programmes for children, including cartoons. Asked about the reason behind
the mediocrity of certain programmes, the “Inter” manager said it was the
lack of experience.
The appearance of UNTK programmes on the third channel
is the best impetus for the development of domestic television. It is no
longer possible to work in the same manner as in the past. The standard
of foreign programmes and the status of the new channel offer new challenges.
The UNTK chairman added: “When people enter a competition, they know the
terms and rules of the game. We are not going to be second or third. The
UNTK aims to be number one.”
We would advise that those viewers who select the third
channel should follow programme previews, given that programming often
has to be changed without prior notice.
‘Molod Ukrayiny,’ Kiev, October 25, 1996
II. Picket of Crimean parliament over ORT ban.
About 200 people have picketed the Crimean parliament
building in protest against the ending of ORT [Russian Public TV] broadcasts
in Crimea. Deputies of the Crimean parliament who belong to pro-Russian
factions made speeches at the rallies. In particular, the former speaker
of the Crimean parliament and leader of the Republican Party of Crimea
faction, Serhiy Tsekov, said that the ending of ORT broadcasts “was the
culmination of an offensive against the rights of Russians” which began
in 1994. Tsekov called on all Crimean residents to unite in their protests
against the move to end the relaying of ORT programmes.
The participants in the rally adopted a resolution demanding
the resignation of Crimea’s minister of culture, Anatoliy Lytvynenko, “who
is encouraging the destruction of Russian culture in Crimea,” and have
set up a public committee in support of resuming the relays of ORT programmes
headed by Volodymyr Troshyn, the chairman of the Crimean Supreme Council
Commission for Mass Media and Public Relations.
According to a UNIAN correspondent, the speaker of the
Crimean parliament, Vasyl Kyselyov, Prime Minister Arkadiy Demydenko, the
Ukrainian president’s permanent representative in Crimea, Dmytro Stepanyuk,
and heads of power ministries today left for Kiev where, among other things,
they are expected to discuss the problem of the ending of ORT broadcasts.
The Crimean parliament also began discussing this issue today.
A joint statement signed by Kyselyov, Demydenko and
Stepanyuk to the Ukrainian president says that “the setting up of the Ukrainian
independent TV corporation, Inter, and the resultant reduction in ORT programmes
is a painful experience for the Crimean population and is causing an undesirable
arousal of public opinion.” The authors of the statement are proposing
that the Ukrainian National Council for TV and Radio Broadcasting and the
State Committee for TV and Radio should consider a proposal to relay ORT
programmes according to previous schedules, as well as to relay programmes
from Inter through the TV network that relays UT-2 [Ukrainian TV second
channel] programmes (there are currently two TV networks that broadcast
the UT-2 programme in Crimea).
UNIAN news agency, Kiev, October 23, 1996
III. National Broadcasting Council Disagrees
with Parliament’s Decision on Licences.
The head of the National Broadcasting Council, Viktor
Petrenko, believes that parliament’s decision to introduce a moratorium
on licensing and to change the status of national broadcasting channels
in Ukraine is against the state’s interests and “restricts the opportunities
for order to be established in broadcasting.”
The Ukrainian Supreme Council has adopted this decision
believing that “the early distribution of licences for channels” will prevent
the authorities from formulating their own policy in the information sector.
Petrenko stated at a news conference at the UNIAN news
agency that in an official reply to the Ukrainian Prosecutor-General’s
Office, the National [Broadcasting] Council had said that it did not “see
any reasons for cancelling licenses which have already been issued.”
He said that 230 licences had been issued to Ukrainian television companies
so far and, despite the moratorium, the council had adopted a decision
on issuing a licence to the National Broadcasting Company. The company
will reserve the right to broadcast on the first national channel and will
have four hours on the second channel. The remaining airtime on the
second channel will be shared according to the result of the tender, which
will close on 16th October. The National Broadcasting Company must
submit to the National Broadcasting Council for its consideration an outline
for broadcasting on the second channel.
The first channel, Petrenko said, will have a sociopolitical
orientation and the second channel will be cultural and educational.
As for the third national channel, the Ukrainian Independent Telecorporation
will have 12 hours on it and the remaining 12 hours will be allocated subject
to tender.
UNIAN news agency, Kiev, September 24, 1996
IV. Crimean parliament proposes resuming ORT
relays.
Crimean people’s deputies at their plenary session this
morning adopted a resolution “On providing the organizational and technical
means for broadcasting ORT [Russian Public TV] programmes in Crimea.”
The Crimean government has asked Ukraine’s National
Council for TV and Radio Broadcasting to review the decision to grant a
licence to the independent TV corporation, Inter—specifically, the section
concerning the rebroadcasting of its programmes in Crimea. A UNIAN correspondent
reports that the Crimean parliament has proposed resuming ORT broadcasts
in Crimea in full until this issue can be resolved.
The chairman of the Crimean parliament, Vasyl Kyselyov,
today told deputies that the chairman of Ukraine’s National Council for
TV and Radio Broadcasting, Viktor Petrenko, and the chairman of the State
Committee for TV and Radio, Zinoviy Kulyk, will take part in a session
of the Crimean parliament on 30th October which will discuss the broadcasting
of ORT programmes.
UNIAN news agency, Kiev, October 24, 1996
V. Crimean TV programme taken off the air.
Following an order by the director-general of the
Krym broadcasting company, Anatoliy Kovalchuk, the TV programme “Zustrich”
[“Meeting” ] was taken off the air today. The programme’s producers have
not been given the reasons for this decision.
A UNIAN correspondent reports that “Zustrich,” which
was broadcast live, invited politicians of various ranks to be its guests.
In an interview with the UNIAN news agency, the creator of the programme,
journalist Tetyana Korovova, commented on the situation which had developed:
“This is how the new power, in the person of Crimean Supreme Council Chairman
Vasyl Kyselyov, acts. These are the first steps of the clan which has won.”
At a meeting with mass media representatives, Kyselyov
said that, with regard to journalists who hamper his work, “there are a
number of different methods which can make those who do not currently understand
that one should work in Crimea’s interests change their views.”
UNIAN news agency, Kiev, November 2, 1996
VI. Broadcasting council criticizes curbs on
licences.
The head of the National Broadcasting Council, Viktor
Petrenko, believes that parliament’s decision to introduce a moratorium
on licensing and to change the status of national broadcasting channels
in Ukraine is against the state’s interests and “restricts the opportunities
for order to be established in broadcasting.”
The Ukrainian Supreme Council has adopted this decision
believing that “the early distribution of licences for channels” will prevent
the authorities from formulating their own policy in the information sector.
Petrenko stated at a news conference at the UNIAN news
agency that in an official reply to the Ukrainian Prosecutor-General’s
Office, the National [Broadcasting] Council had said that it did not “see
any reasons for cancelling licenses which have already been issued.” He
said that 230 licences had been issued to Ukrainian television companies
so far and, despite the moratorium, the council had adopted a decision
on issuing a licence to the National Broadcasting Company. The company
will reserve the right to broadcast on the first national channel and will
have four hours on the second channel. The remaining airtime on the second
channel will be shared according to the result of the tender, which will
close on 16th October. The National Broadcasting Company must submit to
the National Broadcasting Council for its consideration an outline for
broadcasting on the second channel.
The first channel, Petrenko said, will have a sociopolitical
orientation and the second channel will be cultural and educational. As
for the third national channel, the Ukrainian Independent Telecorporation
will have 12 hours on it and the remaining 12 hours will be allocated subject
to tender.
UNIAN news agency, Kiev, September 24, 1996
VII. New TV channel for Ukraine in late October.
As deputy head of the Ukrainian independent TV corporation
Yuriy Morozov told the InfoBank reporter, a new TV company is to start
broadcasting late October on the channels previously used by the Russian
Ostankino TV Company and later, by the Public Russian TV Company [All-Russian
State TV and Radio Broadcasting Company—VGTRK]. Its programmes will
be on the air [from] 7 through 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. through 1
a.m. [local time] the next day. Oblast [regional] TV broadcasting
is to be shifted to the first national TV channel.
Yuriy Morozov confirmed that the new TV company will
show its own information bulletins, news in Ukrainian and in Russian and
the best show programmes of the national TV. Some programmes of the
Public Russian Television [ORT] will also be shown. Talks aimed at
buying programmes of German and French TV companies are under way.
Yuriy Morozov explained that the new TV structure is
a closed joint-stock company founded by the State Property Fund of Ukraine,
“Dilovyi Svit” (The Business World)—the association for economic cooperation
and development, Public Russian Television, the Ukrainian branch of non-governmental
public organization titled the Alexandr Pushkin 200th Anniversary Fund.
Infobank news agency, Lvov, September 12, 1996
VIII. Broadcasts in Hungarian cut on Subcarpathian
TV.
The director-general of the Subcarpathian State
TV and Radio Company, Petro Petrik, has published a statement of more than
six pages in ‘Karpati Igaz Szo’ [Hungarian-language paper published two
to three times a week in Subcarpathia, Ukraine]. In the statement, Petro
Petrik lists the reasons which, in his view, justify reductions in Hungarian-language
broadcasts and the staff of the Hungarian section.
[Reporter] He stresses, first and foremost, that
the reductions affect every section and there are financial reasons for
them. [He adds that] the broadcasting time allocated to Hungarian programmes
is not proportional to the size of the Hungarian population within the
county. Currently 33.3 per cent of the total broadcasting time is in Hungarian,
although only 12 per cent of the population in Subcarpathia is Hungarian.
Replying to our question, the editor in chief of the
Hungarian section [Barna Toronyi] said that his staff had only learnt about
the decision from the paper. Toronyi does not agree with the director-general.
He thinks that the statement has many illogical points and few convincing
arguments.
The situation has been made even worse by the fact that
the section has been cut off from the central computer system. Last week
the [Hungarian] TV studio could only broadcast a 30-minute programme, instead
of its usual two-hour programme.
Duna TV satellite service, Budapest, November 5, 1996
IX. Russia loses right to beam TV to Ukraine.
Russia has lost the right of free television broadcasting
to Ukraine by having failed to sign a convention on trans-boundary broadcasting,
Alexei Samokhvalov, deputy director of the Institute of the History and
Social Problems of Television, told a news conference today.
He noted that “Ukraine itself signed the convention
last June, and nothing prevented Russia from doing the same.”
The Ukrainian company Inter has agreed to relay 30 per
cent of ORT programmes, such as entertaining programmes of the “The Field
of Wonders” type, serials and some feature films.
In the view of Samokhvalov, the impossibility of beaming
news and political programmes will lose Russia its levers of influence
on the political situation in that region, while the loss of a common information
space will also deprive 50m Ukrainian television watchers of cultural and
intellectual values.
“Even if Russia signs the convention and gets the right
again to beam programmes to Ukraine, it will have to pay a lump sum of
about 300m roubles to restore the previous status quo,” concluded Samokhvalov.
RIA news agency, Moscow, October 31, 1996
X. Crimean Supreme Council pushes for ORT.
On 24th October the Supreme Council of the Autonomous
Republic of Crimea adopted by a roll-call vote the decree “On organizational
and technical support for broadcasting ORT [Russian Public TV] programmes
to Crimea.”
It was suggested that the republican government turn
the residual funds earmarked for financing ORT programmes over to the Crimean
Republic Television Company for the acquisition of technical means for
providing for the broadcasting of Russian television to Crimea.
It was also decided to appeal to the Ukrainian National
Council for TV and Radio to reconsider the licence of the Inter television
corporation as it pertains to the broadcasting of its programmes on the
territory of Crimea and to continue the broadcasting of ORT to Crimea at
full power until this issue is finally resolved.
“Supreme Council of Crimea for ORT,” ‘Krymskaya Gazeta,’ Simferopol,
October 26, 1996
XI. Gala Radio allowed to resume broadcasting.
Representatives of Ukraine’s National Council for
TV and Radio Broadcasting on 1st November met representatives of Gala Radio.
After a long meeting, the head of the council, Viktor
Petrenko, ordered that Gala Radio should be allowed to resume broadcasting
on 72.08 MHz (24 hours) and on 100 [MHz] FM (12 hours). Petrenko also promised
that 24-hour broadcasting on 100 FM will be resumed on 10th November, the
radio’s employees said.
UNIAR news agency, Kiev, November 1, 1996
UZBEKISTAN
I. Media should be state-controlled, paper says.
The ‘Narodnye Slovo’ newspaper has published
a report about Uzbek media policy and developments. It was “deemed advisable,”
the report said, to maintain state control over the media because of the
latter’ s influence, but at the same time the media were called upon to
play a more active role in democratizing society. The report said that
the variety of radio broadcasts in the regions reflected the ethnic composition
there, adding that since 1990 the country had been switching from Soviet-style
programmes to the style of an independent state. It gave figures for various
types of publications. It said 62 per cent of TV broadcasts were in Uzbek,
34 per cent in Russian and three per cent in Kazakh, Turkish and other
languages. The media support fund set up in August is designed to help
represent the media better in state organizations and active work is currently
under way on a draft law on the media which should give free access to
information and make way for a free press, the report concluded. The following
are excerpts from the report by ‘Narodnye Slovo’; subheadings added editorially:
The media in the new conditions
The policy of the independent Republic of Uzbekistan
is aimed at achieving the main strategic goal, of building a democratic
law-governed state and civic society. To achieve this goal, Uzbekistan
is gradually and consistently proceeding with the democratization of all
sectors of society. The need to make the media in Uzbekistan more active
is becoming increasingly acute today, as they form a democratic institution
which moulds public opinion.
All in all, there are 515 publications in Uzbekistan
today. Of these, 67 are republican newspapers, 88 are magazines and the
rest are regional, town and district periodicals. Of the 67 republican
newspaper, 46 are the mouthpieces of state structures. Twenty-one publications
have been founded by various non-government organizations (political parties,
voluntary foundations, joint-stock companies, etc.). Of the 88 magazines,
70 are controlled by state structures, 12 belong to voluntary organizations
and six to other organizations.
The central press is issued in the Uzbek, Tajik, Kazakh,
Turkmen, Russian, English, Arabic and Korean languages, the regional press
in Uzbek and Russian, and in the Republic of Karakalpakstan, in the Karakalpak
language as well.
Radio and TV broadcasting
The following can be said about television and radio
broadcasting in Uzbekistan. The process of shifting television programmes
from the Soviet standard to television standards of an independent state
has been continuing at the television centre since 1990. Uzbek Television
broadcasts are currently carried through four channels with an average
[total] duration of 30 hours a day. Each region of the republic has its
own television studio—a branch [of central TV]. News programmes and a number
of entertaining and talks programmes from Russian state television and
Russian Public Television [ORT] are rebroadcast.
The people of Uzbekistan also watch Turkish and Indian
television programmes. Programmes are broadcast in Uzbek (62-63 per cent
of the total duration of television broadcasts), in Russian (34 per cent)
and in the Kazakh, Tartar and other languages (three per cent).
Uzbek Radio broadcasts are also carried in the languages
of various nationalities living in the republic—in Uzbek, Russian, etc.
In the 1990-1996 period, the duration of radio broadcasting
rose from 48 to 63 hours a day, and broadcasts with a duration totalling
15 hours are beamed abroad. Regional branches of republican radio are functioning
properly. It is significant that radio programmes are broadcast in the
regions in Uzbek as well as in the languages of ethnic minorities living
in those regions. For instance, in Navoi Region, radio broadcasts are in
Uzbek, Russian and Kazakh, whereas in Bukhara Region, they are in Uzbek,
Russian and Tajik.
In a word, the orientation of television and radio broadcasting
in Uzbekistan in terms of language and content reflects the multiethnic
composition of its population adequately and keeps to the democratic principles
that Uzbekistan’s nationalities policy is based on . . . .
State control over media deemed advisable
Given that the media are a powerful means of influencing
the masses and taking into account the peculiarities of the transitional
period, it was deemed advisable to maintain state control over the work
of the media in Uzbekistan.
The state is currently encouraging the media to play
a much more active role in democratizing society under the new sociopolitical
conditions. Speaking at the sixth session of the Supreme Assembly of the
Republic of Uzbekistan, President Islam Karimov dwelt in particular on
the role of the media in democratizing society. It was noted that they
were passive in implementing democratic reforms. The process of transforming
the Uzbek media into “the fourth estate of the realm” is still slow. The
stereotypes of the old way of thinking are still showing, and getting rid
of them means overcoming serious difficulties. . . .
The reason for setting up a sociopolitical media support
fund in August this year was that practical assistance was needed to create
proper conditions for the normal functioning of newspapers and magazines,
and there was a need to distribute state subsidies to support the press,
to act in the interests of the media and their founders and to represent
them in state bodies and voluntary organizations. Special attention has
been paid recently to the problems of structural reforms in a number of
media and to making them less dependent. Regulatory documents are being
drawn up for this purpose, like the decree by the president of the Republic
of Uzbekistan, dated 7th May 1996, “on measures to assign a more active
role to television and radio in the social development of Uzbekistan.”
Let us point to the most distinctive features of this regulatory act aimed
at helping to improve and intensify the work of the Television and Radio
Company of Uzbekistan.
First, the state voices an interest in reforming radio
and television in the shortest possible time, taking into account the new
sociopolitical and economic conditions.
Second, it specifies the main tasks and trends of the
television and radio company—the tasks, if carried out, would make it possible
to satisfy more fully the needs of the public and society for objective
and reliable information from various sources.
Third, it defines a number of questions concerning the
tackling of material and technical problems of the television and radio
company, giving it certain financial incentives with the aim of encouraging
its activity.
The work of the national news agency—UZA—is noteworthy.
It functions in line with the resolution adopted by the cabinet of ministers
on 21st April 1992 and with approved regulations on the matter. The UZA
is the only influential agency in the republic today. It gathers and broadcasts
news and other media work in close cooperation with it. But nevertheless,
other news agencies are also being established, “Jahon” for example. It
is, however, now at its initial stage of development.
Laws regulating media activity
At the sixth session of the Supreme Assembly, President
Islam Karimov spoke about the need to strengthen the legal basis for the
activity of the media and emphasized that the republic’s parliament and
its appropriate committees had better work harder on appropriate draft
laws, such as “on access to information” and “on the free press.” It should
be noted that work is now well under way on a new edition of the draft
law on the media. The Council of the Supreme Assembly discussed media developments
recently. The law adopted at the sixth session to regulate publishing in
Uzbekistan will apparently help tackle the problems existing in this sphere.
One distinctive feature of this law is that for the first time in Uzbekistan,
it gives the individual the right to engage in free publishing.
So obviously, reassuring and positive changes can now
be seen in the work of Uzbekistan’s media.
‘Narodnye Slovo,’ Tashkent, October 9, 1996