I. Pornography Bill Moves Ahead.
II. The Duma's trying to change the law on the media.
III. Head of Gazprom-media explains goals.
IV. Official reacts to Duma decree on TV regulation.
V. NTV Group reorganized.
VI. Parliament restricts TV coverage of elections.
VII. Chelyabinsk authorities wage war against local
paper.
VIII. Russian TV worried about Duma threat to ban
adverts.
IX. Radio Russia head comments on future plans.
X. Russian paper reports on media “crackdown.”
XI. Radio and TV law "rules out public TV," says
academic.
XII. Russia TV head comments on state's influence.
By David McHugh
The State Duma moved ahead [on 16th January] with
a controversial pornography bill that would legalize but closely regulate
Russia’s flourishing trade in erotic materials.
The lower house of parliament voted to approve the
bill on second reading by a vote of 226—one more than necessary—to 104.
Pornography, banned under communism, currently is
illegal under Russian law, which defines it as “products of a sexual character
that include detailed depiction of the anatomical and/or physiological
details of sex.” Nevertheless, hard-core pornography is sold freely
in Moscow sex shops, and street kiosks’ windows are stacked with soft-core
videos.
The bill, which opponents say is too permissive,
focuses on “material of a sexual nature,” which is defined as “depiction
or description of sexual activity that serves to satisfy sexual attraction.”
Sale of such material would be legalized, but would
be subject to potentially expensive licensing and could be sold only at
government-approved locations, which could not be in schools, residential,
government or historical buildings or in street kiosks.
The bill’s sponsor, nationalist film maker Stanislav
Govorukhin, said a more restrictive law would only make black marketeers
rich.
“We have studied the situation on the black market
and the experience of other countries,” Govorukhin said. “Do not
take the path of prohibition. Do not activate the black market, which
is already flourishing, but strictly limit it and put it under state control
and take the income from the black market and put it in state coffers.”
The bill would: permit erotic films on television
from 1 a.m. to 4 a.m., sanctioning a practice that already exists on private
television, which sometimes shows soft-core films during those hours.
The bill completely bans material depicting sex
involving children, violence, the dead or animals.
It would not appear to restrict mainstream publications
like Playboy magazine and Speed Info, which are registered as lifestyle
publications under current law. Playboy is published in Russia by
Independent Media, parent company of The Moscow Times.
Rulings on what is covered by the law are left to
the executive branch of the government.
Opponents said the law isn’t restrictive enough.
Communist Deputy Tatyana Astrakhanskaya argued for
a ban on erotic content, saying it would en courage the growth of a domestic
pornography industry that would undermine Russia’s social fabric.
“We must understand that this is not about isolated,
perverted dancing in some nightclub,” she said. “This has never
existed in Russia. Society has not developed a defense mechanism,
and if we give this monster the green light, the consequences will be very
grave.”
Several dozen conservative Orthodox Christians demonstrated
against the law outside the Duma, holding icons and singing.
Nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky spoke out in favor
of the bill, saying that the 75-year ban on pornography under communism
had led to broken marriages and sexual dysfunction.
Communist Deputy Yury Nikiforenko convulsed the
gallery with a double-entendre reference to deputies’ legislative or sexual
abilities: “This bill is highly significant, and the people will judge
who is capable of what in the Duma,” he said.
To become law, the bill must pass on third reading.
Then it must be approved by the Federation Council, parliament’s upper
house, before going to President Boris Yeltsin to be signed into law.
The Moscow Times, January 17, 1998
II. The Duma's trying to change the law on the media.
Yesterday the Duma passed the first reading of the draft law on inserting changes into the federal law on the media. In accordance with it, a journalist may have accreditation revoked for distributing information which does not accord with reality which discredits the reputation of the organization which provided the accreditation, or if the journalist has mis-used the rights the accreditation provides, so long as this fact is confirmed by a court. However, the editorial board, chief editor, and journalist do not bear responsibility for distributing such information if it is a quote from one of the MPs in session or in a speech at some other function, or from an official speech of a leader of a state institution, an organization, or a public organization. The editorial board and the journalist are similarly not responsible if the information is a quote from information or materials distributed by other media.
Kommersant-Daily, Moscow, January 15, 1998
III. Head of Gazprom-media explains goals.
Viktor Ilyushin, the head of the media holding of the gas monopoly Gazprom, says Gazprom-Media will intervene in the editorial policy of media outlets it partly owns or finances. In an interview published in “Kommersant-Daily” on 13 January, Ilyushin explained that Gazprom is “not indifferent as to who will govern the regions, who will pass laws, and what kind of government we will have.” Asked why Gazprom created a subsidiary to manage its media assets (see “RFE/RL Newsline,” 29 December 1997), Ilyushin said that “we should legalize our conjugal relations with certain mass media. We have had friendly relations, but you don’t get far today on friendship alone.” “Kommersant-Daily” reported that the main task of Gazprom-Media will be to support a presidential bid by Prime Minister Chernomyrdin. In addition, Gazprom-Media is compiling a database of all Russian journalists. LB
RFE/RL NEWSLINE, Vol. 2, No. 8, Part I, January 14, 1998
IV. Official reacts to Duma decree on TV regulation.
Text of State Duma Decree No 2028 “On State Regulation
of the Activities of the NTV [Independent Television] Television Company
and Other Non-State Television and Radio Companies,” dated 19th December
1997, Moscow, and signed by G.N. Seleznev, chairman of the Russian Federation
Federal Assembly State Duma; followed by commentary by Igor Shabdurasulov,
head of the Russian Federation government’s Culture and Information Department,
entitled “Deputies do not like NTV. But where does the government
come in?”; published by Moscow newspaper ‘Rossiyskaya Gazeta’; subheading
as published:
In order to stabilize the social and political situation
in the Russian Federation, domestic television is called upon to reflect
the opinion of political, religious, ethnic and other groups of the population
and create the requisite conditions for the preservation of ethnic culture.
But the NTV television company is pursuing an active
policy of blowing up conflict situations and stirring up political confrontation
in society. Lies and distortion of the facts are used to manipulate
public opinion. Abusive language has become the norm in television
programmes.
Contrary to the traditions and customs of the peoples
of the Russian Federation, the NTV television company continues to produce
and purvey erotic and pornographic material unchecked. Believers’
religious feelings are being patently ignored and efforts are being made
to set Russia at loggerheads with its immediate neighbours.
For the purposes of state regulation of the activities
of the NTV television company and other non-state television and radio
companies, the Russian Federation Federal Assembly State Duma decrees that:
1. The Russian Federation government be recommended
to:
- step up monitoring of the NTV television company’s
and other non-state television and radio companies’ compliance with the
terms of broadcasting licences, and impose tough sanctions on those who
contravene the aforementioned terms;
- review the terms of the contract with the NTV
television company with a view to establishing new, higher tariffs for
relaying signals via state radio relay transmitting centres;
- devise normative legal acts making it incumbent
on the relevant federal executive authorities, when issuing broadcasting
licences, to conclude contracts with television and radio companies making
it incumbent on them in their work to take account of ethnic traditions;
when drawing up the broadcasting network, maintain the ratio between domestic
and foreign works of art and culture (songs, musical works, films), giving
priority to Russian culture; following international practice, show concern
for Russia’s integrity and security;
- conclude similar contracts with all television
and radio companies currently operating on Russian Federation territory;
- strictly monitor non-state television and radio
companies’ observance of the norms of Russian Federation legislation.
2. The State Duma Committee on the Budget, Taxes,
Banks and Finance and the State Duma Committee on Information Policy and
Communications are to devise a draft law regulating the taxation of non-state
television and radio companies.
3. The State Duma Committee on Information Policy
and Communications is to be instructed on the basis of this decree and
Russia Federation legislation to devise a draft law, including on additional
grounds for revoking a non-state television or radio company’s broadcasting
licence, and submit it to the State Duma for its consideration.
‘Rossiyskaya Gazeta,’ Moscow, January 9, 1998
[On 10th December] Igor Malashenko briefed the press
on a new media project—NTV-Holding. He has become its head, having
quit the chairmanships of NTV [Independent Television] and NTV Plus, posts
which he had held since those television companies were founded.
NTV-Holding is actually part of another holding
company—Media-Most. NTV-Holding is an amalgamation of virtually all
the parent holding company’s “non-publishing” companies, and also of new
structures in whose creation NTV has been involved.
In other words, the NTV-Holding closed joint-stock
company includes: NTV (the fourth national channel), NTV Plus (six satellite
channels, including the Nochnoy [Night-Time] channel and the recently created
Detskiy Mir [Children’s World] channel), TNT (a regional television network
which starts broadcasting on 1st January 1998), the Ekho Moskvy radio station,
Bonum-1 (the satellite communications operator), NTV-Design and NTV-Profit
(film production and rental companies respectively), and also the recently
created NTV-Kino company, which specializes in purchasing and producing
television output, and is headed by Vladilen Arsenyev, a founder-shareholder
of the NTV television company.
Thus NTV-Holding is one wing of Media-Most.
The other wing is the Sem Dney [Seven Days] publishing house, led by Dmitriy
Biryukov. In fact, the new holding company is a managing company.
And, as its General Director Igor Malashenko explained, “only in name”
does it hold the shares of its constituent companies, whose controlling
stakes still belong to Media-Most. So nothing has changed.
The boss is the same.
So why was this reshuffle necessary? Malashenko
offered journalists at least two reasons. The first is internal.
The Russian television advertising market is predicted to grow next year.
The Media-Service Video International agency estimates that advertising
on the central channels alone was worth about 100m dollars in 1997, and
in 1998 it is predicted to grow by 25-30 per cent. And this allegedly
makes it necessary to prepare for a war over advertising budgets.
The second reason is external. A worldwide
process is under way whereby “multimedia groups embracing all the mass
media are being created,” and naturally NTV cannot afford to be left behind.
It is hard to disagree with this assertion, especially when you recall
how the other players in this business are building their own media empires
with no less determination than the Most group has shown. The assembled
leaders of all the amalgamated companies (they will rarely be seen altogether
at the same table) bore a strong resemblance to Central Committee members
at a presidium meeting. It was a thoroughly effective act of deterrence.
The NTV television company’s number one is now Oleg
Dobrodeyev, former vice-president and head of the news service. True,
his post is not “chairman” but general director of NTV. Second to
him at NTV will now be Yevgeniy Kiselev. He has become chairman of
the television company’s board of directors, which has just been created
officially, having existed unofficially for a long time.
The arrival of a new boss usually brings changes
in a channel’s content. Dobrodeyev did not promise any major revolution:
“Television does not really like radical changes.” That is true.
But quiet changes certainly do take place. The new general director
admitted to ‘Russkiy Telegraf’ that he does intend to make some changes
to NTV’s broadcasting schedule—first and foremost to its night-time broadcasting.
“Segodnya” will be expanded, and the late evening news will be broadcast
slightly later. And most importantly, “Playboy” will disappear.
Only time will tell who is next in line.
“Malashenko leaves NTV for NTV-Holding,” ‘Russkiy Telegraf,’ Moscow, December 11, 1997
VI. Parliament restricts TV coverage of elections.
Reports have come in from Kiev [on 4th December]
about the start of a new scandal in the election campaign. This time
it is the Ukrainian electronic mass media which are in the centre of attention.
Over to our correspondent Mikhail Kukin:
[Correspondent] Judging by everything, the struggle for seats in the
future Ukrainian parliament has reached the stage when it is time for the
most powerful weapons to be brought into battle. And since the politicians
continue to regard television as such a weapon, a new war has broken out
around it.
Unexpectedly for many, the existing Supreme Council
adopted a law in accordance with which participation in the election campaign
will be forbidden to television stations, more than 10 per cent of whose
charter capital is made up of foreign investments. It must be said
that virtually all the republic-wide broadcasters fall into this category,
apart from the State National Television Company.
However, commentators immediately caught on that
the authors of the wise decision fear not so much pernicious foreign influence
as their own political opponents. For example, President Kuchma’s
team clearly stands behind the highest-rated studio 1+1, which, incidentally
occupies prime time on the second nationwide channel. The Inter television
channel—which inherited the frequencies of the switched off ORT [Russian
Public TV], and which was partially founded by ORT—is called the social-democratic
channel. This party’s election list includes, apart from Inter’s
leader Oleksandr Zinchenko, the former prime minister Marchuk and former
president Kravchuk. It is no surprise that the party leader did not
support his parliamentary colleagues.
[V. Onopchenko, chairman of the United Social-Democratic Party of Ukraine]
I think that the president should impose a veto on this law and that parliament
will not overrule the veto. I think that this would be the normal
approach.
[Correspondent] By the way, the executive structures are in no hurry
to follow the abovementioned decision of the deputies nor another one on
granting airtime on that same second channel to the new Ukrainian public
television HURT, particularly since it does not even have a broadcasting
licence.
Russia TV channel, Moscow, December 4, 1997
VII. Chelyabinsk authorities wage war against local paper.
The Chelyabinsk Oblast authorities have tried to throw the employees of the Delovoi Ural newspaper out of their offices, claiming that they do not have a lease. The workers at the newspaper, however, charge that the administration is trying to crack down on them because the newspaper has published articles critical of the administration. On 2nd December the administration tried to prevent the paper’s staff from entering their offices, but the journalists and their defenders successfully opposed the operation. Since December of last year, when Governor Peter Sumin came to power with Communist backing, Delovoi Ural has been one of the few papers to print articles critical of him. The paper is controlled by Vasilii Kichedzhi, the general director of the Chelyabinsk Tractor Factory. Kichedzhi defeated the administration in a recent dispute over restructuring the plant’s debt in which the administration wanted to impose external managers.
‘Kommersant Daily,’ Moscow, December 4, 1997
VIII. Russian TV worried about Duma threat to ban adverts.
The State Duma is once again beginning to take an
interest in our television company—this time through the mouth of the chairman
of the Duma committee for information policy [and communications], Mr [Oleg]
Finko, who voiced the idea of adopting a law banning advertising on our
channel. Mr Finko is convinced that such a decision would have absolutely
no effect on the financial position of the company because the deputies
would scrape together the necessary funds from the budget.
The chairman of our company, Nikolay Svanidze, said
diplomatically that what lies behind the intention of putting through a
draft law banning advertising is either the desire to stifle state television
or else total ignorance of the matter. Svanidze has to choose his
words carefully. His post makes this necessary. However, if one calls
a spade a spade, a ban on advertising would inevitably lead to the complete
bankruptcy of the VGTRK [All-Russian State TV and Radio Broadcasting Company]
and undoubtedly to its subsequent conversion into a joint-stock company.
Judge for yourself, if there is no money—and there
will be no money in the budget— then there will be no quality. If
there is no quality, the price of advertising will go up—on other channels.
If Russia TV is ruined, it will be bought cheaply by businessmen, and probably
with money earned by advertising on other channels. If the deputies
can defeat this rather primitive logic, let them introduce the ban and
try to find the money in the budget. It seems to us that if some
small amounts can be found there, it would be better to give it to, for
example, the doctors.
For now our bulletin, which has to a large extent
been made with money from income from advertisements, is coming to an end.
Next comes the sport and weather. After the advertisements.
See you tomorrow.
Russia TV, Moscow, November 26, 1997
IX. Radio Russia head comments on future plans.
On the eve of its seventh anniversary, Radio Russia
is in a process of renewal. This is logical.
What was interesting seven, possibly five, years
ago, nobody wants today. At least, this is the opinion of Radio Russia’s
new director, Aleksey Abakumov.
As usual, a new programming schedule has been prepared,
that is, what radio listeners actually will hear. The broadcasting
time has been cut—and in fact, the audience during the night is too small
while expenses are large, so now Radio Russia will be on from 0500 to 0100.
Its audience is the entire country, and there are programmes that are broadcast
in all regions at the same real time (first of all, news), while some broadcasts
go through Orbitas [rebroadcast stations] and thus come on at 1100, whether
in the Far East, the Urals or Moscow. The new schedule envisages
a four-hour “step.” What does this mean? Two hours will be
reserved for live “cluster” broadcasts—information, socio-political, musical
and factual programmes consisting of short reports, news, interviews, commentaries
and short features. . . . The two-hour slot will have room for sports
news, weather and music.
The revamped Radio Russia will broadcast a wide
range of music. This means classical music—both Russian and international,
popular jazz and pop music. The only restriction is that the music
should not be too complex, since its purpose is decorative; on the other
hand, it should not transcend the boundaries of good taste. In any
case, some performers who cannot hit a note will not be welcome at Radio
Russia.
“Radio Russia,” says Aleksey Abakumov, “which had
a great start in 1990 and was going quite strong in 1993, has now become
the All-Union Radio in its worst traditions—cumbersome, slow and uninteresting
to most. It is already lagging behind real life. Our task is
to make broadcasts more topical, dynamic, more saturated with information.
This does not mean that presenters will start talking fast. It is
just that we will try to talk about things in a more involved way. . .
.
“Our other task is to attract, and interest, socially
active sectors of the population in the country. Right now, alas,
Radio Russia’s audience is elderly ladies, housewives and pensioners.
Middle-age people sometimes tune in to our news, but overall, Radio Russia
is not for them. We will try to attract their attention, too.
We plan to preserve the ideas and experience Radio Russia has in the area
of literature and arts, educational and musical broadcasting. . . .
[Q] Will Radio Russia get new presenters?
[Abakumov] Yes. We started the reorganization with personnel
cuts, since over the seven years of its existence our radio has not only
grown but also accumulated some fat. Of the 350 staff members, 290
remain. The people we fire are not necessarily bad professionally—on
the contrary, some are talented people, but they were good within the framework
of the old school. Among the new presenters is Dmitriy Gubin.
He is from St Petersburg, has a lot of experience in newspaper and magazine
commentating. Vitaliy Ushkanov used to work at Radio Russia and then
moved on to television. He is coming back now.
[Q] What changed in Radio Russia’s functioning with the demise of Radio
1?
[A] Radio 1 was closed by presidential edict. In keeping with
this document, we were supposed to receive some Radio 1 transmitters; we
have sent an inquiry to this effect to the Federal Television and Radio
Broadcasting Service, but have not yet received a reply. In keeping
with this edict, radio channel 1 is to be reserved solely for Radio Russia.
Unfortunately, this is not being complied with. In some regions we
are overlaid by local television and radio companies on channel 1, despite
the fact that channel 3 is reserved for them; in some places, we are overlaid
by commercial and even foreign radio stations, and sometimes this is happening
in prime time! We are willing to look for compromise solutions to solve
this sensitive and difficult problem.
‘Rossiyskaya Gazeta,’ Moscow, November 21, 1997
X. Russian paper reports on media “crackdown.”
Not only political parties but also the news media
in the republic have been persecuted since the start of the inter-Tajik
confrontation. More than 30 independent publications have ceased their
activity, more than 100 journalists have left the country, fearing a crackdown,
and more than 40 journalists have died.
Now, when the process of a peace settlement is gaining
momentum and the accords, whose achievement took the parties five long
years, are being implemented, the question of the objective coverage of
events in the republic by the local news media remains, as before, open.
The republic’s Ministry of Culture and Information
has ordered a temporary suspension of the activity of independent television
stations that do not have a current licence. A government body that
is to formulate the procedure for obtaining such a licence has still not
been formed in the country. Seven television stations have been shut
down in Leninabad Oblast and Tursunzadevskiy District “for technical reasons.”
Several radio stations, which, as an employee of one of them who wished
to remain anonymous observes, do not broadcast news “in order not to create
needless problems,” have been broadcasting periodically since mid-September.
Meanwhile, the one-sided information feed in the
local newspapers and on radio and television channels, especially against
the background of the process of national reconciliation that has begun,
is giving rise to concern, not only on the part of a number of international
organizations that have been engaged in the course of this process but
also of members of the OTO [United Tajik Opposition] on the National Reconciliation
Commission that has commenced work in Dushanbe. It is for this reason
that the commission has opened its own press centre.
Holly Cartner, executive director of Human Rights
Watch/Helsinki, declared, in turn, that “the main provisions of the peace
agreement have a direct bearing on the freedom of the news media, which
is of decisive importance not only for social mutual understanding in the
process of the establishment of peace but also for the building of a civil
society.” “Complaints have been received by various international
organizations from citizens of the republic recently about the fact that
the local news media are failing to cover the activity of the National
Reconciliation Commission and, even more, to transmit information on the
recent combat operations and numerous acts of violence,” Ms Cartner observed.
This means nothing other than the authorities’tight control over the news
media in Tajikistan.
This organization has also disseminated a statement
which welcomes such an initiative, but is at the same time worried by the
lack of information in the period of the peace process. Human Rights
Watch/Helsinki is afraid that such closures—allegedly “for technical reasons”—are
the first steps that lead to curbs on political activity. The statement
notes particularly the incident involving the weekly ‘Istiklol’ (Independence)—the
organ of the Oli Somon nongovernmental organization. The management
of the government-controlled printing firm received an order to discontinue
printing the newspaper. In the opinion of an employee of the paper,
such actions are the result of a number of articles published: an appeal
to the nation by National Reconciliation Commission Chairman Said Abdullo
Nuri and an interview with Davlat Usmon, chief of staff of the OTO, who
criticized the present government for its failure to include all political
forces in the peace process. Human Rights Watch/Helsinki calls on
the government of Tajikistan to respect the commitments concerning freedom
of the press and speech that it has assumed, in accordance with the constitution
of the republic and international law.
‘Nezavisimaya Gazeta,’ Moscow, November 21, 1997
XI. Radio and TV law "rules out public TV," says academic.
The state of freedom of speech in Russia corresponds
fully to European standards. However, Russian media laws do require
improvement. This conclusion was reached by participants in the seminar
“The Mass Media in a Democratic Society” which ended [on 20th November].
The seminar, which was organized by the Council of Europe and the Judicial
Chamber on Informational Disputes attached to the Russian President, was
attended by authoritative Russian and international experts, and also representatives
of regional Russian media. . . .
The last day of work of the seminar was devoted
to the problem of legislative regulation of TV and radio broadcasting and
public control in this area. The dean of the Moscow State University
journalism faculty, Yasen Zasurskiy, who spoke during the discussion, believes
that the law on TV and radio broadcasting developed by the Duma effectively
“rules out the existence in Russia of public television, leaving television
in the hands of the state and of private broadcasting companies.”
In his opinion, it does not solve the problem of the creation of supervisory
councils on the All-Russian State TV and Radio Company and Russian Public
Television. As well as representatives of the state, members of both
houses of parliament will join these bodies. However, if that is
the case, Zasurskiy believes, “there will be no question of public control.”
ITAR-TASS news agency (World Service), Moscow, November 20, 1997
XII. Russia TV head comments on state's influence.
Nikolay Svanidze, chairman of the All-Russia State
TV and Radio Company (VGTRK), in an interview with Russian Ekho Moskvy
radio, spoke about the possible composition and role of the supervisory
councils that are to be appointed to supervise Russia TV and Russian Public
TV (ORT). He said they should include representatives of both chambers
of the Federal Assembly, the government, the presidential administration
and social and cultural organizations, and “perhaps just personally respected
and authoritative Russian cultural figures.” On the subject of television
coverage of the State Duma’s activities, Svanidze said he would take ultimate
editorial responsibility for the content of the “Parliamentary Hour” programme,
and there would be “cooperation” between Russia TV and the Duma in the
programme’s production. Following are excerpts from the interview
with Nikolay Svanidze, broadcast by Ekho Moskvy radio; subheadings added
editorially:
Our guest Today [28th October] is the chairman of
the VGTRK [All-Russia State TV and Radio Company], Nikolay Karlovich Svanidze.
Good afternoon.
[Svanidze] I would say good evening.
[Q] It is afternoon for some, evening for others but in any case,
I think night is now falling for the VGTRK. The prime minister has
recommended, that is, he has given instructions in line with the legislation
on the mass media, together with representatives of the Federal Assembly,
that the president’s decision should be implemented. Firstly, on
setting up observers’ or trustees’ councils—or whatever they are going
to be called, it’s not quite clear yet. Who should they include?
This is my first question—your view, Nikolay? Secondly, on increasing
time for presenting Federal Assembly deputies, let’s put it like that.
Possible role of supervisory councils
[A] Yes, well, firstly on the subject of night, I would say that
it is more like a dull morning. There is no reason to think that
the topic should be that impenetrable. And this is why: I do not
see any universal catastrophe in the decision to set up the councils, the
name of which I do not yet know. . . .
The important thing is not the name, it is their
function and their membership. The membership. They must
include representatives of both chambers of the Federal Assembly.
They must include representatives of the government and the presidential
administration and social and cultural organizations, perhaps just personally
respected and authoritative Russian cultural figures.
[Q] Nikolay, how large do you see this council being? How
many people do you think would be necessary for the trustees’ work?
[A] I think that up to 15 people would be optimal for work.
[Q] How should it be formed?
[A] I think this will take place spontaneously, actually.
There will be talks here at the VGTRK, in the first instance it is I who
will have talks with representatives of the Federal Assembly and,
of course, with representatives of the other branches of power, and we
will reach a conclusion in this way on who should be on the council.
I do not think that talks on the members of these councils will be very
difficult. There does not seem to be any sense of impasse here.
It is more probable—I fear although I do not believe that this will happen
either—that difficulties may arise in determining the functions of the
council.
[Q] Let’s talk about what functions you see for this council
since it is proposed to set it up soon. What would you want from
this council?
[A] I would like a trustees’ council to perform the function
of a trustee and advise.
[Q] How do you understand the word trustee?
[A] I see a trustee purely as giving help, first and foremost.
Mainly. Help needs to be given. . . .
History behind the demands for supervisory councils
[Q] You understand quite well that the very emergence of the
trustees’ council, the very idea of a council, arose as a result of honest
confrontation, severe confrontation, as it were, between the legislative
and executive authorities where the majority in the State Duma levelled
accusations against the government and the president and the state channel
that the state channel only reflected the views of the executive authorities
and the head of state. In other words, it is a crisis structure which
has emerged as a compromise, as a result of a crisis, to correct the situation
from the legislators’ point of view.
[A] To be frank, I’m not inclined to agree with that point of
view, Aleksey. In the first place, no: you probably set out the motives
of a significant section of the Duma correctly.
[Interviewer] Yes, that’s right.
[A] But that is only the motives of a significant section of
the Duma—firstly, not all of the Duma, and, secondly, there are also other
branches of power. There is the position of the VGTRK management,
which I represent at the moment. I have been appointed by the president,
and I see my function as being to manage the company. If the trustees’
council seeks to manage the company instead of me, to put it crudely, then
I’m not very clear about what my job is. Naturally, I shall seek
to ensure that I always have the final say. As Comrade Saakhov said:
I was appointed in order to look after state interests.
[Q] You’ll be talking about wool next. [Laughter; this
is a reference to a 1960s film, “Kavazskaya Plennitsa”—(Female) Prisoner
of the Caucasus,” in which Saakhov is a character]. Right, well,
let’s take an example. It has been decided, as I understand it, that
now the State Duma press service will itself prepare [the TV programme]
“Parliamentary Hour.” I remind you that, upon your appointment to
the post, you insisted that “Parliamentary Hour” should, at the very least,
be prepared jointly and, in practice, by the VGTRK news service.
Well, jointly, right? Clearly the prime minister and the president
have now decided that there’s nothing amiss here. Let them prepare
it themselves. But that means that you, the channel director, are
not responsible for output that simply bypasses you.
TV coverage of parliament’s activities
[A] Well, as another character, a literary character [i.e. Mechnikov
in Ilf and Petrov’s “Twelve Chairs”], said: Agreement is the product of
mutual non-resistance by those involved. In this case, there was
no great resistance from those involved, and certainly not on my side.
Yes, I insisted all the time that we should do it. It’s quite logical.
No branch of power makes a broadcast about itself. Here the Duma
and ourselves will be setting a precedent, but the Duma wanted that so
much. A significant proportion of the deputies thought so long and
stubbornly that they were being wrongly shown, wrongly portrayed, and that
they were actually far better than they seem on television, that I decided
that it was simply our sacred task to enable them to be shown as they want
to be shown. Fine, let them do it themselves. They have a press
service. They have television professionals there. Let them
produce that hour.
But I am responsible for the channel. When
we sign a contract with any programme production company—for any programme
that we are purchasing—I still reserve the final say for myself, and I
have the right, and am obliged, to view the programme before it is broadcast—simply
to make sure that there is no risk of any word posing a threat to society,
giving rise to ethnic tension, and so on. There might be anything
there. I am responsible. I shall be responsible here too, and
I shall be viewing the output. They will put the broadcast together.
I shall be given a cassette of it. I shall view the cassette, and
then it will go out on the air. That’s how I see our cooperation
as regards the production of “Parliamentary Hour.”
[Q] Nikolay, in an interview recently with ‘Novoye Vremya’ [New
Times], I think it was, you produced the rather curious phrase: I am a
journalist, a manager and a censor. Right? Just now you were
talking about your functions as a censor as regards the possible broadcasts
of the Federal Assembly. Do you think that the observers’ or trustees’
council which has arisen—[changes thought] and incidentally how soon do
you think the president’s decision will be implemented? How soon
will you be having talks and setting up such a council?
[A] Well, off the top of my head, I think it’s a matter of two
to three months.
[Q] Are you not afraid that, in two or three months’ time, the
trustees’ council will gradually, to put it mildly, issue recommendations
to you and will, in actual fact, carry out censorship functions?
I don’t mean every specific programme, but I remind you that the Law entitled
On the Budget determines your budget, which is set by part of the future
trustees’ council—in other words, the State Duma.
[A] Well, Aleksey, it is of course not like that. Our real
financing depends very little on the wishes of the Duma. And I will
say more. It does not depend that much on the wishes of the executive
authorities, either. It depends on the state budget being implemented.
We received 32 per cent of the amount we were promised this year.
And neither the Duma nor anyone else could give us more or less.
If you are thinking that a group of deputies is trying to put us on the
spot here and is saying do what we say or we won’t give you any money,
this is not possible. We will not listen to any one single branch
of power and no-one can put us on the spot. . . .
[Interviewer] I remind you that the chairman of the VGTRK, Nikolay
Svanidze, was speaking live on Ekho Moskvy radio.
Ekho Moskvy radio, Moscow, October 28, 1997