RUSSIA
The Moscow newspaper ‘Nezavisimaya Gazeta’ says
that the Russian Public TV (ORT) and Russia TV channels have reacted calmly
to the prime ministerial decree announcing the appointment of public supervisory
councils to oversee their activities. The paper adds that since the councils
are intended to be separate structures which will form part of the television
companies, with the rights of independent departments, “there really is
nothing special to be concerned about.” Following is the text of the ‘Nezavisimaya
Gazeta’ report; subheadings added editorially:
Everyone can remember the speeches of Viktor Anpilov,
the fiery leader of Working Russia, who was particularly active in 1993
and who campaigned for the idea of organizing public supervisory councils
which would at once have purged the electronic mass media of the pernicious
US and Israeli influence. At that time Viktor Anpilov was very afraid that
our television would turn into “Telavivion.” Except that in his interpretation,
this idea turned out incredibly similar to a shout from an impatient policeman
and disgustingly full of inconceivably bestial chauvinism. Of course, no
sober-minded, normal people could have paid attention to his arguments.
Present-day reality does not trouble us with such
verbal attacks. In television circles, there has long been talk of supervisory
councils or boards of guardians with one degree of intensity or another.
Some time ago a high-ranking television official described how television
workers themselves, having kept themselves pretty much to themselves, had
started speaking of the need for a collective discussion of the product
which they offer to television viewers. Admittedly, it was a question of
artistic councils, and certainly not of political censorship. Things never
went so far as action on either the independent or the official level.
But it probably still remains a topical fact that all authors would be
greatly helped by an objective view of outside arbiters.
TV channels react “calmly” to premier’s decree
The directive on the creation of public supervisory
councils at the ORT [Russian Public Television] and VGTRK [All-Russia State
Television and Radio Broadcasting Company] television companies, which
was signed recently by Government Chairman [Prime Minister] Viktor Chernomyrdin,
was perceived by the leadership of these television companies surprisingly
calmly. The prospect of the presence of “overseers” and “counsellors” in
the areas of the ORT and the VGTRK did not elicit sharp opposition from
their leadership. Since the public supervisory councils are conceived as
separate structures which will form part of the television companies with
the rights of independent departments, there really is nothing special
to be concerned about. The many years’ past experience of the Party Control
Committee under the CPSU Central Committee, which was called upon to control
party organs and to watch over the purity of their ranks, shows that the
separateness and independence of structures of this kind are very relative
concepts. The efforts of those who will be on these councils must be aimed
theoretically at reaching public concord and harmonizing relations between
the mass media, the regime and consumers of the television airwaves. The
councils will have to work out sensible and acceptable ideas, which television
will either want or not want to adopt as a guide for action. But all this
is only a theory, a code of certain intentions. The real activities of
such councils can be taken on in practice only by those representatives
of them who are far removed from the imperatives of “prohibiting” and “not
allowing” and who are capable of really advising, recommending and giving
consultations. Otherwise the television companies get new departments,
which in time will become customary and inconspicuous in the everyday activity
of the ORT and the VGTRK.
Reaction of Russia TV officials
We asked VGTRK Chairman Nikolay Svanidze and Boris
Nepomnyashchiy, chief editor of the “Vesti” programme, to comment on the
decision to create public supervisory councils.
“The point is, what kind of council it will be and
what its functions will be,” Nikolay Karlovich [Svanidze] said. “A board
of guardians or a public supervisory council—it is not important what it
is called—is not a bad thing in itself if it helps and does not try to
crush what it is watching over. There is an actual example—the BBC Board
of Governors, which protects the BBC from pressure from parliament, the
government and the Queen and thus ensures the channel’s independence. If
this board of guardians sees its task as being a permanently functioning
comptroller’s office at the VGTRK, trying to get into the broadcasting
network, finely controlling economic activity, and thus hampering work
under the full programme, then such a board of guardians will objectively
play a negative role and in that case its relations with the VGTRK leadership
will probably soon be spoiled. I hope that the council which will be created
will help the VGTRK and not hamper it. As for the members of this council,
it is a question of the involvement in it of State Duma deputies, Federation
Council members and cultural figures. But it is too soon to speak of personalities.”
“This is something quite ordinary, because supervisory
councils are provided for in the Law on the Mass Media,” Boris Nepomnyashchiy
told ‘Nezavisimaya Gazeta.’ “Based on the true meaning of this concept—’overseeing’
and ‘counselling’—I can only be in favour. Here, however, there is, of
course, a ‘but.’ In my view it is very important to draw up a statute in
which the council’s functions and the rights of its members must be clearly
prescribed. It is also important who will be on the council. How are things
with us? Everyone has a good grasp of football and agriculture, and it
is thought that everyone has a good grasp of television too. It is important
that these should be people with a high pan-human level of culture, absolutely
devoid of personal partialities towards certain political or other groups.
As chief news editor, I am primarily faced with this question: What if
the ‘overseeing’ and the ‘counselling’ are based on counting the seconds
of a particular feature devoted to a particular topic - something that
I have already encountered in my practical work? In my view it will be
silly if we proceed from the premise that television is, for all that,
creative work and cannot be measured in seconds at all. I hope that in
practice the creation of such councils will not take the form of something
extraordinary. The first steps have to be taken to lay good foundations
for these councils in the form of documents, on which the ORT and VGTRK
leadership must, naturally, work. Life will show how capable they will
be.”
‘Nezavisimaya Gazeta’, Moscow, October 25, 1997
II. Berezovsky pulls strings at ORT: former chief.
By Andrei Zolorov Jr.
Former ORT general director Sergei Blagovolin said
Tuesday he left his post in Russia’s largest television company because
of disagreements with business tycoon Boris Berezovsky and the board of
directors.
Blagovolin, who resigned earlier this year, indirectly
confirmed the broad understanding in Russia media circles that Berezovsky,
deputy secretary of the Security Council, plays a crucial role in ORT’s
decision-making process. ORT officially denies such involvement.
Berezovsky “undoubtedly influences the work of the
channel-sometimes right, sometimes wrong,” Blagovolin told a press conference,
repeating many of the statements he had made in the Russia media earlier
this year, when he spoke about his desire to leave ORT. He praised Beresovsky’s
role at the channel’s inception and said that without him, ORT would not
have survived.
In 1995, Berezovsky was deputy chairman of ORT’s
board of directors and was seen as a principal investor in the venture.
After his appointment to the Security Council at the end of 1996, Berezovsky
formally relinquished all his posts in private businesses.
The government owns 51 percent of ORT’s shares,
but the station is widely viewed as promoting Berezovsky’s political and
business interests.
Blagovolin said he disagreed with Berezovsky when
the “mess in news programming” started and Sergei Dorenko returned to Channel
1 as anchor of the weekly analytical show “Vremya.”
“With this, Boris got it wrong;” said Blagovolin,
adding that the invitation to Dorenko was not solely Berezovsky’s decision,
but one made by the majority of the board of directors.
“I could not agree in the principle with the quantity
of abuse which started to flow to the airwaves in regard to people that
I love-such as [Moscow Mayor] Yury Luzhkov—or to whom I am indifferent—such
as [First Deputy Prime Minister] Boris Nemtsov,” said Blagovolin.
“I consider this inadmissable, wrong,” he said.
“I saw the writing on the wall: Leave!”
Dorenko is seen as an aggressive promoter of Berezovsky’s
line on Russian television. Alexander Timofeyvsky, a commentator for Russky
Telegraf, a newspaper owned by rival Uneximbank, wrote that Dorenko, who
once accused those who questioned Berezovsky’s Israeli citizenship of anti-Semitism,
last Saturday attacked Boris Jordan, president of the MFK investment bank,
who was recently stripped of his Russian visa. Last Friday, Berezovsky
openly supported the retraction of Jordan’s visa, a measure criticized
by Nemtsov.
“The connection between the American passport of
. . . Jordan and the theft of Russia’s national wealth was undoubtedly
established” by Dorenko, wrote Timofeyevsky.
The latest issue of the Profil magazine said that
Blagovolin’s replacement, Ksenia Ponomareva, is “200 percent Berezovsky’s
person.” The magazine alleged that Berezovsky controls the channel through
appointment of loyal people to key positions.
But ORT vehemently denies such charges. The company’s
spokesman Grigory Simanovich said that Blagovolin, who still enjoys respect
at ORT, expressed nothing but his personal opinion.
Simanovich said that “to the degree to which Berezovsky
is a shareholder [in ORT], he has the right to express his opinion about
the work of the channel.” He could not disclose the size of Berezovsky’s’s
share, but said it was “insignificant.”
“I have never witnessed Berezovsky giving direct
orders to any body,” said Simanovich.
Moscow Times, October 15, 1997
Russian gas company Gazprom intends to form a media
holding company, Gazprom-Media, which may control Gazprom stakes in federal
and regional media institutions, said Viktor Ilyushin, a member of the
Gazprom board.
“Working on the information market is a specific
business,” Ilyushin said. “The creation of the holding company will enable
us to erase losses and cut costs on our information campaigns when working
with the public.”
Gazprom-Media will be formed “not to wage propaganda
wars or political campaigns, but primarily in the interests of [Gazprom’s]
own shareholders, the main one being the government.”
Gazprom currently holds stakes in the NTV and ORT
television companies, the Trud and Rabochaya Tribuna newspapers, the Prometei
television and radio broadcasting company and other media sources. The
Gazprom board of directors will make a final decision on the formation
of the media holding company at the end of October.
Interfax News Agency, Moscow, October 15, 1997
IV. Paper comments on prospective new ORT head.
Following a personal audience [on 1st October], the
Russian Federation President [Boris Yeltsin] recommended that ORT [Russian
Public TV] shareholders approve the appointment of Kseniya Ponomareva,
a long-standing colleague of Boris Berezovskiy, to the vacant post of ORT
director-general. Berezovskiy’s frosty relationship with the Kremlin is
probably thawing out.
An article by Ulyan Kerzonov, published by the Berezovskiy-dependent
“Nezavisimaya Gazeta”on 13th September and marking a decisive phase in
the attack on [First Deputy Prime Minister Anatoliy] Chubays, contained
forecasts concerning the future reorganization of ORT with a view to the
television channel’s total subordination to the usurping regent. Ulyan’s
disturbing forecast did not come true entirely. The president has recommended
that Kseniya Ponomareva, who has worked successfully with the head of LogoVAZ
for some years now, be appointed to replace Sergey Blagovolin, who had
been at odds with Berezovskiy for a long time.
Berezovskiy’s partial fall from grace, which began
on 15th September when Yeltsin personally deleted his name from the list
of very rich capitalists invited to meet the president, may be over. While
Ponomareva was having a constructive discussion with Yeltsin of “questions
of mutual relations between the executive authorities and the mass media,”
Berezovskiy’s nominal Security Council chief, Ivan Rybkin, who for several
weeks appeared to have forgotten that he had an energetic deputy, suddenly
remembered him and expressed a desire to involve Berezovskiy in the negotiating
process with Chechnya again.
The end of his period of disgrace may have been
brought nearer by Berezovskiy’s flexible stance in the conflict with the
first deputy prime ministers. The weekend before the constructive Wednesday
[1st October], there was an obvious contrast between the unusually meek
Dorenko in the “Vremya” programme and the still formidable Kiselev in “Itogi”—a
week ago Dorenko, far from echoing Kiselev’s words, had actually outdone
him in terms of generating heat. For a final opinion we have to observe
ORT news policy for at least a few days more, but the initial impression
is that Berezovskiy has seen fit to conclude a separate news truce with
the government, leaving [Vladimir] Gusinskiy to fight on alone.
As the guarantee of a truce, the new appointment
is twice lucky. Ponomareva is known to be a strong and talented leader.
On the other hand, having been on leave since spring to restore her health,
Ponomareva was not mixed up in the August-September news war, so, given
the goodwill of the contracting parties, the appearance on centre-stage
of someone untainted by all this can be seen as a bid for a more decorous
relationship between the ORT and the central authorities than of late.
“Berezovskiy’s separate peace with the Kremlin,” ‘Russkiy Telegraf’, Moscow, October 2, 1997
V. TV official on closure of “Moment of Truth.”
Mikhail Poltoranin, president of the “Moment of
Truth” corporation, has been speaking about the dropping of the “Moment
of Truth” programme from the schedule of the TV channel operated by the
All-Russian State TV and Radio Broadcasting Company. He said the move was
symptomatic of the problems of political interference and financial corruption
plaguing the country’s television system. Poltoranin said that it was “pointless”
to ask President Yeltsin to intervene to rectify the situation as he was
“not an independent person.” The following are excerpts from a live interview
with Poltoranin by Aleksey Venediktov, broadcast by Russian Ekho Moskvy
radio on 12th September:
[Q] Mikhail Nikiforovich [Poltoranin]: News agencies reported
yesterday that the management of the All-Russian State Television and Radio
Broadcasting Company [VGTRK] had closed down the “Moment of Truth” programme
because they did not like the coverage of a speech delivered by the State
Duma Speaker, [Gennadiy] Seleznev. The management had then unilaterally
cancelled the contract with your corporation. What do you think about all
this and what do you know about this situation?
[A] Firstly, I would like to ask you a question in return, Aleksey.
Tell me honestly, without naming any names, did you have any phone calls
today in connection with your plans to invite me here?
[Q] We had a lot of phone calls today, almost as many as during
the 1993 putsch.
[A] Yes, I see. I know. I have information that you have had
such phone calls and that there has been a desire to prevent this interview
from taking place. This is self-explanatory. When the question is asked
whether this can be described as censorship or not, I think that these
phone calls give an unambiguous answer—this is censorship. The people who
were behind the phone calls would like to establish such a political situation
in our country when they will not have to call and beg you, but they would
like to call and order you about. They tell you their orders, you take
the programme off air and say goodbye.
This is that kind of monopolism—we discussed this
issue some time ago—which leads to such moves. I also had phone calls—from
12 governors of big Russian regions and territories. They expressed their
concern over the situation and asked me what was going on and why. They
like this programme. The programme made it possible for these people to
vent their feelings. Governors, scientists and people from the regions
could appear on it and talk about their problems. All of a sudden this
opportunity is being taken away from us.
Andrey Cherkizov carried out an opinion poll on
[independent] NTV today to find out people’s attitude to the programme.
The results are as follows: 55 per cent of the respondents unambiguously
support this programme, 23 per cent would like it to carry on regardless
of their dislike of it, and the rest support the VGTRK management.
[Q] Mikhail Nikiforovich: You are not as simple as you would
like to appear. You were Russian Deputy Prime Minister. Could you please
explain why is this all happening? What do you think? What is your position?
Is this an economic issue or is this a political issue? Is this a misunderstanding?
What is this?
[A] I think that this problem exists at two levels: the first
one is political and the other economic. The political aspect is that on
the whole the second [TV] channel [operated by VGTRK] is becoming a servant
to the gang of Kremlin hangers-on. A group around the Kremlin, the group
which is surrounding the president, is described as a financial group.
In fact, it is just an ordinary criminal gang. They have their people everywhere,
and these people who are obliged to the criminals for many financial favours
must obey the gang’s will. These people will monopolize the first channel,
the second channel and the fifth channel. When and if necessary, these
people can and will stand against future presidential hopefuls, in particular,
against [Moscow Mayor] Yuriy Mikhailovich Luzhkov. This is the first level.
The second level is the economic one. I would rather
say, the professional and moral level of the management of VGTRK. As they
have to obey the will of the Kremlin gang, they have to obey the criminal
regulations. Some people take bribes in connection with oil and gas or
metals, and they want to have these channels at their disposal. They have
privatized the broadcasting sector, the airwaves. They are not privatizing
the television companies as such because in this case they will have to
pay for the signal, for the services related to the feeding of signals
and this is a lot of money. They have privatized the air because in this
case payments for the signal are made from the state budget. Gradually
this money will fall into their hands, so to speak . . .
[Q] . . . We know, we all read and hear that, on the contrary,
state television is not being financed, on the contrary, the state is in
debt to —
[A, interrupting] This is a myth, this is a laughing matter.
When I was in the State Duma, we used to finance TV 100 per cent. I know
the figures: last year VGTRK was financed 116 per cent. That is, the money
which is supposed to be used on maintenance work or broadcasting is used
for other purposes. The audit chamber has clearly showed this. That it,
the money is being embezzled. It is not only “Moment of Truth” which is
suffering at the moment. I have the schedule of [VGTRK’s] Russia TV channel
for September-December 1997. Just look: all the social and political programmes
have been dropped. When I was a minister, a deputy prime minister, when
I signed documents and we gave them a licence for the state TV company—we
were setting it up—it was written down that no less than 40 per cent of
its time should be given to feature films, no less than 15 per cent to
children’s programmes, no less than 20 per cent to sport.
Nowadays sport has been thrown out completely; well,
not completely. Of children’s programmes it is only “Lukomorye” that has
been left. To compensate, they have all these shows, a Dovgan show, they
will have a Berezovskiy [deputy secretary of the Security Council] show
soon, a Yaponchik [a Russian citizen, currently on trial in the USA] show,
probably, other programmes. They are all here and many programmes have
been produced by the Video International company set up by Lesin, who is
now in the company’s management. . . .
[Q] You will agree, will you not, that although what you have
just said may be the truth, you are nevertheless driven by a feeling of
resentment at the loss of a broadcast by the corporation, a broadcast that
used to be put out by the VGTRK channel. This means a financial loss for
the corporation. Hence, it is, perhaps, entirely understandable that the
“Moment of Truth” corporation is going to suffer losses.
[A] Well, in the first place there is no feeling of resentment,
because life has taught me not to take offence and I have seen a great
deal. In the second place, apart from Andrey Karaulov’s “Moment of Truth”
programme, the corporation is involved in publishing, a major part of our
work, because the VGTRK channel never paid a penny for Andrey Karaulov’s
programme . . .
[Q] Let us ask the old question of Russian journalism: Who is
to blame and what needs to be done?
[A] The blame must probably be put on us, the people who started
these channels. . . . Now new people are arriving and without creating
anything —
[Q, interrupting] They are the same people, the same people with
whom you set up the channels.
[A] Times are different now. This probably depends on the authorities
too, on the president. If the president is surrounded by the Kremlin den
of thieves and they feel OK, no prosecutor’s office or law-enforcement
body can affect them. They themselves can manipulate any prosecutor’s office
as they like. All this depends on the boss.
[Q] Did you try to contact the president, given your old friendship,
in view of this situation in the state television channel?
[A] I see no point in doing so, because—well, you know why there
is no point in doing so.
[Q] I don’t know if you know.
[A] Because the president is not an independent person, I think,
and it is pointless to try to influence him or resolve problems with him.
It was difficult to resolve serious problems with him even back in 1993.
[Q] . . . What needs to be done in this situation? This is my
second question.
[A] . . . First, the Federation Council will have its say, because
the Federation Council is on edge. Because, first, Yeltsin promised to
give Channel 5 to the Russia’s Regions TV company, and the Federation Council
voted for this, and the heads of administrations started preparations.
Then they were treacherously deceived. Moreover, the second channel used
to have many state regional TV companies: most of them on the second channel
and some on Channel 5. Now, on the instructions of the same [VGTRK Chairman]
Svanidze, they all have been thrown out.
[Q] Tell us, please, do you have any hope that the “Moment of
Truth” programme will be broadcast by the second channel, as before, or
will your corporation go to the court of arbitration, or any other court,
for that matter, if the contract is unilaterally severed?
[A] Of course I think that the corporation will go to court,
because I have no great hopes that the second channel will have second
thoughts. . . .
Ekho Moskvy radio, Moscow, September 12, 1997
VI. Bill outlawing privatization of Russian TV planned.
A bill drafted by the Duma Committee on Information Policy and Communications envisages an outright ban on the privatization of VGTRK [All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company]. Amongst other things, the document provides for the establishment of a supervisory body, known as the monitoring council, which will include representatives of the two chambers of the Federal Assembly among its members. The council will be part of the administrative structure responsible for the TV and radio company.
Ostankino Radio Mayak, Moscow, October 27, 1997
VII. Duma to debate law on pirate satellite broadcasts.
A State Duma plenary session will examine the draft
law “On the dissemination on Russian Federation territory of radiated signals
transmitted via satellite” in the very near future. Its main aim is to
combat “satellite pirates” who disseminate television and radio signals
not intended for them. This will be done within the ratification procedure
to the Brussels convention of the same name which the Soviet Union joined,
but which has not actually been effective in Russia in the absence of the
relevant internal normative act.
Having entered into force, the new law could promote
the integration of the rapidly developing system of Russian satellite television
and radio broadcasting into the worldwide system of satellite communications—after
all, the convention countries undertake to protect on their territory the
interests of other states party to this international treaty. In addition,
it includes mechanisms for the protection of copyrights belonging to broadcasting
organizations, the licensing of their activity and responsibility for the
violation of the right to disseminate a signal right up to the loss of
the broadcasting licence.
But the document submitted by the State Duma Committee
for Information Policy and Communications will obviously not resolve the
problem because of the many errors made by its authors. Above all, the
proposed norm is of an extraterritorial nature, extending to foreign citizens
and corporate bodies. The law in general is formulated as an international
act, which in principle is not valid for domestic legislation.
The Brussels convention forces the state to battle
against satellite partners. But by lending the document retroactive force,
that is by establishing the liability of persons who have violated the
law before it has entered into force, the legislators are directly contradicting
the provisions of the constitution under which this is banned.
Moreover, the deputies suggest punishing not only
the organizations which transmit programmes obtained without a licence
but also citizens who receive an illegally broadcast signal, something
which is not envisaged by the Brussels convention. And it is not clear
how this will be enforced in practice.
These blunders cancel out the legislators’ good
intentions, since the broadcasting organizations will simply take no account
of a law couched in such a form.
“Russia declares war on satellite pirates,” ‘Russkiy Telegraf’, Moscow, October 21, 1997
VIII. Journalists’ union protests against draft media law.
The Russian Writers’ Union emphatically objects to
the approval of the federal draft law “On the Supreme Council on Ethics
and Morality in the Sphere of Film-making and TV and Radio Broadcasting,”
drawn up by the State Duma. A report about a critical situation in the
Russian mass media, made by the Russian Journalists’ Union, stresses that
if the law was adopted, “the council is sure to become a censorship authority
with extensive powers. Its interference in the professional work of journalists
will not be restricted.”
The report of the Russian Journalists’ Union says
that, according to the draft law, the resolutions passed by the Supreme
Council will actually become a substitute for legal rulings of ordinary
courts. Another reason why the union is against the draft law is that “the
desire to create another bureaucratic structure is camouflaged by phrases
about ‘the need for protecting constitutional rights of people’, ‘moral
protection of the family, mother and child,’ and even ‘the consolidation
of love and respect for the fatherland, belief in kindness and justice.’”
All the good intentions are only declared, while
the exclusive right to interpret those high-flown principles is given to
members of the Supreme Council, the report says. The Journalists’ Union
emphatically objects to the draft law in its present form and does not
believe it can be improved.
The report mentioned the most burning problems facing
the Russian mass media. The most serious of them is the lifting of privileges
for the mass media in the draft Tax Code. The report was sent to the administration
of the president, the State Duma, the Federation Council and international
organizations of journalists.
ITAR-TASS news agency (World Service), Moscow, September 9, 1997