Kyrgyz President Askar Akayev has vetoed a controversial
media law passed by one chamber of parliament in November, Kyrgyz TV reported
on 8th December.
The president vetoed the section which barred journalists
from reporting on police or court proceedings before the final verdict
is delivered, the television said. He suggested an amendment giving
journalists the right to report police or court proceedings on receipt
of written permission from the police or the courts.
The law was passed by the standing chamber of parliament,
the Legislative Assembly, on 11th November, the television recalled.
According to ITAR-TASS news agency, Akayev also
proposed changing the article dealing with advertising in the media.
He proposed a ceiling of 40 per cent of a publication being devoted to
advertising purposes, instead of the 25 per cent stipulated by the draft
law.
He also proposed dropping the article under which
newspapers with a small circulation can claim tax benefits.
ITAR-TASS news agency (World Service), Moscow, December 8, 1997
The parliament overrode the president’s veto [on
25th December], having confirmed in a repeated voting the amendment of
the Law on the Electronic Media.
Initially, Article 7 in the law was amended on 5th
December, which change had empowered the parliament to dismiss the president
of the Teleradio-Moldova State Company and directors-general of the national
radio and national television.
President Lucinschi sent a letter to the forum emphasizing
the amendment had grossly violated the autonomy of the Coordination Board
for the Electronic Media.
In his opinion, the parliament thus violated several
provisions in the constitution and in the Law on the Electronic Media,
as well as the principle of the division of powers in the country.
So the president refused to promulgate the amendments
and returned them for a repeated consideration. By a majority of
votes, the parliament confirmed its initial decision [on 25th].
Mr Mihai Petrache, legal adviser to the president,
stressed the head of state would promulgate the law, but reserved his right
to challenge it in the Constitutional Court.
Infotag news agency, Kishinev, December 25, 1997
II. Deputies dispute nomination of new Teleradio-Moldova Company chiefs.
A number of deputies dispute the way the parliament
has named the new chiefs of the state-run company “Teleradio-Moldova.”
Deputies Arhip Cibotaru, Gheorghe Marin, Fiodor
Angheli and Vladimir Solonari have petitioned the Constitutional Court
to say whether the legislature was in right to name a new leadership of
the national television-radio company without asking the Audio-Visual Council
(AVC).
On November 26 the parliament appointed a new chairman
of the company and two directors—of the television and of the radio.
President Lucinschi showed disappointment over the
fact that the parliament assumed the right to name new broadcast chiefs
without no accord from the AVC, which includes representatives of the presidency
and the government, too.
BASA-Press, Chisinau, December 4, 1997
III. Parliament approves new Teleradio management.
The parliament approved a new administration for
the Teleradio-Moldova state company on [26th November]. MP Tudor
Olaru, member of the parliament’s Permanent Bureau, was appointed chairman
of the company, Iurie Tabarta—Director of the National Television, and
Constantin Rotaru—Director of the National Radio.
The new leadership’s appointment has thus crowned
the implementing of the much-spoken parliamentary resolution of 24th July,
when the forum dismissed the former bosses—Adrian Usatii (chairman) and
Dumitru Turcanu (television).
During all these months, both Usatii and Turcanu
were refusing to obey the resolution, and continued working at their posts,
Valeriu Senic, chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Science, Culture
and the Media, stated in his report to the legislature [on 26th November].
He underlined that Usatii and Turcanu had failed
to ensure pluralism of opinions at the television, ignored reprimands on
biased coverage of the parliament’s work, broadcast the illegally recorded
conversation between MP Nicolae Andronic and ex-ambassador to Germany Alexandru
Burian, and allowed for numerous financial violations confirmed by the
State Accounting Chamber.
Mr Senic named as “unprecedented and provocative”
their behaviour which they exhibited after the dismissal. It was
only after initialling a criminal procedure by the General Prosecutor’s
Office against their disobedience to the parliament that Mr Usatii filed
in a resignation (“on my own initiative” , as he wrote in his application).
And Dumitru Turcanu was reported to be performing his duties even during
parliamentary hearings [on 26th November].
Some deputies were saying [on 26th] that Usatii
and Turcanu had been fired illegally, because no consent of the Coordination
Board for the Electronic Media had been obtained for that.
The parliament passed a resolution containing an
interpretation of Article 7 in the Law on the Electronic Media concerning
the procedure of appointing and dismissing media directors. The article
puts it that directors shall be appointed by parliament upon proposition
of the above Coordination Board for a five-year period. And the parliament
has interpreted it in a way that they can be appointed and dismissed ahead
of schedule on the proposition of the board or by parliament’s initiative.
That resolution was supported by 55 MPs, and 14
voted against it. On behalf of the latter opponents, Dumitru Diacov
named that resolution anti-constitutional.
After several rounds of consultations in factions
and groups, the forum decided to vote for all the three new nominees at
once.
Mr Tudor Olaru represents the Agrarian Democratic
Party in the parliament.
Iurie Tabarta is a professional journalist.
He used to work as the editor in chief of the economy board at the National
Television, and in recent months he had been representing Moldova in an
international organization in Geneva.
Constantin Rotaru had been National Radio’s parliamentary
correspondent for many years.
The parliament has appointed chairman of the Committee
for Law, Nominations and Immunity, Victor Cecan, parliamentary spokesman
at the court trial at the Supreme Judicial Chamber, which will soon begin
examining Usatii and Turcanu’s protest challenging the parliament’s decision
concerning their dismissal.
Infotag news agency, Kishinev, November 26, 1997
Deputy Prime Minister [of Tajikistan] Basgul Dodkhudoyeva chaired a regular meeting of the Language Commission [on 18th December]. A resolution to set up within a month such a commission at the Television and Radio Committee under the government of Tajikistan was adopted at the meeting. Well-known scholars will join it. The commission was instructed to examine the employees of the said committee from time to time.
Tajik Television Channel 1, Dushanbe, December 18, 1997
The Central Electoral Commission on [24th December] adopted a resolution under which airtime will be given to registered election blocs, political parties and candidates on UT-1 TV channel from 1915 to 1935 [Kiev time] and on the first channel of Ukrainian radio from 2200 to 2220 [Kiev time]. The airtime will be allocated at the request of the Ministry of Information of Ukraine to ensure that the election campaign is carried out in accordance with the principle of equal opportunities. The head of the Central Electoral Commission, Mykhaylo Ryabets, said the airtime would become available on weekdays beginning from the second half of February and until 17th March.
UNIAN news agency, Kiev, December 24, 1997
II. President seen wanting control of TV.
After the Ukrainian Studio 1+1 TV channel’s “Pislyamova”
analysis programme was “pulled” on 14th December, the monthly magazine
‘Halytski Kontrakty’ explored what it regarded as the excessive control
of television stations in the country by President Leonid Kuchma’s entourage.
The following is the text of the article, headlined “The art of television
should belong to the broad masses of government”; subheadings as published:
What compelled the producers of the popular Studio
1+1 TV channel to announce their intention to halt the transmission of
the analytical television weekly magazine “Pislyamova”:
1+1 has been skewered on the points of its own barbs
On 14th December, the programme “Pislyamova” was
not broadcast at its usual time. Oleksandr Rodnyanskyy, the general
producer of Studio 1+1 channel, appeared on the screen for a split second.
However, before he managed to utter a single word, he was supplanted in
the shot by Chuck Norris, or, more precisely, the hero he plays in the
TV series “ Texas Rangers.”
Only a day later did Oleksandr Rodnyanskyy and his
deputy Oleksandr Tkachenko convene an audience to explain the situation.
They claimed that on the eve of elections [parliamentary elections are
due on 29th March], the political pressure on the mass media in Ukraine
has been transformed into an information war. And the political pressure
on the Television News Service [TSN] of Studio 1+1 and the programme “Pislyamova”
has taken on such forms that it poses a danger both to the future of the
channel and to the future of the journalists working on it. The television
workers referred in particular to attempts by deputies to supplant Studio
1+1 with their own HURT (Public Ukrainian Radio and Television).
They spoke of “political forces” that put pressure on the channel, but
adamantly refused to give the names or positions of those involved.
In conclusion, Messrs Rodnyanskyy and Tkachenko announced their decision
to halt producing the “Pislyamova” programme for the duration of the election
campaign and to produce the TSN programmes in the form of short video overviews.
Although the general producer of Studio 1+1 and
his deputy made no mention of the name of the president or anyone from
the latter’s entourage, the majority of those present at the press conference
understood that the force that is putting pressure on television workers
is none other than the president and his entourage. After all, it
is no secret to anyone that it is quite impossible to obtain a licence
for one of the most powerful channels without the president’s blessing.
Moreover, structures controlled by Oleksandr Volkov, adviser to the head
of state, have funds invested in Studio 1+1. Until recently, “Pislyamova”
dared to voice serious criticism of any Ukrainian politician with the exception
of the president and the people close to him, thereby provoking the displeasure
of politicians. But, as rumour has it, the head of state was also
not especially thrilled by the weekly telemagazine, because the programme
did not sufficiently revile his opponents, and, moreover, made free with
critical barbs directed at the people’s choice himself.
Now Studio 1+1 finds itself in the uncomfortable
setting of general disapproval. But the president’s displeasure is
what hurts it most, because Leonid Kuchma holds many levers of influence
over Studio 1+1. This conflict can provide “food” for thought to
television-orientated investors: the president, on whom depends the fate
of almost all television channels, does not currently need quality, high-grade,
professional television; what the government wants is compliant television.
That is why there are problems at Studio 1+1, but not at UT-1 or Inter.
The voter of 1998 does not read; he only watches
According to numerous surveys by various sociological
groups, the central press’s shining hour has passed. As a rule, the
average Ukrainian voter subscribes to one newspaper, usually an regional
paper, which is the least expensive and contains local television channel
programme schedules. Thus TV is left to play the role of the main
purveyor of information. The people, who are suffering hardships,
find consolation in the numerous series and feature-length films.
In many families, the television set remains turned on all evening.
Small wonder then, say the experts, that the battle waged by parties for
votes is primarily a battle for television airtime.
Adding poignancy to this battle is one post-Soviet
feature of Ukrainian television: it is the least free from state control
and is subject to licensing. The governing structures want to use
state television to their own advantage and to take away the licenses of
“uncompliant” channels. Conversely, the elites that are not in power
are harbouring the hope that there will be a new redistribution of the
television field.
Volodymyr Tsendrovskyy, president of the Ukrainian
Television Union, named the four people who today determine the rules of
the game in the television information market: Oleksandr Volkov, adviser
to the president, is the “patron” of UT-1; Vadym Rabynovych, who is close
to Volkov, and Volkov himself control UT-2; Zynoviy Kulyk, minister of
information, is in charge not only of state television, but also of channel
ICTV, in which the state also holds 50 per cent of the shares. Heading
the entire television information empire is a kind of general coordinator
of political policy, presidential adviser Dmytro Tabachnyk. If one
adds to this list the Inter channel, which is in the care of Volodymyr
Horbulin (according to some rumours) and Boris Berezovskiy (according to
others), then the real masters of the national television airwaves line
up as a rather well-organized cohort from the president’s entourage.
Political advertising: as things stand now and as they will stand
in the future
At the same time, Ukraine’s television politicians
are far less powerful, influential and effective than, for example, Russian
television. As the Russians themselves admit, they were compelled
to vote in the last election for Boris Yeltsin by this evil “house demon”
that is plugged into a socket and, like it or not, forces upon you certain
sympathies, fears and beliefs, and compels you to do things that you perhaps
had no intention of doing.
There is data to indicate that leading Russian image-makers,
political managers and public relations specialists will earn tidy sums
on the Ukrainian elections. It is no secret that their talents will
be directed primarily at serving the ambitions of Leonid Kuchma.
Even now, observing the virtuoso political murder of Sergey Dorenko [pro-reform
Russian broadcaster whose “Versions” political show was axed by Russian
Public TV, ORT, in September 1995, allegedly for political reasons], one
can imagine Ukrainian politicians falling victim to the Ostankino television
propaganda machine.
Aware of their television gaps, Leonid Kuchma’s
potential rivals are channelling funds into other mass media, primarily
the newspaper industry. But we know that the readership of ‘Den,’
‘Vseukrainskiye Vedomosti’ and even ‘Kiyevskiye Vedomosti’ simply cannot
compare with the number of television viewers of both Ukrainian and Russian
channels. One can therefore predict, experts believe, that the national
television network is on the verge of a large reorganization. As
soon as the president’s position shows any sign of tottering, an unprecedented
era of demonopolization will begin in Ukrainian television.
“Kicking the bucket” on the eve of elections
Political rivals are very loath to accept the fact
that television honours will be paid only to President Kuchma and his allies.
Opponents of the head of state, deputies to the Supreme Council, recently
passed a decision to ban “pre-election agitation” on television channels
whose charter funds include more than 10 per cent of foreign funds.
Simultaneously, an attack is being waged on Studio 1+1, whose airtime they
plan to redistribute to benefit the privately held joint-stock company
HURT. Having succeeded earlier in gaining concessions in the formation
of the cabinet of ministers, [parliamentary speaker] Oleksandr Moroz is
now proposing to the president to share the television information pie.
‘Halytski Kontrakty,’ Lvov, December, 1997
III. President blocks broadcasting law amendments.
Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma has vetoed legislation
which would have prevented foreigners from running Ukrainian radio and
television channels and parties using foreign-owned channels during election
campaigns, the Ukrainian news agency UNIAN reported on 20th December.
It said Kuchma returned the law amending the legislation
governing radio and television broadcasting to parliament for further debate,
saying it breached the constitution and laws on elections in its current
form.
The law contained a clause banning advertising on
national channels, if it had been intended for use at local or regional
level. It also prohibited foreigners from occupying managerial positions
in Ukrainian television and radio organizations, and prevented Ukrainian
individuals and political parties from using foreign-owned television and
radio organizations to make electoral broadcasts.
“Therefore, in the president’s opinion, these and
other provisions of the law are at variance with the constitution and the
law of Ukraine on the election of people’s deputies of Ukraine,” Kuchma’s
office was quoted by the agency as saying.
UNIAN news agency, Kiev, December 20, 1997
IV. Political pressures force Studio 1+1 to drop programmes.
The Studio 1+1 TV company has suspended its “Pislyamova”
[Epilogue] programme and halved the airtime of TSN [Television News Service]
bulletins, which will now appear in the form of video reports, for the
period of the election campaign—until 5th April 1998. The company’s
chief producer, Oleksandr Rodnyanskyy, told a news conference on [16th
December] political pressure on these programmes had “assumed such proportions
that it is becoming dangerous for both the company and its journalists.”
Rodnyanskyy said he had held “rather harsh” conversations
with representatives of at least 11 political movements, in which threats
were made. At the same time, the author and presenter of “Pislyamova,”
Oleksandr Tkachenko, said in the past five months he had also “received
rather heavy threats” on his home telephone.
The chief producer said Studio 1+1 remains the only
TV company where none of the senior staff belongs to any party or is standing
for election. He added that all TSN and “Pislyamova” broadcasts had
aired the views of different political movements and that the company’s
editorial staff “strictly adhered to the rule of balanced and unbiased
presentation practised in civilized countries.”
According to Rodnyanskyy, “Pislyamova” will be off
the air while TSN will be broadcast in a different format until 5th April
1998. In the meantime, the staff of Studio 1+1 and Pislyamova journalists
will carry on with new projects that will go on the air in the New Year.
“We reserve the right to appeal to the Ukrainian
president for necessary measures to guarantee freedom of speech in Ukraine,”
Rodnyanskyy said. “We promise to do all we can to come back on the
air without giving up the main principle of civilized journalism: comprehensive
and unbiased coverage of events.”
UNIAN news agency, Kiev, December 16, 1997
V. President rejects MPs’ resolution on national TV studio.
President Kuchma last week declared the executive
authority unwilling to carry out parliament’s resolution granting prime-time
on the UT-2 channel to the HURT [Ukrainian National Radio and TV Company]
company, saying “the resolution is not a law and the executive authority
is not a secretariat of the parliament,” adding that the state budget does
not have money for such a resolution.
Parliament decided to grant prime-time broadcasting
rights (6 p.m. to 11 p.m.) of the UT-2 TV channel to the unknown
HURT studio, which was created by three Kiev TV companies—TV Tabachuk,
NART and NTU. This time slot includes the popular Studio 1+1 programmes.
Ukrainian TV Union chief Volodymyr Tsendrovsky declared at the press conference
dedicated to this matter: “We are dealing with two unequal forces: Ukrainian
parliament and a group of famous people that includes Oleksandr Rodnyansky,
Zynoviy Kulish, Dmytro Tabachnyk and others.” Tsendrovsky declared
he would appeal to international organizations against the decision of
executive authority to refuse to carry out parliament’s resolution.
The general producer of Studio 1+1, Oleksandr Rodnyansky, says they will
also fight for their time: “The Gala Radio question was three times discussed
in the US Senate, so I think the violation of rights of a large television
company will attract much world attention,” said Rodnyansky. He went
on, “I have already received calls from a number of European news agencies.
We should understand that another huge scandal in Ukraine will negatively
influence the Ukrainian investment climate.”
Intelnews news agency, Kiev, December 8, 1997
VI. TV wars prelude Ukraine’s parliamentary elections.
The Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma and the socialist
parliamentary speaker Alexander Moroz are fighting for ascendency in the
forthcoming parliamentary elections through control of the airwaves of
the country’s three national television channels.
The Ukrainian Parliament, the Supreme Soviet, adopted
legislation on November 21 which keeps foreign TV companies from influencing
the election campaign in Ukraine. The law, amending the TV and radio
broadcasting law, stipulates that citizens and their associations, government
officials and organizations are banned from using foreign television and
radio companies for election campaigning. Domestic electronic
media with more than 10 percent foreign capital is considered foreign in
Ukraine.
The national TV channels UT-2 and UT-3 both have
foreign investment of more than 10 percent, while UT-1 is 100 percent owned
by the state. Under the law, UT-2 and UT-3 which are completely controlled
by presidential supporters will stay out of the election campaign to a
large extent. UT-2 played a significant role in helping kuchma win
his presidential race in 1994.
“It’s a piece of legislation which forbids political
advertising on TV channels with foreign investment and affects all the
domestic national channels except for UT-1” says Viacheslav Chornovil,
leader of the national Rukh party. “It’s simply an attempt by the
left to get rid of the competition.”
Moreover, the Supreme Soviet passed a resolution
on November 21, which orders the cabinet of ministers to facilitate the
operations of the at Ukrainian public radio and television, providing the
new TV/radio company with 10 hours of daily air time on UT-2. Legislators
say that the establishment of a new TV company will give opposition forces
nationwide air time during the elections scheduled on March 29 and 30,
1998. Kuchma quickly reacted on November 25 by publicly stating that
the executive would not implement this resolution.
Yevgen Kuchnariov, head of the presidential administration,
said on November 26 that the cabinet of minister would never agree to the
creation of the new TV company. With the president and the cabinet
so firmly against this, Kuchma, who has been busy visiting foreign countries
these months, will likely veto the law on banning Ukrainian politicians
from campaigning on “foreign-owned” TV.
As to the resolution on setting up the new TV company,
the executive will simply not implement this because Kuchma cannot veto
parliamentary resolutions by law.
Xinhua News Agency, December 4, 1997
VII. Ukrainian public TV and radio company set up.
The adoption by the Ukrainian Supreme Council [parliament]
on 21st November of the resolution “On setting up a Ukrainian joint television
and radio broadcasting organization” as the Public Ukrainian Radio and
Television [PURT] private joint-stock company makes it possible to ensure
independent television and radio broadcasting during the elections, which
will not be influenced by either the parliament or the president, the head
of the Ukrainian television union, Volodymyr Tsendrovskyy, has said.
At a news conference on 24th November he stated
that, having adopted this resolution and having amended the law “On television
and radio broadcasting in Ukraine,” “the Supreme Council has made an attempt
to transform the system of providing television coverage, which is currently
in the hands of non-Ukrainian investors.” He also described as a
positive fact the creation by parliament on 21st November of a supervisory
council consisting of representatives from all parliamentary factions,
which will supervise the activities of the Public Ukrainian Radio and Television.
People’s Deputy Serhiy Aksyonov said that by its
resolution, the Supreme Council has created the Public Ukrainian Radio
and Television private joint-stock company, which will be allocated the
UT-2 national television channel (10 hours a day) and the UR-3 radio channel
(22 hours a day).
Aksyonov also said that the amended law now prohibits
television and radio companies with over 10 per cent of foreign shares
in their authorized capital from covering the election campaign in Ukraine.
According to Tsendrovskyy, only five per cent of Ukrainian television and
radio companies have foreign capital, and therefore this regulation regarding
the 10 per cent limit will “affect only four people, who will lose their
influence in television.” He said that these people are Dmytro Tabachnyk
(ex-head of the president’s administration), Oleksandr Volkov (president’s
adviser on economic issues), Vadym Rabynovych and Zynoviy Kulyk (minister
of information of Ukraine).
Tsendrovskyy also announced that “the UT-1, UT-2
(1+1), UT-3 (Inter) and ICTV national channels will have to cover the election
campaign.” For this, the Central Electoral Commission will have to
allocate quotas for the coverage of parties and candidates and define the
concept of “political advertising.”
According to Aksyonov, the Inter channel (UT-3),
the 1+1 television company (UT-2) and ICTV have a larger share of foreign
share in their authorized capital; however, because they are national channels,
they will take part in the coverage of the elections in accordance with
the quotas allotted to them by the Central Electoral Commission.
The deputy also said that the UT-1 channel has 14 free hours, which it
is planned to give to the PURT. The UT-2 channel, used by the 1+1 television
company, will share out its prime time, which is currently “ monopolized
by the 1+1 studio.”
People’s Deputy Levko Lykyanenko said that the PURT
closed joint-stock company has already been contacted by 18 investors.
Applications for shares will be accepted without limitations. He
noted that the issue concerning the sources of finance for the PURT “ has
not been clarified” yet.
UNIAN news agency, Kiev, November 24, 1997
VIII. Parliament amends TV and radio broadcasting law.
Two hundred and fifty-eight members of parliament
voted for the draft law “On amendments to the law of Ukraine on television
and radio broadcasting,” aimed at protecting domestic television and radio
broadcasting and at conducting a civilized election campaign in Ukraine.
A UNIAN news agency correspondent reports that under
the amended law it is prohibited to transmit advertising meant to be disseminated
at local or regional level using broadcasting means belonging to the national
broadcasting channels. The transmission of adverts that have not
been paid for will not be allowed either. Individuals without citizenship
and foreigners will not be able to occupy leading posts in Ukraine’s television
and radio organizations.
The changes to the law on television and radio broadcasting
mean that television and radio organizations will be registered as subjects
of information activity by inclusion in the state register of television
and radio organizations. Their registration as subjects of business
activity is to be carried out by a procedure laid down in Ukrainian law.
The addition to Article 28 on the use of television
and radio broadcasting in election campaigns bans individuals and organizations
representing foreign television and radio organizations from using Ukrainian
citizens and their associations to campaign in elections or referendums.
Television and radio organizations and their officials
are not responsible for what representatives of parties and public associations,
candidates for deputy at any level and candidates for president of Ukraine
say in election campaigns and referendums, with the exception of programmes
which call directly for force to be used to change or bring down the existing
state and social structure, or for violation of the state’s territorial
integrity. The law envisages that parties and candidates will be
granted airtime on nationwide or regional television and radio broadcasting
channels only according to quotas and levels of financing set by the Central
Electoral Commission.
UNIAN news agency, Kiev, November 21, 1997
The head of the Uzbek parliamentary media committee, Utkir Hoshimov, in an interview with Uzbek radio on 18th December, commented on the results of the public debate about the recently published bill on the mass media. He said that the response had been good but only mentioned one proposal which is to be included in the bill, and that is to give the right to the mass media and the press to publish “ supplements.” He said that a new clause had been added to the bill, despite journalists’ protests, stipulating that newly registered mass media organizations will have to announce their programme within three months after registration, otherwise they “will be struck off the list.” On the subject of satellite television, Hoshimov said that the idea was “very new” to Uzbekistan and “separate laws on television and radio” will be drawn up at a later stage; therefore no proposals on this subject had been accepted. He added that the government would “legislate separately on advertising” and that “the law on advertising should be a very strong one.”
Uzbek Radio, Tashkent, December 18, 1997
II. Draft mass media law bans foreign ownership.
The Uzbek draft Mass Media Law prohibits the publication of seditious material, material judged to incite national, racial or religious hatred, or “violence,” “cruelty” and “regionalism.” The bill—a text of which was published in the Tashkent newspaper ‘Narodnoye Slovo’ on 5th November—also forbids foreign ownership of any media source, and bans sponsors from intervening in the editorial process. All broadcast and print media must apply to register with the Justice Ministry, which must give a decision within a month of the application. The ministry must tell the media source why its application has been rejected, although no time-scale is set for this. The founder, Justice Ministry or court can suspend or ban a media source. The source can appeal in court, and reapply for registration under a similar name. The government is to decide which organizations are to receive compulsory copies of publications and broadcasts. The bill upholds the constitutional ban on censorship. The bill is to be considered by parliament in December, and the press committee welcomes suggestions and comments.
‘Narodnoye Slovo,’ Tashkent, November 5, 1997