I. Two TV stations to share Channel 3 in Moscow region.
II. New Threats to Press Independence Emerge.
III. Financial Interests Vie to Control Komsomolskaya
Pravda.
IV. Financial Interests Vie to Control Komsomolskaya
Pravda: Commentary by editor in chief, Valery Simonov.
V. Yeltsin orders TV bosses to carry more provincial
news.
VI. Accusations against federal TV-radio service.
VII. Who are the top 10 spenders on TV advertising
in Russia as of January 1997?
VIII. Advertising Extra.
IX. What are Russia's top 13 publications?
The Russian airtime licensing commission has granted licenses
for the use of Channel 3 to two companies—one to the TV-Tsentr [TV-Centre]
company and another to the Moskovia TV company.
The commission members did not conceal their intention
to create a sort of “a shared flat” by granting the right to broadcast
on the same wavelength to two TV companies for a period between three to
five years, despite Moskovia’s protests.
Its leaders recalled the negative experience of
coexistence of several TV companies on one channel. Russian Public Television
[ORT] and the Mir broadcasters have only just survived on Channel 1, the
NTV [Independent Television] company and the VGTRK (Russian State TV and
Radio Broadcasting Company) went through a “divorce” on Channel 2, and
Tele-Expo keeps cutting short programmes aired by St Petersburg Channel
5.
The Licensing Commission would not budge as its
decision had been predetermined by an accord between the mayor of Moscow
[Yuriy Luzhkov] and the head of the Moscow regional administration, who
agreed to share the same wavelength and thus comply with President Yeltsin’s
decree which apportioned Channel 3 to the entire Moscow region, Moscow
city included.
The question about new licenses and new broadcasters
has come to the fore now because the terms of the licenses allowing Moscow
TV and the 2x2 commercial broadcasting company to use Channel 3 expire
on June 6th.
The two companies were to be replaced by two other
broadcasters. As concerns TV-Tsentr, the Moscow city government is its
cofounder and TV veteran Anatoliy Lysenko, who now heads the Moscow city
government’s telecommunications and media department, is its “godfather.”
He has worked for years to give Moscow a TV channel of its own that “would
be worthy of the Russian capital.”
The two outgoing broadcasters—Moscow TV and the
2x2 company—said they would not seek the prolongation of their licenses,
but Moskovia, representing the regional authorities, was adamant to get
as much airtime as possible.
The agreement signed between the Moscow city and
the regional authorities gave Moskovia 125 minutes on weekdays, 45 minutes
on Saturdays and 35 minutes on Sundays. TV professionals say this political
compromise does not fully meet the interests of the TV viewers in the region
who will, as a result, have to watch “sandwich programs” from two different
companies.
Many commission members believe that express efforts
should be made to win more airtime for each of the users instead of dividing
the existing time slots between them.
They insist that Moskovia should do its best to
acquire a full-time channel of its own, instead of just gaining slightly
more priceless prime time on the same channel with a rival, which will
hardly be good for the airing schedule on Channel 3.
Deputy chairman of the Licensing Commission and
president of the Fund for the Protection of Glasnost (Openness) Aleksey
Simonov described the decision as “unnatural” and expressed the hope that
the rival broadcasters would have an opportunity to go their own ways within
the next three years.
ITAR-TASS news agency, May 14, 1997.
II. New Threats to Press Independence Emerge.
By Aleksei Filippov
The situation with regard to two of the country’s
main newspapers, Komsomolskaya pravda and Izvestia, has finally become
clear. Komsomolka’s independent existence has come to an end: 59% of its
shareholders supported a decision by the supervisory council of the Komsomolskaya
pravda closed-type joint-stock company to sell 20% of the newspaper’s shares
to ONEKSIMbank [United Export-Import Bank]. The conflict over Izvestia—which
reprinted an item from the French newspaper Le Monde on Chernomyrdin’s
alleged $ 5-billion fortune and, as a result, clashed with its main shareholder,
Lukoil, which owns 41% of the newspaper’s shares—is also coming to a close.
Many people are now wondering what is behind these
events, and whether our government has launched a massive campaign to tame
the press. In the opinion of Komsomolka editor in chief Valery Simonov,
that is precisely what is happening. And Komsomolka is not the only paper
involved, in Simonov’s view.
“Look at what’s happening to Izvestia, Rabochaya
tribuna, Selskaya zhizn [Rural Life] and Moskovsky komsomolets,” said Simonov.
. . .
Power at Komsomolka is now wielded by Vladimir Sungorkin,
chairman of the Komsomolskaya pravda joint-stock company, and his team.
. . .
[Valery Simonov said that] under a new charter to
be adopted in May, the new editor in chief will be appointed by the Board
of Directors, which will include two representatives of ONEKSIMbank. A
contract will be concluded with the new editor, and it will be possible
to dismiss him at any time. What sort of independence will there be to
speak of then?
Mikhail Kozhokin, [vice-chairman of the board at
ONEKSIMbank], asserts that the bank will not interfere in editorial matters
and that it will only prohibit the publication of paid promotional articles
in the newspaper and stop Komsomolka from getting involved in any “mud-slinging
wars.” Let’s hope that proves to be the case, but it’s hard to believe
that everything will be quite so idyllic. Another alarming fact is that
one of the newspaper’s leading reporters, Pavel Voshchanov, and a number
of other staffers have been invited to leave Komsomolka. An ONEKSIMbank
spokesman said his institution had absolutely nothing to do with that.
. . .
The situation that has arisen with regard to Izvestia
and Komsomolka is typical of these times. Today money is playing the role
that used to be played by the CPSU Central Committee’s province committees
and its propaganda department, and the myth of an independent press seems
to be fading once again, like a mirage. Although world experience doesn’t
offer grounds for overly romantic illusions on this score either.
We must proceed from reality, no matter how grim
it is. The press, like any enterprise, inevitably enters into relationships
with partners and becomes dependent on them. Any measure of objectivity
here is limited by the partners’ interests, and it would be naive to believe
that the organizations that finance the press are going to do anything
contrary to their own interests.
Russia differs from the developed democracies in
that here these organizations, no matter how powerful, are to a tremendous
extent dependent on the government, which has enough levers at its disposal
to bring any financial or industrial organization to its knees. It is clear
that at a critical moment, these organizations are not going to risk their
independence, which is as illusory as that of the press.
Under these circumstances, the independence of the
press is receding even further into the realm of myth.
“Business as a Millstone Around One’s Neck. Will Izvestia and Komsomolka Re-Emerge?”, Obshchaya gazeta, No. 15, April 17-23, 1997, p. 2. [Condensed text]
III. Financial Interests Vie to Control Komsomolskaya Pravda
By Yadviga Yuferova
The struggle among Russian magnates for influence
over the news media is taking a new tack. I am referring to the situation
that has developed in the past few days at Komsomolskaya pravda, whose
founder is the newspaper’s journalistic collective. An annual shareholders’
meeting of the Komsomolskaya pravda closed-type joint-stock company scheduled
for March 21 was supposed to examine the question of proposed investments.
The editorial board had not been expecting any surprises, since the plan
was to give final legal form to the sale of 20% of the company’s shares
to Gazprom [the Gas Industry joint-stock company], a sale that had been
announced last year and approved by the shareholders.
Last week, however, Vladimir Sungorkin, chairman
of the board of the Komsomolskaya pravda joint-stock company, announced
that a decision to assign 20% of the shares to ONEKSIMbank [United Export-Import
Bank] had been drawn up in the form of an official document. . . .
“According to my information,” says editor in chief
Valery Simonov, “this transaction is the work of certain well-known political
personages who distinguished themselves when that unforgettable box was
carried out of the White House [a reference to Anatoly Chubais—Trans.].
This is not rivalry between the Gazprom joint-stock company and ONEKSIMbank
for the information business, but a real struggle by a progovernment financial
structure for influence over Komsomolskaya pravda. . . .
“A very distressing thing is happening at KP now—shares
are being bought up on a large scale. All moral principles are going by
the boards. Packages of dollars are being thrust in people’s faces in exchange
for loyalty. When that doesn’t work, blackmail and attempts to intimidate
people with the prospect of losing their jobs are used.” . . .
At present, the news media market is predominantly
under the influence of two major fighters for freedom of speech. But while
Vladimir Gusinsky does this openly and has publicly concentrated on the
MediaMost holding company, Boris Berezovsky, despite his state position
[as Deputy Secretary of the Security Council—Trans.], continues his financial,
and hence political, expansion. ORT [Russian Public Television], TV-6,
Nezavisimaya gazeta—what will be next? Does Komsomolskaya pravda now find
itself on that list? The Security Council Deputy Secretary’s information
business is shrouded in deep secrecy.
“Boris Berezovsky has nothing to do with this transaction,”
asserts Vladimir Sungorkin, chairman of the board of the Komsomolskaya
pravda joint-stock company. . . “We are the ones who found ONEKSIMbank
an interesting economic partner that has an interest in objective information.”
. . .
On behalf of its investor [Gusinsky], the Sevodnya
group is buying up shares from Komsomolskaya pravda employees. Shares are
votes. One vote costs from $ 500 to $ 700—that’s the current market price.
. . .
Is the Slogan “Komsomolskaya Pravda is sold only to its readers” Obsolete?, March 19, 1997, p. 2. [Condensed text]
IV. Financial Interests Vie to Control Komsomolskaya Pravda: Commentary by editor in chief, Valery Simonov.
[On March 14] the newspaper’s collective learned,
quite unexpectedly for most of us, that the board of supervisors of the
Komsomolskaya pravda closed-type joint-stock company had decided to draw
up an official document assigning 20% of the shares in the Komsomolskaya
pravda company to ONEKSIMbank [United Export-Import Bank]. . . . Everything
was kept a deep secret from the newspaper’s collective. Suffice it to say
that neither the editor in chief—myself, that is—nor the editorial board,
let alone the paper’s collective, was informed of the decision that was
in the making. . . .
We were also surprised by the haste with which that
step, a serious one for the newspaper, was taken. The decision was made
last Thursday [March 13], and all the documents were signed on Friday.
For that reason, the editorial board, which examined
the developing situation yesterday, believes that what is behind all this
is not a desire to find a general investor and solve our problems, but
some kind of political game. The second round of the struggle for the news
media has begun, if one may put it that way. The President’s staff has
long tried to find some kind of levers it could use to influence our newspaper.
As you know, KP has taken a very critical attitude toward processes and
events taking place in the country. . . .
The Press: Oneksimbank Takes a Fancy to Komsomolskaya Pravda—Valery Simonov, Komsomolskaya Pravda’s Editor in Chief, Believes a Second Stage Has Begun in the Struggle for the News Media in Russia, Nezavisimaya gazeta, March 18, 1997, p. 2. [Excerpts]
V. Yeltsin orders TV bosses to carry more provincial news.
Federal President Boris Yeltsin demands broader coverage
of provincial developments, in particular, the emergence of new governmental
and managerial patterns, he says in today’s instruction to Sergei Blagovolin,
general director of the national ORT [Russian Public TV] company (Channel
One), and Nikolai Svanidze, president of VGRTK [All-Russia State TV and
Radio Company] (Channel Two).
The managerial staff of ORT are well aware of the
importance of this task. The company is doing much to acquire a true national
scope, not only in terms of the popularity of its programmes with the audiences,
and of transmission range, but in thematic diversity and the number of
information sources. The personnel agree with President Yeltsin’s criticism
on many points, Mr Blagovolin said in a RIA interview.
RIA news agency, Moscow, April 25, 1997
VI. Accusations against federal TV-radio service.
Accusations of corruption and bribe-taking in the
Russian Federal Service for TV and Radio Broadcasting [FSTR] published
in a Moscow newspaper have evoked regret, not indignation, in service head
Valentin Lazutkin.
Although the newspaper article said Lazutkin himself
was not involved in any abuse of office, the man expressed surprise that
the Licensing Commission should call an emergency meeting to discuss the
publication of unverified information.
According to Lazutkin, the documents which the article
was based on had been anonymously sent out to many leaders of the TV and
Radio Service, members of the Licensing Commission and to journalists covering
the activity of the mass media.
Lazutkin said the anonymous author of the attack
could be figured out easily because [a] few people were feeling hurt by
the commission’s refusal to grant licenses they were seeking to obtain.
He said nonetheless that the TV and Radio Service
would not demand satisfaction and take the newspaper editor to court, both
because it would be a pity to waste time on squabbles and because attacks
on the service were not new.
“We have felt and will continue to feel pressure
from different sides,” Lazutkin said, including from the criminal world
and Russian and foreign business bosses. “Those who are thirsty for power
while the president is alive and healthy also add to the pressure,” he
said.
Lazutkin said the service had been created a mere
two years ago and could not be responsible for the hundreds of licenses
that had been granted before its time and could no longer be traced even
in the archives.
Even when the service was granted the right to grant
licenses independently, it preferred to hand over these functions to the
public Licensing Commission, made up of representatives of government departments,
public organizations of journalists and workers in culture, as well as
prominent electronic media professionals. The Commission is headed by Dean
of Moscow University’s Journalism Department Yasen Zasurskiy.
Lazutkin said he was also aware of the fact that
some broadcasters who had obtained their licenses free of charge later
engaged in reselling the same at a profit after making slight changes to
the list of the founders. But while the TV and Radio Service can control
the broadcasting activity, it may not intervene in the managerial process,
as such intervention is prohibited by law, Lazutkin said.
According to the service leaders, it is not normal
that too many companies financed by foreign capital are operating in Russia.
No other civilized country permits foreigners to monopolize its airtime
so actively, he said.
Lazutkin said the Licensing Commission would have
“a titanic amount of work to do this year,” with around 600 licenses needing
revision after the expiry of their five-year terms.
TAR-TASS news agency (World Service), Moscow, May 14, 1997
VII. Who are the top 10 spenders on TV advertising in Russia as of January 1997?
In order from 1 to 10, including rank January of last year and spending in dollars, they are: Procter & Gamble (1)—$9.2million; SmithKline Beecham (11)—$3.7 million; Wrigley (2)—$3.2million; Unilever (8)—$3.1 million; Nestle (16)—$2.3 million; Dandy (5)- $2.3 million; Johnson & Johnson (?)—$2.1 million; Soyuz Studio (13) -$1.1 million; L Oreal (7)—$1.0 million; Mars Russia (3)—$1.0 million.
The Moscow Times, 4 March 1997
Advertisers spent between $274 million and $597 million on all channels in Russia in 1996, depending on who you ask. It costs about$1 to reach 1,000 viewers in Russia, compared to $15 per 1,000 in the U.S.The average rates per minute of advertising on the major channels is$10,000, though one minute of prime-time can cost up to $30,000. Ad time on all TV channels reached 7.6 million seconds in 1996. Two large companies,Premier SV and Video International, are the sole brokers of television advertising time on Russia s main channels, buying up air-time a year in advance and reselling it to advertisers through a combination of package deals, discounts and long-term contracts.
The Moscow Times, 4 March 1997
IX. What are Russia’s top 13 publications?
From 1 to 13, including type of publication and circulation, they are: Center Plus (shopper)—5 million; Speed Info (racy tabloid)—3.8 million; Argumenti iFacti (weekly)—3.4 million; Extra M (shopper)—2.9 million;Komsomolskaya Pravda (daily)—1.5 million; Trud (daily)—1.4 million; Economika i Zhizn (business weekly)—1.2 million; Moskovsky Komsomolets (daily)—1 million; Sport Express (sports daily)—850,000; Izvestia (daily)—630,000; 7 Days (TV, personality)—450,000; Sevodnya (daily)—100,000; Nezavisimaya Gazeta (daily)—50,000.
The Washington Post, 31 March 1997