A protest (a one-hour strike) by Armenian journalists
in support of the rights of Tsvetana Paskaleva took place outside the Armenian
president’s residence on 10th December. The screening of a programme
by this Bulgarian journalist, “My dear ones alive and dead,” on Armenian
television was halted by a decision of the [TV] collegium on 27th October.
The protest organized by Armenian journalist organizations
was supported by about 100 demonstrators, mainly journalists and students.
The demands of the protesters were set out on their banners: “Mr President,
return Tsvetana [Russian “tsvet” means colour] to black and white Armenian
television!”, “Tsvetana is not a berry from the president’s patch!”[, and]
“We have anti-Tsvetanamania here. We are deprived of Tsvetana.”
An appeal on behalf of the initiative group addressed
to the executive staff of the president of the country was handed over.
In particular, it notes that the reasons why the heads of the national
television decided to stop broadcasting the programme were unfounded and
unconvincing. In the view of the initiative group, the results of
polls of specialists and viewers show that the programme had a high rating.
Those taking part in the protest action expressed the hope that the country’s
president would intervene in the conflict; that Tsvetana Paskaleva’s programme
would again appear on television screens; and that measures would be taken
to stop attempts to infringe on freedom of speech in Armenia.
The acting press secretary of the Armenian president,
Levon Zurabyan, came out to see those taking part in the protest.
During a conversation with journalists, he expressed the view that none
of the provisions of existing Armenian legislation had been violated by
the national television management in the case of Tsvetana Paskaleva, and
therefore the president will not intervene in the actions of this branch
of the state media. Zurabyan stressed that Armenian national television’s
management had acted within its powers. He stressed that Tsvetana
Paskaleva and the director of the national television, Gamlet Gasparyan,
are his friends, and therefore his personal opinion in this case is subjective.
Noyan Tapan, Yerevan, December 10, 1997
The chairman of the Turkic National Youth Organization, Vugar Beyturan, has sent an appeal to the chairman of the Azerbaijani State Television and Radio Company, Nizami Khudiyev. The appeal says: Newspapers have reported your forthcoming official visit to Iran. The report contained information about signing agreements in Iran on the resumption of Iranian TV broadcasts [in Azerbaijan] and the broadcasting of two hours of Azerbaijani TV programmes in Farsi in Iran. Turkic nationalists are very concerned about this information. I ask you to act from a national position as you usually do. Azerbaijani TV programmes for the 35m Azeris of the vile Islamic Republic of Iran must be in the Turkic language and must not be censored, otherwise the broadcasting of Iranian TV should not resume.
‘Millat,’ Baku, December 9, 1997
II. Reciprocal deal to allow Iranian output on AzTV.
Azerbaijani State Television and Radio Company programmes
will be broadcast in Iran, the chairman of AzTV, Nizami Khudiyev, has said.
He said that this agreement was reached at the joint meeting of the Iranian-Azerbaijani
international economic commission. Khudiyev said that
at last the Iranian population will be able to get information about the
economic and cultural processes taking place in Azerbaijan. Moreover,
the exchange of information between the two countries will develop.
However, there is one point: the programmes will
be broadcast in Persian. Khudiyev said that they did not manage to
reach agreement on broadcasting the programmes in Azeri.
The broadcasting of Iranian programmes was stopped
six months ago. At that time Khudiyev said that the reason the programmes
had been stopped was their anti-Azerbaijani position. However, the
Iranian embassy in our country said that it was due to technical problems.
It seems negotiations have changed many things. Therefore, the broadcasting
of Iranian programmes on AzTV will also soon resume.
‘Rezonans,’ Baku, November 29, 1997
III. AzTV should broadcast in Azeri alone–paper.
By Fizuli Mahammad
Our TV still “forces” a foreign language into our homes
The constitution of the Azerbaijani Republic says
that the state language of this country is Azeri. It is very important
to maintain the state language at a high level and to develop it.
The mass media must play a specific role in this, particularly the Azerbaijani
State Television and Radio Company. . . .
A country’s national television should serve the
state language. People in Georgia and Armenia realized this in the
1980s. However, even before this they rarely broadcast programmes
in a foreign language. Russian television has never broadcast in
any foreign language and it does not do so now either. Even though
there are millions of people who know English, French, German and so on,
all films are broadcast in Russian. Turkish television does the same.
The same applies to Europe. Every reader is well aware of what Azerbaijani
Television [AzTV] does. Children’s programmes are in Russian, film
subtitles are in Persian, advertisements are in Russian and Russian phrases
are heard all the time on the television. . . .
I regard this issue as very important. Therefore,
I call on Azerbaijan’s Minister of Press and Information Sirus Tebrizli
and all independent journalists to launch a crusade to eliminate foreign
languages from AzTV and from announcements and advertisements on the streets!
I recommend that this be included on the agenda and that the issue be debated
in the Milli Majlis [parliament]! The country’s supreme legislative body
should use its power and tackle the issue within its authority. This
motherland, this nation and this language are ours. We are the ones
who should care about them.
“National TV and the state language,” ‘Yeddi Gun,’ Baku, November 27, 1997
IV. Conditions for allowing Azeri TV broadcasts in Iran.
The deputy chairman of Iran’s state television
and radio company and adviser to Iran’s culture minister told the Azeri
newspaper ‘525 Gazet’ that previous agreements between Iran and Azerbaijan
on TV broadcasting had not stipulated the broadcasting of an hour of Azerbaijani
television in Iran, as this violated the Iranian constitution. The
head of Azerbaijani TV (AzTV) is to visit Iran in the next two months to
discuss this issue in detail, but among the likely conditions for Azerbaijani
TV programmes being broadcast on Iranian TV could be that they are in Persian,
not Azeri, and that Iranian rules on how women presenters dress are observed.
The following is an excerpt from a report headlined “There is no need for
an Azeri school in Iran” by the ‘525 Gazet’ newspaper; subheadings added
editorially:
An adviser to Iran’s culture minister, the deputy
chairman of the state television and radio company, Ali Asghar Shirdust
[name as published], who is an ethnic Azeri, has said that people do not
need schools teaching in Azeri.
Iranian constitution does not allow foreign TV broadcasts
[Q] How is the issue of broadcasting Azerbaijani and Iranian
television in the two countries being dealt with?
[A] In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful! I have
dealt with television issues during both this visit and my last one.
Under the cultural agreement between Iran and Azerbaijan, the Azerbaijani
state television company is to broadcast Tehran television in exchange
for some cooperation. Recently broadcasts of these programmes have
been cut off several times. The issue of broadcasting Azerbaijani
television in Iran was one of the unresolved issues in the negotiations
between former Iranian President Hashemi-Rafsanjani and Azerbaijani President
Heydar Aliyev which were held during Aliyev’ s visit to Iran. Because
the Iranian constitution does not allow the broadcasting of foreign television
in the country, this issue remained unsolved even at a presidential level.
However, Heydar Aliyev promised to restore the broadcasting of Tehran television
programmes in return for the Iranian president resolving a number of issues
of importance to Azerbaijan. The broadcasting of Iranian programmes
resumed but was later stopped. During my last visit I had meetings
at the joint Azerbaijani-Iranian commission and with the chairman of the
Azerbaijani state television and radio company, Nizami Khudiyev, and discussed
this issue. We have decided that Khudiyev will visit Iran within
two months and we will discuss this issue in more detail.
[Q] Will any document be signed during the visit?
[A] Yes. We have prepared a protocol. I have to say
that previous protocols contained no obligation to broadcast an hour of
Azerbaijani television programmes in Iran in exchange for the broadcasting
of Tehran television in Azerbaijan. I said at the meeting with Khudiyev
and his deputies that our documents (one of them was signed in 1991 by
the chairmen of the Tabriz television company and the Azerbaijani company
and the other was signed in Tehran in 1992 by the chairmen of the Iranian
and Azerbaijani television companies) did not include such an obligation.
Khudiyev also looked at the documents and saw that there was no such condition.
However, we think that this issue is possible to resolve. We agree
on the conditions envisaged in the draft protocol. For example, if
a representative office of the Iranian television company opens in Baku
we will also agree to the opening of an AzTV representative office in Tehran.
However, there are problems in the equal broadcasting of the two television
companies. First of all our constitution does not allow this.
[Q] The Azerbaijani constitution also does not include the issue
of broadcasting foreign television in the country?
[A] Why, you broadcast foreign television programmes.
[Q] They are broadcast on different channels, not on AzTV.
[A] We also wanted to have our separate channel, however, we
only managed to reach provisional agreement on one hour of programmes.
We are not against broadcasting documentary films and Azerbaijani cultural
programmes on Iranian television regularly, even though to date there has
not been a single foreign TV programme broadcast on Tehran TV.
Programmes for Iran should be in Persian
[Q] Do you agree with the motives for stopping the broadcasting
of Tehran TV programmes? Do you admit that you propagate anti-Azerbaijani
views?
[A] No. I do not admit that there was any such intent from
the Iranian side. However, if there was such a thing we are against
that. In general we do not see any evidence of this in these programmes.
[Q] Do the documents which will be signed in Tehran envisage
equal broadcasting?
[A] The Azerbaijani side has this condition. However, the
option which could make Iran agree to that will be discussed in Iran.
[Q] Under what conditions does Iran consider it possible to tackle
this issue?
[A] We could agree that programmes for Iran would be recorded
and sent to us beforehand. However, Iran would attach other conditions
to this. Our programmes for Azerbaijan are in your state language.
Therefore, your programmes for Iran must also be in our state language,
Persian. Moreover, our rules and laws must be followed in your programmes.
[Q] Speaking about your rules and laws, you probably mean, first
of all, the yashmak for women appearing on TV. Then if an agreement
is reached, will you agree to broadcast reports of official meetings from
Baku?
[A] Our condition applies to the presenter and correspondent,
but not those in meetings.
‘525 Gazet,’ Baku, November 26, 1997
V. Late “obscene” independent TV programmes banned.
Broadcasting of the ANS independent television company’s
night-time programmes, which are on air every Friday and Saturday after
2400 [2000 gmt], has been suspended for the last few weeks. Apparently
the initiative to ban the broadcast of the ANS independent television company’s
programmes came from the Azerbaijani Information and Press Ministry.
We contacted Information and Press Minister Sirus
Tebrizli to find out about this. He said broadcasting of programmes
which violate our moral standards should not be allowed as such programmes
have a strong moral and psychological influence on the growing generation
and cause serious damage to a generation which is being brought up on the
principles of healthy morality and national values.
The information and press minister said that in
order to prevent the broadcast of such abnormal programmes he had written
to the management of the three independent television channels—ANS, NTV
and Sara—requesting them to stop showing programmes which are not in keeping
with our values. He said that broadcasting obscene programmes can
only create an unhealthy environment both in the family and in society
and promotes the growth of crime and immorality. Sirus Tebrizli therefore
stressed the importance of observing the provisions of the press law and
said: “Every nation has its own values and this aspect should certainly
be taken into consideration. The level of the political programmes
presented by NTV and ANS are quite high and we need such programmes. But
we do not need films and programmes which spread obscenity.”
Asked by our correspondent: “Is it possible to combat
TV broadcasts in our country by various means, including satellite dishes,
and to combat the smuggling of video cassettes?” Sirus Tebrizli replied
that legislation could not keep up with life in a period when science and
technology were developing rapidly. He pointed out that not every
family has a satellite dish and that foreign channels do not broadcast
obscene films. If someone wants to watch such films he has to pay
a certain sum to specific channels. The minister said: “Not every
person has a video recorder either. Furthermore, in many families
the viewing of video cassettes by children is supervised by adults.
I would like to say that our action here has the support of both the population
and the heads of NTV, ANS and Sara.”
Sirus Tebrizli said that the showing of obscene
films in cinemas and bars was not supervised and added that every responsible
individual had to take a serious approach to this problem.
“When criteria are abandoned,” ‘Zaman,’ Baku, November 20, 1997
The upper house of Belarus’s parliament on [20th
December] approved amendments to the law on the mass media which independent
journalists have described as violation of “ generally accepted international
acts.” The Council of the Republic endorsed the amendments, which
the lower house passed on 17th December, after rejecting them on previous
two occasions.
Under the new version of the law, the founder of
a newspaper, radio station, etc. which has been banned will be unable to
set up a new newspaper, etc. for two years after the ban. If a newspaper,
etc., broke the new media law it could be suspended for up to three months
by the founder, the authority that had registered it or the court.
The law bans import, export and distribution in
Belarus of any printed, audio or video material if it “contains information
which blackens the honour and dignity of leaders of state bodies whose
status is established by the constitution, if it fans social or religious
strife, or if it calls for the overthrow of the state system.”
The independent Belarusian journalists’ association
responded with a statement which said the amendments the upper house passed
differed little from the ones it had rejected before. They “still
contradict generally accepted international acts and can be used to limit
freedom of the mass media and the rights of journalists,” the statement
said. Belarus’s political establishment “has officially admitted
that it is against generally accepted mass media standards, is violating
international commitments that it has made and is completely isolating
the country from world civilization.”
Interfax news agency, Moscow, December 20, 1997
II. Russian-Belarusian TV channel mooted.
The proposal to set up a television channel to
cover issues affecting the Union of Belarus and Russia faces several difficulties,
the Moscow newspaper ‘Nezavisimaya Gazeta’ reported on 2nd December.
Apart from waning interest in the project, and difficulties over its funding,
it was hard to predict where the necessary programming would come from,
and there were unresolved issues about editorial policy. Following
are excerpts from the ‘Nezavisimaya Gazeta’ report; subheadings added editorially:
The session of the Union of Belarus and Russia Executive
Committee, which has been repeatedly postponed for various reasons for
nearly six months, opens [on 2nd December]. . . . One of the
most interesting questions could be the organization of a television and
radio company of the “union of two” submitted for discussion by the Executive
Committee.
The idea of creating a television channel which
would cover problems of the Union of Belarus and Russia was voiced back
at the period of nationwide discussion of the union documents. The
champions of the two states’ unification pinned their hopes at the time
on ORT [Russian Public Television]. The fact that 51 per cent of
shares in that television company belong to the state was cited as the
main argument in favour of this choice. But in practice it proved
extremely difficult to implement this decision. First, the 51 per
cent of shares are spread across several blocks. In particular the
largest of them—36 per cent—belongs to the Ministry of State Property,
the former State Committee for the Management of State Property.
Even if means had been found of persuading that department of the need
to make this proposal, it was impossible to guarantee that the shareholders’
general meeting would pass a positive decision on the question of transforming
ORT into a union television channel.
Of course in theory it is possible to revoke and
review the ORT licence for broadcasting on Channel 1 but, for understandable
reasons, it is not feasible. Secondly, the broadcasting of programmes
on union themes instead of ORT programmes on the Russian television Channel
1, which is relayed to other CIS states, could be seen as the information
expansion of the Union of Belarus and Russia in the post-Soviet arena.
Most probably, many republics of the former USSR would refuse to broadcast
such programmes, which would accordingly lead to a reduction in the volume
of Russian broadcasting to the CIS countries. Naturally, such a development
would be disadvantageous above all to Russia.
Waning interest in joint TV channel
At the same time, interest in the problem of organizing
union television has not only not weakened with the creation of the Union
but has been developed in the decision of the first and as yet only session
of the Higher Council. This document states: “Institute the television
and radio broadcasting organization of the Union of Belarus and Russia
on a 50-50 basis, extending to it the conditions of operation stipulated
for the All-Russian State Television and Broadcasting Company [VGTRK].”
In this connection a working group was created led
by Sergey Shakhray, Boris Yeltsin’s fully empowered representative in the
Russian Federation Constitutional Court, on the Russian side, and by Ivan
Pashkevich, deputy head of the Presidential Staff, on the Belarusian side.
The developments in this direction have now acquired entirely specific
outlines—a draft treaty has been prepared between the Russian Federation
and the Republic of Belarus on a joint television and radio organization
of the Union of Belarus and Russia, which it is planned to discuss [on
2nd] at the Executive Committee session and, if it is approved, to send
for examination by the Higher Council. . . .
Content and editorial policy issues
It would be interesting to learn, and it is so far
unclear, what content they intend to use to fill the programmes on the
“Union of Two.” From the viewpoint of television journalism, creating a
high-quality programme on the subject of integration which will attract
a substantial audience seems virtually impossible. . . . Nor
is it clear what the editorial policy will be if ethically complex issues
arise. . . .
Funding proposals
According to the draft treaty, it is planned to
finance television and radio broadcasting activity using funds from the
Union budget and also the national budgets of Russia and Belarus.
The abovementioned working group has drafted an estimate of initial expenditure
on the organization of television programmes which comprises about 200bn
roubles and in October submitted it to the Russian Federation Ministry
of Finance, at that time headed by Anatoliy Chubays. The Ministry
of Finance deemed these suggestions to be untimely and, however strange
it may seem, confined itself to recommendations on the creative level.
Indeed, on the scales of the Russian budget the
sum of 200bn roubles is not that great. But despite the fact that
the two states intend to set up the television and radio company on a 50-50
basis, it is hardly possible to find even half that sum, considering the
problems with the approval of the Russian budget for 1998. The State
Duma will not increase budget appropriations. Nor should we count
on the Union budget, which was drawn up without consideration for the creation
of a television and radio company and which is planned to the sum of 650bn
roubles.
In all likelihood, the supporters of the idea of
creating a union television channel are aware that difficulties could arise
with the organization of the television and radio company. So a search
is under way for other methods of publicizing the union.
Recently a meeting was held in Moscow at the Belarusian
side’s initiative between Vasil Dalhalyow, President Lukashenka’s fully
empowered representative in Moscow, and Boris Berezovskiy, during which
there was a discussion of the possibility of ORT producing a weekly 20-minute
programme covering the problems of the union. According to well informed
sources, Boris Berezovskiy “treated this question with understanding” despite
the fact that “the Union is not in a position to pay for such services.”
To all appearances, yet again the choice in favour
of ORT was the result of objective reasons, such as the television company’s
debts for broadcasting to Belarusian territory.
‘Nezavisimaya Gazeta,’ Moscow, December 2, 1997
Under the advertising law taking effect from January,
Estonian television channels will be allowed to air drug and alcohol commercials
under certain conditions. The law bans completely the advertising
of tobacco and sets restrictions on the advertising of alcohol and drugs,
as well as ads targeting children.
One of the world’s largest drug concerns, Bristol-Myers
Squibb Upsa, will [on] 1st January launch an advertising campaign for the
painkiller efferalgen on TV1, TV3 and Kanal 2. Under the effective
law on drugs, pharmaceuticals could be advertised and introduced only in
medical publications. The advertising law bans advertising of strong
liquor in outdoor media, on television and radio in the daytime and in
youth publications. Under the law, repeated violations carry a fine
of up to 100,000 kroons.
BNS news agency, Tallinn, December 30, 1997
II. TV rights dispute over “Home and Away.”
Two TV channels, the public-service ETV and the private
TV1, are exchanging accusations over the broadcasting rights of the Australian
series “Home and Away.” The series was so far broadcast by ETV, but
TV-1 purchased the airing rights for 1998. The change will take place
in March. ETV director-general Toomas Lepp announced that the station
had informed the distributor company Primetime of its interest to extend
the airing agreement on 3rd November, but had received an answer that another
Estonian station had bought the rights for a higher sum. . . .
Lepp also commented that TV-1 owed more than 28,000
dollars to Warner Brothers, according to a fax sent to ETV. TV-1
programme manager Juri Pihel announced that the fax had been sent to ETV
due to a mistake. Warner Brothers have informed ETV that the report
of a debt had been a mistake and have threatened a court case if ETV should
continue to spread the false information.
TV-1 has further problems with its satellite broadcasting
as it does not meet the requirements of the broadcasting act. The
Culture Ministry licensing commission is considering taking measures against
the station. TV-1 is broadcasting an uncoded signal, which makes
the programme practically nationwide, although the licence had been issued
only for regional broadcasting. Pihel has claimed that the signal
will be coded from early January. ETA news agency, Tallinn, December 30,
1997
III. Broadcasting council limits rights of TV and radio heads.
The Broadcasting Council will amend the constitutions
of both Estonian Radio and Estonian Television [ETV]. Here is Tanel
Talve to explain why.
[Talve] Paul-Eerik Rummo, the chairman of the Broadcasting Council,
stated that one to three days before Toomas Lepp, the incoming ETV director-general,
took up his post, the outgoing director general, Hagi Sein, concluded employment
(?contracts) with [break in reception] members of the board, in line with
which they have to be paid compensation amounting to over 600,000 kroons
in total. In addition, there are similar agreements concluded between
Rait Killandi, the outgoing ETV’s advertising department’s head, and his
staff, who are leaving, amounting to over 170,000 kroons in total.
ETV will have to pay over 1m kroons, including bonuses and social tax,
to the staff leaving at their own request. . . .
[Rummo] The Broadcasting Council finds that Hagi Sein and other members
of the outgoing management have thus seriously damaged the reputation of
the public service media and seriously damaged ETV’s reliability as a just
critic of wrongdoings in society. Together with organizational restructuring,
a serious self-cleansing must take place at ETV.
[Talve] At the same time, Rummo had to admit that when Sein was
concluding the agreements, he did not violate any existing laws. . . .
The Broadcasting Council will amend the constitutions
of both Estonian Radio and ETV by transferring the concluding and amending
of employment contracts from the sole remit of the director-generals to
the council, who will henceforth supervise this.
[Rummo] . . . This is a brutal step on our part in respect of
the new director-generals and may send a completely erroneous signal to
the public that, having just appointed new director-generals, we no longer
trust them and tie their hands with an absurd additional clause in their
employment contracts, but a proposal to this end has come from the director-generals
themselves and we think that this is the step we have to take.
Next, we will request that the Broadcasting Council’s
opportunities to observe what happens at ETV and Estonian Radio are increased
in the new broadcasting law, which is being drafted.
[Talve] Paul-Eerik Rummo emphasized that the Broadcasting Council
will have a say only in regard to employment contracts for Estonian Radio
and ETV’s management. He sees no increase in political supervision
at these establishments.
Estonian Radio, Tallinn, November 24, 1997
IV. Ship-based TV Zoom says it will not operate illegally.
A new competitor, TV Zoom, is about to enter the
Estonian television market. Contrary to other television stations,
neither the [Estonian] law on advertising nor on copyright will apply to
TV Zoom, since the station’s transmitter will be located in neutral waters
in the Baltic Sea where Estonian laws do not apply.
[Correspondent Indrek Treufeldt] There are still those for whom the
Estonian television landscape is sparsely populated, and TV Zoom will begin
with big money. A mysterious Monaco investor will put over 3m dollars
into the project and another 1.1m dollars during its first year [of operation].
Based on such funding, one could speak about it being the second television
channel in Estonia after Estonian Television.
However, the new television station will have one
peculiarity: its transmitter will be in the middle of sea.
[Kaur Hanson, shareholder of the Zoom advertising company] Broadcasts
will go on air outside Estonian territory and that means that we will be
able to avoid a large number of requirements set down by law for television
programmes broadcast in Estonia.
[Correspondent] And so, the television station wants to avoid Estonian
requirements: there will be no need to produce any original programmes,
alcohol and tobacco may be advertised and copyright can be ignored.
. . . TV Zoom will be like a pirate station.
[Joel Sarv, TV Zoom’s director-general] We would not want to describe
ourselves like this. . . . I would still like to emphasize
the fact that we will not be operating illegally. That is, we will
be operating within the framework of the laws of the country where our
broadcasting board is located.
[Correspondent] The television project, which has announced itself
in such an unexpected way, seems so implausible that one would suspect
a cleverly constructed advertising scandal not based on reality.
The telecommunications inspectorate, however, is forecasting an international
scandal.
Estonian Television, Tallinn, November 11, 1997
V. Official sees planned TV Zoom as “scandal.”
Broadcasting from outside a country’s territory,
as planned by TV Zoom, will result in an international scandal, Juri Joema,
the director-general of the [Estonian] telecommunications inspectorate,
has said. For the countries that have joined the convention of the
[International] Tele-communication Union, broadcasting from outside the
national broadcasting area has been ruled out, according to Joema.
Nearly 190 countries have joined the convention, including Estonia and
Monaco, one of the participants in the planned TV Zoom. Administrative
rules resulting from the convention ban any broadcasting from beyond national
territories.
The new TV station has promised to broadcast an
Estonian-language programme from a ship in international waters in the
Gulf of Finland from May next year.
[Finnish radio reported on 12th November that TV
Zoom would broadcast from international waters and that the ship would
be registered in a country which had not joined the Bern copyright agreement.
The satellite and cable broadcasts of the station would in practice be
visible in the whole of Finland and Estonia, the radio said, adding that
the main shareholder of the channel was an investment company in Monaco.]
YLE radio, Helsinki, November 12, 1997