I. Paper views Yeltsin meeting with TV leaders.
When I heard the announcement that the president
was to meet the heads of the three leading Russian television companies,
my feelings were mixed. They became even more so when the press secretary
explained why Russia’s television bosses had been called on the carpet
in the Kremlin: Certain channels had overstepped the bounds of reasonableness
in the tone of their coverage of the miners’ protests. A huge fuss
about tone? This sort of thing is painfully familiar!
I was reminded of an episode from the perestroyka era.
Our chief editor had gone to his latest meeting with Gorbachev. At
the editorial office we were waiting for him to return and tell us what
he had seen and heard, what had happened, who had been praised, who had
been criticized and what for, and, finally, what advice had been given.
Now this happened just at a time when a new president was assuming office
in Washington, and I was drinking coffee in the snack bar with a colleague
who is an expert on the United States. I asked him what Americans
would think if Bush summoned his chief editors for a talk. And he
replied: “They would think he had gone crazy. . . . [ellipsis as published]”
And yet at that time those meetings with Gorbachev seemed virtually the
pinnacle of party democracy. Everything depends on what is being
compared with what, and when. But because there is so much talk in
Russia now about our democratic achievements (you get the impression that
we are ahead of the entire planet in this respect), the coming meeting
between Yeltsin and the heads of ORT [Russian Public Television], RTR [Russian
Television and Radio] and NTV [Independent Television] prompted the same
“parallel” question: What happens in the United States?
A debate immediately sprang up in the editorial office,
and I was promptly corrected: US television companies are private, but
ours are mainly supported by the state. This argument is not totally
convincing, of course: NTV is funded by private capital and this is a matter
of pride to the company, and it is common knowledge that ORT is also influenced
by particular wealthy individuals, although there is, admittedly, a difference,
as confirmed by a US citizen and taxpayer temporarily resident in Moscow
and familiar with both US and Russian reality.
“You know,” he said, “if people back home discovered
that the president was summoning the heads of the leading television companies
to the White House to talk about what they were broadcasting, they would
laugh. But when they discover that the Russian president is doing
this, they won’t be surprised. I am talking about well-informed people,
of course. They realize that democracy in the United States is at
a different level of maturity from in Russia. The independence of
the media is a pillar of democracy in the United States; the state is prohibited
by law from engaging in propaganda. Do you remember the ‘America’
magazine: Because it was published with US Congress funds, its distribution
within the country was prohibited. You have not yet reached that
stage, so comparisons are not entirely appropriate. I am also aware
that the meeting is taking place at a very difficult time for your country,
and if the president asks—I stress, asks—the company heads, who have a
very powerful psychological tool at their disposal, not to fan the flames,
I think he will be doing his job.”
He is probably right: It is rather early to draw parallels,
especially direct ones. And we must not draw them, no matter how
much we would like to. Otherwise, we will be like the hero of the
well-known film who said: I have the will, but not the ability. Though,
in my opinion, our ability is already sufficient to make such presidential
meetings in the Kremlin (about “tone”) the exception rather than the rule.
And that, you will agree, is already no small achievement.
‘Izvestiya,’ Moscow, May 29, 1998
II. Yeltsin reassuring about new state media holding.
President Boris Yeltsin sounded reassuring about
a recently formed media holding before his going into a meeting with leaders
of ORT, NTV and VGTRK televisions in the Kremlin on [28th May].
He called on private television companies not to see
the setting up of the state-held electronic media holding as a threat to
private media and to freedom of speech.
Yeltsin said before meeting Kseniya Ponomareva, Oleg
Dobrodeyev and Mikhail Shvydkoy that power and television enter a “new
phase” of relations.
An organism like television “cannot be dead, it should
be revitalizing itself all the time,” Yeltsin said.
“I have signed the decree (ordering the state-owned
holding) but it seems to me you are for some reason scared by this decree,”
so “I want to say that we do not mean to introduce anything special,” Yeltsin
said.
He said the creation of “such a general state structure
of television on no account means that we are to take television in our
hands.”
“Freedom remains as it was, but we have the right to
ask you to propagate through television the state policy and no more,”
Yeltsin told the three television chiefs.
Shvydkoi told reporters that Yeltsin called at the meeting
for a television coverage of Russia’s problems in which “national interests
and good sense triumph.”
Shvydkoi said Yeltsin also spoke of his attitude to
television coverage of the recent miner protests.
ITAR-TASS news agency (World Service), Moscow, May 28, 1998
III. Government Tightens Control of TV: The media
holding may be able to control transmission and set unfavorable rates for
competitors.
By Andrei Zolotov, Jr.
The Russian television system is on the verge of
a sweeping change.
With an eye to the next presidential elections, the
Russian government has made a bold move to consolidate its diverse electronic
media outlets and take control over broadcasting in the regions.
Following months of behind-the-scenes power plays, President
Boris Yeltsin signed a decree May 8 that gave the Cabinet two months to
transform the All-Russia Television and Radio Company, or VGTRK, into a
“unified production and technological complex.”
The giant new centralized agency, reminiscent of the
Soviet-era Gosteleradio, would control regional government-owned television
and radio companies, thus taking an important tool away from increasingly
powerful regional leaders.
It also would control state-owned broadcast facilities,
which bear the bulk of transmissions for radio and television, both private
and public, nationwide. Transmission has traditionally been the domain
of the federal communications agency.
VGTRK now operates the RTR and Kultura television stations,
as well as the national Radio Rossia. Under Yeltsin’s decree, it
apparently would control transmission for its competitors.
Yeltsin’s decree was issued during the May holidays
and took many industry players by surprise. Its ramifications are
still a matter of guess work. Since intensive consultations are under
way in the government and VGTRK, most senior television officials have
refused to comment on the decree.
The move is part of the general re-structuring and fierce
competition in Russian media industry, whose private sector pioneered the
establishment of powerful media holdings, such as Vladimir Gusinsky’s NTV
Holding. Speaking last month in the State Duma, parliament’s lower
house, Prime Minister Sergei Kiriyenko said the government should “learn
from the commercial leaders of media holdings” how to manage assets more
efficiently.
Russian state television is chronically underfunded,
and the new system is expected to channel scarce government funding and
advertising revenues so that state television remains afloat and able to
compete with private channels.
The Cabinet has yet to issue resolutions to implement
the decree. So far, it generates more questions than answers, with
many observers saying that some aspects of the decree cannot be implemented
as written. But if taken literally, it affects all echelons of Russian
electronic media, both public and private.
The decree transforms the regional state-owned television
and radio companies, which have been virtually independent from the center
since the breakup of Gosteleradio, into daughter companies of the new holding.
To a great extent they have been controlled by regional governments, which
now must find a modus vivendi with the new holding. The issue is
expected to be raised [on 27th May] in the Federation Council, parliament’s
upper house, which is made up of regional leaders.
The decree also affects private broadcasters by removing
the country’s complicated and expensive transmission system, used by all
television stations from the jurisdiction of the State Communications Committee.
VGTRK, which has a 500-million-ru-ble debt to the communications
network, would now, at least in theory, be able to control transmission
and establish unfavorable rates for private broadcasters.
VGTRK chairman Nikolai Svanidze handed in his resignation
last week to let “the president and the new Cabinet make personnel appointments
freely, pending the formation of a state-run media holding.” He pledged,
however, “to stay with VGTRK.” Svanidze is expected to continue to anchor
the weekly Zerkalo current affairs show.
Vsevolod Vilchek, a media sociologist who currently
holds positions with both ORT and NTV and is becoming ORT’s news director,
said [on 26th May] that the reform of state-run television is generating
much concern among private broadcasters.
“It threatens an extraordinary centralization of the
media and the recreation of Gosteleradio, if the process is not stopped
in time,” he said.
Unlike the elections in 1996, when both private and
state-owned media were aligned behind Yeltsin’s candidacy in the face of
the threat of a Communist takeover, the situation may considerably change
in 2000, Vilchek said.
“The government is definitely not sure [of the alliances],
because I hope in the year 2000 we will be electing a figure and not a
political regime,” he said.
During the recent gubernatorial elections in Krasnoyarsk,
for instance, media tycoon Boris Berezovsky supported General Alexander
Lebed in his successful bid to oust the Kremlin-backed candidate.
The government-owned RIA Novosti agency was the first
victim of the reshuffle. Under a Cabinet resolution issued [on 25th
May], it is renamed RIA-Vesti and put under the new holding. VGTRK
deputy chairman in charge of news, Eduard Gindileyev, was appointed the
new chief of RIA, replacing Vladimir Markov, who was close to former Prime
Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin.
Speculation in the Russian media about who is likely
to replace Svanidze has centered on Anatoly Lysenko, a Moscow city official
in charge of television and publishing, and Svanidze’s first deputy, Mikhail
Lesin, who is seen as the key “author” of the presidential decree.
Several leaders of regional broadcast companies were
in Moscow [on 26th May] holding meetings with Lesin. Viktor Smirnov,
chairman of the Novgorod regional state-owned broadcast company Slavia,
said after the meeting that the leaders were assured that VGTRK will not
claim local broadcasters’ independent earnings.
But sorting out the new relationships will take several
months, Smirnov said. At the beginning of June, all regional electronic
media leaders plan to gather in the southern Russian city of Krasnodar
to discuss the reform.
The State Communications Committee, which had previously
announced its plans to create its own holding company to manage the numerous
broadcast facilities around the country that might be privatized, is left
empty-handed.
Stanislav Glubokov, head of the committee’s radio and
television broadcasting department, was furious. In an interview
this week he said the decree was drafted without his agency’s input and
does not take into account the realities of the regional broadcast facilities,
which not only transmit television signals, but serve the telephone system
and other communication needs that are not related to television and radio.
“The way it is written in the decree will simply not
be possible in practice,” Glubokov said.
In a separate event pointing to the competition among
media empires, Svanidze’s archrival in the media wars, ORT commentator
Sergei Dorenko, quit his weekly Vremya analytical show [on 25th May] to
become the general producer of ORT’s news service.
The Moscow Times, May 25, 1998
IV. New holding will not raise charges for transmission.
The setting up of the media holding of the Russian
Television and Radio Company, or VGTRK, does not mean a bid of “quiet strangling”
of private media, said Mikhail Seslavinskiy, new head of the Federal Television
and Radio Service [FSTR].
He said there is the need for a “policy of peaceful
coexistence” of state-owned and private media.
He said in a live interview with Ekho Moskvy radio on
[22nd May] that the holding, set up under a presidential decree, does not
mean “building up the role of state television by way of quietly strangling
private television and radio companies.”
The new holding, which comprises radio and television
signal transmission services, does not plan to increase signal rates, Seslavinskiy
said, adding that the signal should not be charged equally for state-owned
and private media and “proportions of difference in these tariffs should
be reasonable, and not tenfold.”
Seslavinskiy said he is “not sure 100 per cent” that
the new media holding will be financially successful. “If an effective
system cannot be created, we will probably return in two-three years to
the question of privatization of VGTRK,” Seslavinskiy said.
ITAR-TASS news agency (World Service), Moscow, May 23, 1998
V. Russian state broadcasters face major change.
Moves to reorganize Russia’s state-owned electronic
media into a single holding company are being viewed by some analysts as
an attempt to counteract the influence of privately owned media.
The holding company will control over 100 regional TV and radio state companies,
as well as broadcasting facilities which are also used by private broadcasters,
so turning it into a powerful monopoly. The following is an editorial
analysis by BBC Monitoring’s Foreign Media Unit:
Russia’s state broadcasting sector faces major structural
changes after President Yelstin signed a decree on 8th May on reorganizing
state-owned electronic media into a single holding company. The decree
paves the way for transforming state-owned radio and TV stations in the
regions into affiliates of the All-Russian State Television and Radio Company
(VGTRK, more commonly known as Russian Television, RTR). The holding
company would also include state-owned broadcasting facilities, such as
television towers, but it is not yet clear whether those facilities will
be subordinated to VGTRK.
The move has been described by Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty (RFE/RL) as a “revolutionary” measure. According to RFE/RL’s
analysis, the new holding company will seek to counteract the influence
of privately owned media: “Since last summer, some high-ranking government
officials have received unfavourable coverage on the private network NTV
[Independent Television] and on Russian Public Television [ORT], which
is 51 per cent state-owned but considered under the influence of [media
magnate] Boris Berezovskiy.”
Some Russian commentators are already predicting that
the state media holding envisaged in Yeltsin’s decree will become a powerful
monopoly, able to dictate its own terms to the country’s private broadcasters.
The ‘Russkiy Telegraf’ newspaper said Russia was going through “a new,
and evidently the last, redistribution of state property in the mass media
sphere before the 1999-2000 elections.” The VGTRK was poised to take
over not only all the 113 existing regional TV and radio state companies,
but also broadcasting facilities which are also used by private broadcasters
and which had up to now been under the jurisdiction of the State Committee
for Communications and Information Technology. In the paper’s view,
the VGTRK was turning into “the sole and most powerful monopoly in the
electronic media market. . . . It will become a kind of state-owned
monster whose functions comprise not only those of a broadcasting company
but also, in fact, of a sectoral ministry exercising control over the electronic
mass media market,” the paper opined.
Another Russian paper, ‘Kommersant Daily,’ spelt out
what it saw as the political motives behind the presidential decree.
It said the state would now possess “not just an instrument of political
influence, which is what any television channel is, but also a mechanism
for combating rivals. The VGTRK’s victory is in large measure a victory
for Anatoliy Chubays. This circumstance could seriously mar the joy
of the ‘oligarchs’ at possessing their own media holding companies.”
The growing importance of local and regional TV broadcasters
in Russia has been acknowledged for several years. It was around
mid-1995 that advertisers began turning to the emerging regional TV networks
and programme syndicators to reach local audiences across the country.
As a correspondent for the independent NTV station noted recently, “in
the regions, local stations are sometimes on a par with the central ones,
not only from the viewpoint of professionalism but also in terms of the
overall income they get from broadcasting commercials.”
On 13th May the new Russian Prime Minister Sergey Kiriyenko
said employees of state TV and radio broadcasters should follow the example
of their commercial counterparts, who—in his words—were “performing much
better than their government-run counterparts.”
But for the next few years at least, the prospect of
a commercial free-for-all in the Russian state broadcasting sector can
be ruled out. Only a day before President Yeltsin’s 8th May decree,
his press secretary Sergey Yastrzhembskiy said the Russian state would
need to retain its role in broadcasting, “because it needs these information
channels in order to pursue a strong information policy.” Candidly
spelling out the politics behind the decree, Yeltsin’s aide said that one
day Russia would reach the stage where “the state plays a very small role
in radio and TV broadcasting.” However, he warned, this had to be
done gradually, “without severing all the channels of state influence on
this extremely important sphere of our public political life.”
BBC Monitoring Research, May 20, 1998
VI. New state media holding will respect broadcasters’
rights.
Mikhail Seslavinskiy, the chairman of the Federal
Service for Television and Broadcasting (FSTR) said at a news conference
on 20th May that the new holding company for state-owned electronic media
currently being set up in Russia would not infringe on the rights of existing
broadcasters. President Yeltsin’s decree on improving the work of
the government electronic mass media, he added, was based “on the simple
premise that the state is entitled to have at least as powerful information
media at its disposal as any private corporation.” The FSTR head
also gave details of the changing role that his organization would play
after state-owned broadcasting was reorganized. Following is the
text of a report by the Russian news agency Federal News Service; subheadings
added editorially:
[Moderator] Good morning, colleagues.
Today our press centre plays host to Mikhail Vladimirovich Seslavinskiy,
the chairman of the Federal Service for Television and Broadcasting [FSTR].
On the one hand, this may be seen as an introduction of the new head.
But the main theme today is the president’s decree on improving the work
of the government electronic mass media. And the ideology of the
decree and the still general ways of implementing it.
[Seslavinsky] Good day. The conception of
the law is based on the simple premise that the state is entitled to have
at least as powerful information media at its disposal as any private corporation.
And the decree is one of the moves toward implementing this axiom.
But of course this axiom should be implemented strongly, but also carefully
and not by liquidating or infringing upon the rights of other companies
and making inroads on them in the information space.
Media holding to reflect government’s position
The state of course should seek to structure its
new media holding in such a way that it should be flexible, modern, competitive
in the information market and at the same time reflect the position of
the government and work for the benefit of the state. We are obliged
to preserve the existing mass media and if possible multiply them and pass
it on as a system to the future government in the 21st century. This
is a challenging work in itself. It is challenging both technologically
and systemically. But added to the objective difficulties of implementing
the presidential decree on the creation of a media holding are subjective
difficulties, because during the period that these ideas and tasks will
be implemented it will be necessary to build up relationships.
On the one hand, it is necessary to arrange relationships
with private TV companies, which are wary about this decree, and which
are rightly concerned about the problem of the ways in which the new VGTRK
holding will be put together and how their rights are going to be preserved
and exercised as regards freedom of information, and also how the new holding
is going to operate and whether government will not seek to use the profits
of private TV companies in order to support the governmental media holding.
I repeat, I view this concern as quite natural, and at present we are holding
a number of meetings and consultations to try to come to terms with the
managers of non-governmental TV companies and other mass media, trying
to soothe their concerns.
Another problem is the problem of building relations
with subjects of the Russian Federation because many leaders of the executive
and legislative branches in the subjects of the Russian Federation and
many deputies of the State Duma, undoubtedly, extensively used regional
government-owned TV and radio companies in their work. Bodies of
the executive branch used to invest funds in those companies while under
the legislation deputies of the State Duma had the right to use a certain
amount of airtime every month to communicate with their voters. We
have already felt their concern.
For example, we have already received a deputy’s query
from the State Duma: it is from the chair of the Committee for the Mass
Media, Deputy Finko, addressed to the government. That is why, undoubtedly,
painstaking work is ahead with the subjects of the Russian Federation,
with governments, and problems need to be addressed in a differentiated
way, individually with every region, because problems differ from one region
to the next, they are of different degrees of complexity.
Financing regional TV companies
The main thing that needs to be agreed upon is the
question of broadcasting schedules and procedures for financing regional
TV companies which, under the decree, become subsidiaries of the unitary
government-owned enterprise, the All-Russia Government TV and Radio Company.
We have had a meeting with the chair of the Federation Council, Yegor Semyonovich
Stroyev, and agreed that in the near future on our initiative parliamentary
hearings will be held on the implementation of the decree of the president,
and we hope that in the course of these parliamentary hearings we will
start work to clarify our relations with the regions.
Apart from that, undoubtedly, there is one more difficulty
involved in the implementation of the decree, and we are to do this work
in the remaining month and a half. This is the separation, so to
speak, of the operations of the FSTR and the VGTRK. Under the decree,
some of the functions of the FSTR and the State Committee for Communications
are to be handed over to the VGTRK, and we are drafting a new charter of
the VGTRK, on the one hand, while on the other, a new status of the FSTR
is being drawn up. There is the inevitable question of whether the
service is not going to be left out on a limb and what functions it will
keep.
Future role of FSTR
From our point of view, the situation is far from
that: we are trying to reinforce its role and functions. Undoubtedly,
government must keep control of a number of areas of activity, which will
be done through the FSTR. These areas include, primarily, licensing,
which is a huge problem. We have not yet been able to put together
a clear-cut, lucid and transparent structure of licensing that would be
understandable to all, especially to small broadcasters. These functions
have been dispersed between the FSTR, the State Communications Committee
and the subjects of the Russian Federation, and now we are working to develop
such a structure.
Apart from that, there are questions of financing.
Undoubtedly, no one is going to revise the Law on the 1998 State Budget,
in particular, as regards an increase in financing the mass media, including
the VGTRK, or revise financing procedures for 1998 or subsequent years.
At least, this is our thinking at this point. Budget appropriations
will be directed to the FSTR, after which—and mechanisms are to be developed
for that—money will either be transferred to the VGTRK or broken down into
large cash flows directed to the regional TV companies, the Culture Channel
[Kultura TV], radio and so on. I repeat, this is the question of
concrete mechanisms.
Moreover, government agencies will retain control over
personnel policy, and we will formalize that in documents. Today
the managers of regional TV and radio companies have been appointed by
the order of the head of the FSTR with oral or written consent of the top
executive body of the subject of the Russian Federation. It is understood
that in implementing the presidential decree a triangle of approvals of
candidates for head of a regional TV and radio company will be formed.
On the one hand, it will be the state as represented by the FSTR, on the
other hand, the chief executive of the subject of the Russian Federation—and
I stress the chief of the executive because in many regions we find that
the positions of the governor, the speaker of the local legislature and
often the presidential representative are different and it is difficult
to work. It is necessary that the document should specify the mechanism—and
the third side of the triangle is of course the leadership of the VGTRK.
He will work in a team and so must form a mandatory side of the triangle.
Besides, the functions of the FSTR will still include
such important problems as certification and standardization, quality of
signal control—and we are planning to strengthen that side of our work.
We propose to pay more attention to conceptual work such as working out
the rules of the game both in providing air time and in advertising.
We expect to deal with what the state considers to be socially significant
project. We also hope to dramatically improve the work to ensure
compliance with the laws on copyright and intellectual property.
This is currently a trendy theme and many ministries and agencies are taking
it up.
The FSTR will also address these issues. And of
course the problem of education, of personnel training and the creation
of national schools for the training of personnel is very important and
we hope that it will be addressed. And that brings me to the end
of my introductory remarks.
Appointing new VGTRK chairman
[Moderator] Considering the subject of the
press conference I hope the printed media will not hold it against me if
I give preference to the representatives of the electronic media today.
[Q] Russian TV News: Perhaps it is premature to
ask you about personnel matters, but when can we expect a new chairman
of the VGTRK to be appointed and how will the powers be divided between
the head of the hold and the head of the TV and radio company? Or
will it be one and the same person?
[Seslavinsky] The problem of appointing the chairman
of VGTRK is to be solved by the chairman of the government in consultation
with the president. This is such an important question nationally
that only the top leaders can have the final say. Consultations have
been under way throughout the past two weeks. The names of the candidates
have been discussed in the press and I hope that before this week is out
more will be known about the issue. Perhaps the chairman will be
appointed or perhaps an interim figure. The head of VGTRK will be
the head of the holding. The question as to whether he will simultaneously
be the head of the Russian TV channel is to be debated and it will be resolved
in the Charter of the VGTRK.
[Q] How will you ward off the threat of monopolism
in the creation of VGTRK holding? And can you comment on the situation
involving abuses in the distribution of radio frequencies?
[Seslavinsky] You mean the current abuses?
As for overcoming monopoly we do not visualize the creation of a monster
that will take control of all the flow of information, establish a monopoly
on significant events and use them at its discretion. To me the problem
of VGTRK monopoly is no more important than the problem of the monopoly
of ORT [Russain Public TV] and NTV [Independent Television]. All
holdings try in various ways to expand their “living space.” They
try to set up a strong correspondent network in the regions, forge relationships
with other TV and radio companies, they seek to create powerful information
services. They seek to plan technical and technological developments,
retrofit their plant and in this respect the areas of activity of the new
state media holding company will be the same as those of all the other
existing media holding companies. The question of abuses in the issue
of licences is not one that is to be commented on today.
Federal News Service, Moscow, May 20, 1998
VII. RIA agency becomes subsidiary of VGTRK.
The Russian Federation’s government passed a
resolution dealing with the Russian Information Agency Novosti here the
other day. Following below is the text of that document, which was
received from the cabinet’s administration:
Aiming to establish a common information-and-technological
pool of state-run electronic mass-media bodies, the Russian Federation’s
government hereby resolves:
1. To rename the state-run enterprise Russian Information
Agency Novosti as the federal state-run unitarian enterprise Russian Information
Agency Vesti (hereinafter referred to as RIA Vesti), which shall be based
on the economic-competence right, and to impart the status of a daughter
company of the All-Russian State-Run Television and Radio Broadcasting
Company (hereinafter referred to as VGTRK) to it.
2. To relieve Vladimir Nikolayevich Markov of his duties
as board chairman of the Russian Information Agency Novosti in connection
with his transfer to another position.
3. To appoint Eduard Raisovich Gindileyev to the post
of board chairman of the Russian Information Agency Vesti.
4. Stipulating that the VGTRK shall exercise its rights
as RIA Vesti founder with due account taken of the appropriate specifics
being stipulated by this resolution.
5. Stipulating that the board chairman of RIA Vesti
and his deputies shall be appointed and relieved of their duties by agreement
with the Russian Federation’s government.
6. Stipulating that the board chairman of RIA Vesti
shall also serve as first deputy VGTRK chairman by virtue of his position.
7. Stipulating that the endorsement of the RIA Vesti
regulations, as well as the introduction of the relevant amendments and
additions into this document, shall be conducted by the VGTRK by agreement
with the Russian Federation’s government.
8. The All-Russian State-Run Television and Radio Broadcasting
Company shall do the following within a one-month period: it shall endorse
the RIA Vesti regulations in line with the established procedure; it shall
resolve the question of RIA Vesti top executives in line with this resolution;
acting together with RIA Vesti, it shall implement the required organizational
procedures as regards the establishment of a common information-and-technological
pool, submitting the appropriate proposals (as regards the procedure for
funding such a pool) to the Russian Federation’s government.
9. The following documentary provisions shall hereby
be declared null and void: pp. 1-2 of the Russian Federation government’s
resolution No 922 “Questions Pertaining to the Russian Information Agency
Novosti” dated 16th September 1993 (Code of Acts of the Russian Federation’s
President and Government, 1993, No 38, page 3,577); p 1 of the Russian
Federation government’s resolution No 429 “On Endorsing the Regulations
of the Russian Information Agency Novosti” dated 3rd May 1994 (Code of
the Russian Federation’s Legislation No 3, page 218).
[Signed] Chairman of the Russian Federation’s government Sergey
Kiriyenko.
RIA news agency, Moscow, May 19, 1998
VIII. Paper sees spate of TV, media changes as
“political.”
[On 18th May] Prime Minister Sergey Kiriyenko
signed a decree placing RIA Novosti under the control of a holding company
created by the government on the basis of VGTRK [All-Russia State Television
and Radio Company]. Eduard Gindileyev has been appointed chairman
of the RIA Novosti board (it is now called [RIA] Vesti) and retains his
post as first deputy chairman of VGTRK. [On 15th May, VGTRK head]
Nikolay Svanidze submitted his resignation to Boris Yeltsin.
Changes are also under way at ORT [Russian Public Television]:
Sergey Dorenko will no longer appear on channel one. He has accepted
the offer of the ORT leadership and has become the channel’s news producer.
The analysis programme “Vremya with Sergey Dorenko” has been taken off
the air. Here is a commentary by Viktoriya Arutyunova:
Each of these events certainly deserves separate
examination. Nevertheless, there is something extremely important that
unites them. The reason for all the changes under way at the rival channels
is the Russian president’s instructions to the government to create a media
holding company based on VGTRK. It is not for nothing that a revival
of news broadcasting on ORT has been begun simultaneously with the merger
between a major Russian news agency and what promises to become the state’s
biggest media holding company. The merger between RIA Novosti and
VGTRK and the reinforcement of ORT “news” with Sergey Dorenko can be said
to be political events.
VGTRK now has at its disposal a major state PR agency
with its own production structure (RIA-TV), its own publishing house, photographic
archive, and information service (a recent example of Novosti’s PR work
is the redenomination campaign, which Video International conducted on
commission from the state while using the potential of RIA-TV). By
transferring RIA Novosti to the VGTRK holding company the state also relieved
itself of the expense of paying for the 44,000 square metres of property
abroad leased by the news agency for its staffers: RIA Novosti foreign
bureaus will remain only where VGTRK has no bureaus.
The appointment of Sergey Dorenko as ORT producer of
news programming should strengthen channel one’s position in the news sphere,
which had weakened. This is of considerable importance to ORT ahead
of possible obstruction by the state with respect to channels that are
“not its own” (there has been constant talk of this possibility since the
publication of the presidential edict “On Improving the Work of the State
Electronic Mass Media”). It is entirely logical to suppose that the
disappearance of the analytical “Vremya With Dorenko” from the ORT network
could “reassure” the government, which has long been unhappy with Sergey
Dorenko’s denunciatory zeal, and reconcile the state to the fact of the
existence of nonstate television in Russia.
Eduard Gindileyev, first deputy chairman of Russian
Television—a man who has worked both for the “oligarchical” Yukos and for
state television—has been appointed chairman of the board of the renamed
RIA Novosti, which is now attached to VGTRK. After his appointment Gindileyev
said: “The reform of the VGTRK news service has been completed.”
However, the ORT leadership stated that structural and
creative changes in the channel’s “news” programming “are only beginning”
with Sergey Dorenko’s appointment as producer for news programming (Vsevolod
Vilchek, director of the channel one sociological research directorate,
will be appointed its head within the next few days).
The allocation of positions that has unexpectedly emerged—defensive
in the case of channel one (the former leader) and offensive in the case
of channel two—indicates that the fight for the number one spot in the
Russian television market still has a long way to go. Especially
as, according to rumours, the edict on mandatory relicensing of all channels
which Boris Nemtsov was lobbying for has now been “frozen” by Sergey Kiriyenko.
As for Svanidze’s resignation, at present this is no more than his wish.
The resignation has still not been accepted by the president, and there
is a great likelihood that it will not be.
‘Kommersant Daily,’ Moscow, May 19, 1998
IX. Resources for state support of media “limited”—minister.
Deputy Prime Minister Oleg Sysuyev on [19th May]
introduced to the collegium of the Russian news agency RIA Vesti its new
chairman of the board of governors, Eduard Gindileyev.
Sysuyev, in charge of mass media in the government,
cited a recent presidential decree which mandated an integral technological
complex of electronic mass media.
The government on [18th May] issued a decree on the
setting up of a state-run unitary agency to be called RIA Vesti, a subsidiary
of the Russian State Television and Radio Company, VGTRK. The governmental
decree dismissed the director of the RIA Novosti news agency, Vladimir
Markov, and appointed Gindileyev as chairman of the board of governors.
“With the creation of the single information complex
with the new name, RIA Vesti will retain, I hope, the good old traditions
and will take a worthy place in the information market,” Sysuyev said presenting
Gindileyev.
He said “resources of the state for support of mass
media are rather limited, and the creation of this holding will help the
mass media work successfully, do business well and be useful to the state,”
Sysuyev said. He said Gindileyev remains VGTRK’s first deputy chairman
for the benefit of the new holding’s status.
The setting up of the media holding at the base of VGTRK
ushers in new economic relations within the television and radio company,
opening a way to a more efficient use of the state-owned property in its
hands and effective commercial projects, Sysuyev said at a press conference.
He emphasized that Russia’s strained budget leaves “rather
limited” resources for the state’s support of media. “Our main goal
in creating this holding is to set transparent rules of the game for state-owned
mass media and help them act successfully in the conditions of our complicated
market,” Sysuyev said, adding that “the rescue of the drowning is the work
of the hands of the drowning themselves.”
Sysuyev said the state “must not govern the mass media.”
“Nor should superprofit be expected from their activity,” he said.
As for all-pervading advertisement on state-owned television,
he said, “television, including state-owned one, will act in the world
as it is, in which the influence of advertisement is strong.” However,
“we shall take every measure to make it so that there is not advertisement
alone on television,” Sysuyev said, without elaborating.
ITAR-TASS news agency (World Service), Moscow, May 19, 1998
X. Holding company to become powerful monopoly—paper.
On [8th May], Boris Yeltsin signed the edict “On
Improving the Work of the State Electronic Mass Media,” which actually
paves the way for the formation of a state media holding company based
on the All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company [VGTRK].
On the same day, Prime Minister Sergey Kiriyenko signed a directive dismissing
Valentin Lazutkin, the patriarch of Russian television, from the post of
chairman of the Federal Television and Radio Broadcasting Service and replacing
him with 34-year-old State Duma Deputy Mikhail Seslavinskiy, who had until
then been dealing with cultural issues. All these and other events
that occurred last month point to the beginning of a new, and evidently
the last, redistribution of state property in the mass media sphere before
the 1999-2000 elections.
Even though the text of the presidential edict is extensive,
it nevertheless makes it possible to determine that, from now on, the VGTRK
will become a kind of state-owned monster whose functions comprise not
only those of a broadcasting company but also, in fact, of a sectoral ministry
exercising control over the electronic mass media market. The VGTRK
will now be in charge not only of all the 113 existing regional television
and radio broadcasting state companies but also, and this is the most important
point, television and radio broadcasting centres, which the people have
dubbed simply “towers” [Russian: vyshki] and which exist in literally every
federation component and, being federal property, were hitherto under the
jurisdiction of the State Committee for Communications and Information
Technology. It is well known that not only state broadcasting companies
but also private ones have been resorting to their services, because so
far there is no alternative to the federal air-cable system for signal
transmission. The erection of a private television tower would be
too expensive a luxury.
In other words, after it gets control of nearly everything
that falls, one way or another, into the category of “federal property”
in the sphere of television and radio broadcasting, the VGTRK is actually
becoming the sole and most powerful monopolist in the electronic media
market. “The only production and technology complex of state electronic
mass media” (in other words the VGTRK) will now be able to impose on private
companies its own terms for the transmission of their signals. It
is natural to assume that the question of the VGTRK granting its direct
rivals, ORT [Russian Public Television] and NTV [Independent Television],
preferential tariffs for communication services which these companies have
so far been successfully using, will soon have to be tackled. And
the old question, which became political a long time ago, of the millions
[of roubles] owed to the communications industry will be resolved in a
most simple way. The VGTRK will now be functioning as a “closed circle”
enterprise: it will broadcast its own material and will pay itself for
the use of airtime.
It is not so difficult to explain this not-very hasty
(there has been talk about the creation of a media holding company on the
basis of the VGTRK for nearly a year) but very incomprehensible (interpretations
of the text of the edict by various departments [on 12th May] were incredibly
contradictory, and Nikolay Svanidze even proposed that we call back in
a few days’ time “when at least something will be clarified” ) decision
adopted by the executive branch.
Very little time remains now before the elections scheduled
in 1999-2000. Moreover, the presidential election is expected to
be far from simple. Every one of the well known media empires has
long been playing its own game. It is becoming increasingly difficult
for the authorities to reach some agreement with them. Krasnoyarsk
is an example. The ORT channel, which is half-owned by the state
but is controlled by Boris Berezovskiy, allows itself to demonstratively
run counter to the president’s line by openly supporting General Lebed.
At the same time, whenever something serious happens in the country (the
latest example being the dismissal of the old and the appointment of the
new cabinet of ministers), the 100-per cent state-owned RTR [Russian Television
and Radio] channel stands out with its particularly incomprehensible stance.
It is clear that the party of power needs right now
a solid information base to be able to protect itself from similar excesses
during the future elections and also to tackle political tasks. The
“single complex of state electronic mass media,” created on the basis of
the VGTRK and actually becoming the first state media holding company in
Russia’s post-Soviet history, is evidently intended to provide this base.
Besides, as a number of informed observers note, the process of creating
a state holding company may not be confined to just transferring local
television and radio broadcasting companies and relay centres to this complex.
Incorporation of other state-owned electronic, and not
necessarily electronic, mass media into this VGTRK holding company is perfectly
possible at the next stage. According to ‘Russkiy Telegraf’s information,
the most diverse scenarios for determining the future fate of other federal
mass media are being actively discussed in power structures and, incidentally,
within the television and radio broadcasting company itself. This
concerns, in particular, the RIA-Novosti and ITAR-TASS news agencies and
‘Rossiyskaya Gazeta.’ The reformers’ actions are understandable.
Once they decide to play a game, they want to play it big. Once they
decide to resolve a problem, they want to do this in one go. But
this is already a different story.
“All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company becomes
media holding company. This is the president’s wish,” ‘Russkiy Telegraf,’
Moscow, May 13, 1998
XI. State holding company to benefit VGTRK—paper.
On 8th May Boris Yeltsin signed the edict “On
Improving the Work of the State Electronic Mass Media.” Under the
edict, the state is setting up its own “non-oligarchic” media holding company
on the basis of the All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting
Company [VGTRK]. It will be able to influence the work of ORT [Russian
Public Television] and NTV [Independent Television]. On the same
day Boris Yeltsin dismissed Valentin Lazutkin from the post of leader of
the Federal Service for Television and Radio Broadcasting [FSTR].
Viktoriya Arutyunova has the details:
Changes had long been expected at the VGTRK.
The only argument was over the essence of the transformations. VGTRK
Chairman Nikolay Svanidze was “removed” roughly once a month. Assumptions
were advanced about the future of sums of money and precious metals which,
if the Comptroller’s Office is to be believed, had disappeared in an unknown
direction. Guesses were made as to just what the outcome would be
of the struggle being waged by the State Committee for Communications and
Information Technology and the FSTR against a persistent defaulter (the
VGTRK). The television and radio company’s imminent and inevitable
flotation was discussed.
But the company’s leadership remained suspiciously calm.
Mikhail Lesin, Svanidze’s first deputy, reminded people in every interview:
“I will be the first to tender my resignation if the company is floated.”
Admittedly, few people heeded Lesin’s assurances. But they were mistaken.
At the State Duma’s 17th April session Sergey Kiriyenko
voiced readiness to “learn from the commercial leaders of media holding
companies” how to manage property. At that time ‘Kommersant-Daily’
assumed that the future prime minister had not said this by accident because
a restructuring of the VGTRK was being prepared. Two weeks later
the president signed Edict No. 511.
Under the edict the state, just like “commercial leaders,”
embarks on “the formation of a unified production and technological complex
based on the VGTRK.” The point is simple. Two years before
the presidential election and one year before the parliamentary elections
the state has decided to set up its own media holding company, to whose
jurisdiction (or, more accurately, subordination) all state television
and radio broadcasting companies “whose property is in federal ownership”
pass.
Among these companies mention should undoubtedly be
made not only of the VGTRK’s regional offices. ORT and NTV channels
which use “federal property”—the broadcasting potential of the Ostankino
Television Technical Centre—will come under the influence of the holding
company. By transferring Ostankino to the control of the state holding
company (virtually the VGTRK), the state becomes the possessor not just
of an instrument of political influence, which is what any television channel
is, but also of a mechanism for combating rivals. The VGTRK’s victory
is in large measure a victory for Anatoliy Chubays. This circumstance
could seriously mar the joy of the “oligarchs” at possessing their own
media holding companies.
As for the VGTRK, the edict, which is designed to “develop
the national information area,” gives it considerable advantages too.
For example, the possibility of managing budget funds independently, bypassing
an “intermediary” (prior to the edict this was the FSTR). Admittedly,
Mikhail Seslavinskiy, a State Duma deputy for Russia Is Our Home, who replaced
Lazutkin as chief or leader of the still-independent FSTR (despite assumptions
about its abolition), maintains that everything has remained as it was.
But it seems that the FSTR will now only monitor, and not manage, particularly
as Sergey Kiriyenko is said to have long-standing scores to settle with
this structure. It seems that back in Nizhniy Novgorod Kiriyenko
tried to obtain a television broadcasting licence. The sum quoted
by the FSTR—5m dollars—embarrassed the then head of the Garantiya Bank,
who was prepared to pay no more than 500,000 dollars. Kiriyenko abandoned
the idea of becoming a television proprietor but nursed a grievance against
the FSTR. It may be that this affair explains Lazutkin’s dismissal.
A great deal could change during the two months that
Boris Yeltsin has given the government to form the state media holding
company. After all, no one thought on 7th May that the future work
of ORT and NTV would depend on the VGTRK’s fate. But then, on 8th
May, it was learnt that all resources would be thrown into setting up the
state media holding company—that the government had to “determine the procedure
for financing the unified production and technological complex.”
That is, matters seem to have reached the point where the state will agree
to revise the VGTRK budget for 1998, which it approved itself. This
means that the underfunding of the Russian Television and Radio state channel
was occasioned not so much by the lack of money in the coffers as by the
lack of the idea of a state media holding company.
“Two on one channel. ORT and NTV now depend on VGTRK,” ‘Kommersant
Daily,’ Moscow, May 12, 1998
XII. Yeltsin decree on state-owned broadcasters.
President Boris Yeltsin has signed a decree on improving
the work of state-run electronic mass media, a RIA Novosti correspondent
was told in the presidential press service [on 8th May]. The decree
is aimed at the development of countrywide information space and improvement
of the work of state-owned electronic mass media.
The president has instructed the Russian government
to ensure this year the formation of a single complex of such media on
the basis of the All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company
[VGTRK], state television and radio broadcasting companies whose property
is federally owned, and also federal state enterprises that produce, disseminate
and relay state television and radio programmes.
The Russian government has been given two months to
approve in agreement with the presidential administration a charter of
the federal state unitary enterprise, the VGTRK, providing in it mechanisms
for state control over the activity of the company and its subsidiaries.
The government has also been directed, in agreement with the presidential
administration, to draw up a list of to-be-transformed and to-be-wound-up
state television and radio broadcasting companies whose property is federally
owned.
RIA news agency, Moscow, May 8, 1998
XIII. Attempts to clarify media ownership premature—paper.
Attempts by the Russian parliament to apply limitations
on the ownership of mass media are “premature” and doomed to fail, according
to an article in the Russian newspaper ‘Moskovskiye Novosti.’ The
author, Yelena Rykovtseva, argues that there is currently insufficient
transparency about the real ownership of the media conglomerates, which
can be concealed by a network of holding companies, and concludes: “In
order to dismantle empires, it is necessary for them first to organize
and become visible.” The following are excerpts from the article
headlined “One should not possess too many media organizations: the Duma
is considering: How can the process of media monopolization be stopped?”:
The Duma is trying to keep pace with life.
The life of the mass media has changed, while the laws have remained the
same. At present, the mass media are working for a boss—for his business
and political needs. This is unusual. It needs adjustment,
in the Duma deputies’ view. First, the process of media monopolization
should be halted: one should not possess too many media organizations.
Appropriate amendments are being introduced to the law “on mass media.”
For example, if you obtain a broadcasting licence, then in addition you
can own a daily newspaper in “your” broadcasting area—but only one newspaper.
In principle, it is permitted to have two broadcasting licences, but only
if the broadcasting areas of the two programmes do not overlap—at least,
not more than a 30-per cent overlap. In practice this means
that one of the Russian media moguls—the state—will be left with only the
Russian State TV and Radio Company [VGTRK] and ‘Rossiyskaya Gazeta.’
While the Kultura channel, Mayak, ‘Rossiyskiye Vesti’ and other media organizations
will be confiscated.
The state will suffer more than other owners.
Because compared with the state, other owners are not making public the
entire list of their mass media organizations. The Duma deputies
are aware of this and are trying to apply legislative means to make mass
media owners “transparent” in order for everybody to understand.
The Duma deputies will fail. At least today, when
there are no instruments for investigating the real situation in the mass
media. An analytical memorandum was distributed during parliamentary
hearings on the issue of monopolies that was prepared by the Committee
on Information Policy. The author of the memorandum has classified
Moscow mass media organizations by owner. He describes [Boris] Berezovskiy’s
empire (ORT, a portion of TV-6, ‘Novye Izvestiya,’ ‘Nezavisimaya Gazeta’
and ‘Ogonek’) and [Gazprom chairman Rem] Vyakhirev and [ex-Prime Minister
Viktor] Chernomyrdin’s domain (‘ Trud,’ ‘Rabochaya Tribuna,’ part of NTV).
Other media emperors, if they choose to do so, can disavow
ownership of their “alleged” properties. For example, [Moscow mayor
Yuriy] Luzhkov’s list contains not only TV-Centre, Ren-TV, ‘Vechernyaya
Moskva’ and other mass media organizations in which the city administration
officially participates, but also the newspapers ‘Metro’ and ‘Rossiya’
that are formally property of the Metropolis publishing house. It
would be correct to say on the common level: Luzhkov stands behind Metropolis,
although the publishing house is not legally connected with the government
of Moscow.
Evropa Plyus has been classified as belonging to Oneksimbank
President Vladimir Potanin. In fact (refer to ‘Moskovskiye Novosti’
No 14), the radio station has sold a substantial number of its shares;
not to the bank, but to a structure called Sputnik. This structure
is related to the financial company Renessans that is a part of the Oneksimbank
group, although there is no direct connection between Evropa and Oneksimbank.
But the name of media mogul Sergey Lisovskiy is absent
from the list of “emperors.” I do not know why. Maybe because
the Committee on Information Policy and Lisovskiy are buddies (the recent
parliamentary hearing on ethics and morals were conducted not only at the
initiative but also with the physical presence of Lisovskiy on the presidium!).
Maybe because to the general public he is not a media mogul, “just” the
owner of an advertising agency. In fact, Lisovskiy controls three
“decimetre” [UHF] channels: Mus TV, STS and channel 31. It is possible
that Lisovskiy will soon share channel 31 with Vladimir Gusinskiy.
Thus, the TNT company that is part of Gusinskiy’s empire will instantly
be affiliated with channel 31. Maybe the awaited (by Gusinskiy) transaction
will not materialize. Lisovskiy might combine all his three channels
into one, thus posing the strongest competition to the “decimetre” channels
of Gusinskiy. Irrespective of the way the channels are rearranged,
one thing is for sure: the names of the real owners will not be on the
final documents. . . .
Therefore, since it is impossible to identify a mass
media owner and make him “transparent,” all the other proposals of the
parliamentarians do not make sense. If the banker Ivanov substitutes
himself for the publishing house Petrov and buys shares in a media organization
on behalf of the publishing house, it will not be possible to apply to
Ivanov “special antimonopoly measures preventing the concentration of mass
media.” Since the banker—the real buyer of the media organization—is
on paper no longer a banker but rather a “publishing house,” this means
it is impossible to apply “limitations on ownership of mass media for those
who are already monopolists in other, noninformation spheres.” Moreover,
it would be unrealistic to “introduce an obligatory collective agreement
between the editorial board and the media owner that curtails the owner’s
rights to influence editorial activities.” With whom should such
an agreement be concluded? With a dummy Sidorov?
I believe it is premature to fight against media monopolization
in our country. In order to dismantle empires, it is necessary for
them first to organize and become visible. If they do not comply,
the real owners should be “identified” by available means. (As proposed
by the dean of the journalism department of Moscow State University, Yasen
Zasurskiy, “money should be spent on special research in order to collect
data on circulation, the owners and the real situation.”). If such
data is collected and made public, then it will become possible to apply
the law “on protection of consumers’ rights” in regard to the mass media
(as soon as they are a commodity!)
‘Moskovskiye Novosti,’ Moscow, May 7, 1998
I. Russia TV should be broad church, says
new chief.
Mikhail Shvydkoy, who has recently been appointed
head of the All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company
(VGTRK), has said that, as a state channel, Russia TV “has to reflect the
interests of the president and the government, on the one hand, and the
interests of all taxpayers, on the other.” He said that the channel
will express the views of the president and the government without distortion.
Russia TV will continue to be run as a commercial channel until a time
when it is entirely financed by the budget. The following are excerpts
from Aleksey Venediktov’s interview with Mikhail Shvydkoy on Russian Ekho
Moskvy radio:
[Interviewer] Mikhail Yefimovich, [on 28th
May] you were introduced to the president as head of the VGTRK [All-Russian
State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company]. What kind of advice
did the president give you?
[Shvydkoy] Well, the president first introduced
me to my colleagues, and the conversation which then took place between
Boris Nikolayevich [Yeltsin] and my television colleagues may perhaps be
interpreted as his advice, because the president was quite articulate in
expressing his position on television-related matters. Whereas my
colleagues [from commercial channels] could take Yeltsin’s words as a mere
recommendation—the president at one point corrected himself and said: I
would like to ask you—for the state channel his words had much more straightforward
connotations. . . .
[Q] What is the difference between state television
channels and commercial and public television channels in terms of their
news coverage? The state channel seems simply to be forced to impose
some kind of self-censorship, to censor everything that goes against state
interests. The state channel’s coverage of the Chechen war may serve
as a good example.
[A] Yes, I admit, this is a very delicate situation.
On the one hand, we are a progovernment and propresidential channel, but,
on the other, we have to reflect the interests of all taxpayers.
And some of our taxpayers voted for the opposition, some for third forces
and so on. I believe, therefore, that a state channel should reflect
various points of view, but we have to make sure that we do not distort
the position of the president and the government. In other words,
there should be a channel on which the president and the government can
express their point of view without distortion or commentary. I certainly
do not want to cast aspersions on my colleagues from NTV [Independent Television]
or from Russian Public TV [ORT]—they know what serious journalism means—but
we give the government the opportunity to go on air without any commentaries.
[Q] Does this mean that “Zerkalo” presenter Nikolay
Svanidze [former head of Russia TV channel] will not be allowed to comment
on any pronouncements by the Russian president or the prime minister?
[A] No, absolutely not. Nikolay Karlovich
Svanidze—who I believe is one of the most serious political analysts—will
continue presenting the “Zerkalo” programme and will continue saying there
whatever he finds appropriate to say.
In this I see one of the strengths of the state channel.
I repeat, we represent different points of view and provide whatever comments
we want, but direct speech will be given without any censorship or cutting,
which sometimes takes place on other channels. I do not want to say
anything bad about my colleagues, but sometimes they show a speech by a
minister, or by our prime minister, who, thank God, speaks beautifully
and clearly, and they put it together in such a way that the minister comes
across as a complete idiot. This is a common journalistic trick,
but perhaps not for our channel.
[Q] And who could a state channel treat as idiots?
Opposition leaders?
[A] No way, no way. I believe that no-one
should be treated as an idiot apart from genuine idiots. Our position
is quite simple—common sense and Russia’s interests. There are interests
of Russia which we all, as its citizens, should defend and reflect.
And, believe me, the heads of all television channels agree on this.
[Q] The state channel will inevitably have some
form of censorship. Vladimir Gusinskiy, the head of the Most-Media
holding [which has a majority stake in NTV], said today that there was
censorship on NTV. There will be no propaganda of nationalism, fascism
or communism. Such was an internal decision of the channel.
What kind of censorship is the VGTRK going to have?
[A] I would agree with Vladimir Aleksandrovich
Gusinskiy. I think that the state channel should not show anything
that could incite national hatred, there should be no propaganda of either
ultraleft or ultraright views. Sometimes this happens unintentionally.
Thus, I think that by showing supporters of [Russian ultranationalist figure
Aleksandr] Barkashov perhaps too often, in a way we will be giving them
publicity. Strong guys with tidy haircuts and so on. I don’t
think we will have anything ultra. We will strive to promote common
sense. I believe—and Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin said so himself today—that
he takes criticism quite well. Our main difficulty is that, as a
state channel, we have to reflect the interests of the president and the
government, on the one hand, and the interests of the taxpayers, on the
other. To find a compromise here is an art, or rather professionalism,
which our company’s staff can perform.
[Q] And now our last topic. Television
is a commercial enterprise these days, and this has repeatedly been stated
by the NTV boss and by the heads of other commercial channels. Where
does the VGTRK stand in this respect? Should it try to make profit,
or should it rely entirely on taxpayers’ money?
[A] You know, two points of view are possible here.
Russia TV currently lives according to the same rules of the game that
both commercial and public channels follow. We have the same desire
to get larger numbers of expensive adverts. Until state television
is entirely financed by the budget, we will have to run our channel as
a commercial venture. However, any joint-stock or closed company
exists to make profit. The state channel is not interested in making
profit for profit’s sake. Our profits go to support the Kultura channel,
for example. And in the holding that we are trying to create we will
have both profitable and unprofitable ventures. . . .
[Q] And my last question. Two days ago the
president publicly expressed his dissatisfaction with the way the miners’
strikes were covered by all the channels. Did the president reiterate
his reaction today?
[A] You know, the very word “dissatisfaction” cannot
be applied to describe today’s meeting. It was a very friendly occasion
at which different points of view were aired. He emphasized that
the executive authorities were not going to take television under their
command. Yes, he did say that he found that television had gone over
the top when covering the strikes. To that my colleagues [ORT head]
Kseniya Ponomareva and [NTV head] Oleg Dobrodeyev replied that the government
came out of their reports in a very favourable light—the overdramatization
of the first days of the strikes actually made it more apparent that the
new government was capable of resolving critical situations.
[Q] Did the president agree with this?
[A] To an extent. I would like to add that
the format of today’s meeting was very important. We had a healthy
conversation between people with the same concerns. Of course, we
have two years left until the next presidential election and one year until
the next parliamentary elections, but it is already clear that the dialogue
between the heads of our major television channels and the authorities
has entered a new stage, and it should yield positive results. This
is important not only for our national television channels, but for the
country as a whole. Television is playing the same role in Russia
at the moment as it used to do in the United States in the 1960s and early
1970s. . . .
[In an interview on 29th May for Russia TV, Mikhail
Shvydkoy said 17 new programmes would be launched in the channel’s schedules
soon, while some existing programmes would be abolished.]
Ekho Moskvy radio, Moscow, May 28, 1998
II. Former VGTRK head Svanidze to continue “struggle”
on state TV.
Excerpts from interview with Nikolay Svanidze,
former chairman of the All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting
Company (VGTRK), by Viktoriya Arutyunova; published by the Russian newspaper
‘Kommersant Daily’; subheadings added editorially:
Nikolay Svanidze, who has returned to the “Zerkalo”
[Mirror] show from his post of chairman of the All-Russia State Television
and Radio Broadcasting Company (VGTRK), headed the Russia TV channel for
15 months—taking over right after the 1996 presidential election and leaving
at a time when the VGTRK is being transformed into a state media holding
company. Nikolay Svanidze told Viktoriya Arutyunova the reasons for
his departure.
[Arutyunova] What is your relationship with [new
Russian prime minister] Sergey Kiriyenko?
[Svanidze] We have had a few conversations.
And they were all specific and constructive.
Timing of new state media holding
[Q] Why did the creation of the VGTRK holding
company happen after the new government arrived on the scene?
[A] Before the change of government it was impossible
to set up a holding company. The former government had numerous connections—sometimes
visible, more often not—to the media world. Those connections prevented
any disruption to the existing balance of power, which was very disadvantageous
to the state. The new government decided that there should be a new
balance that was more favourable to the state. I agreed with that.
This, incidentally, applies to your question about my relationship with
Kiriyenko. . . .
VGTRK is now “on the offensive”
[Q] But why do you think that the kind of administrative
and political struggle that went on in the VGTRK will be absent from the
holding company?
[A] We have now made a breakthrough. We have
been very defensive for a year. Without any money, we were a target
if not for information warfare than at least for continual attacks.
Now, I think, the situation has changed somewhat. Yes, it remains
tough, yes it is tense, but we are on the offensive.
[Q] Don’t you think that this offensive could turn
into defence once again? Some well-known major media holding companies
are unlikely to put up with the changes at the VGTRK.
[A] Of course. But I remain part of the team.
My resignation should not be seen as my simply deciding to give up the
struggle. I will be supporting the team that I myself created in
another capacity—as a journalist. I would repeat that I have no reason
to be ashamed of what I accomplished as a boss, but as a journalist I will
nonetheless be stronger.
‘Kommersant Daily,’ Moscow, May 23, 1998
III. VGTRK head wants “partnership” with regional
media.
The state-run electronic mass media can and must
be a match to private or corporative ones in economic and informational
efficiency. Confidence in this was voiced in a talk with the RIA
Novosti correspondent by Mikhail Shvydkoy who was appointed the chairman
of the VGTRK, a new information holding, by the president’s decree on [21st
May].
Several hours after his appointment Mikhail Shvydkoy
refrained from giving “even a most general outline of the big building”
of this state amalgamation which is now being created. “It is a complex
problem. Words may be extremely beautiful but behind them are really
existing people and structures which it is necessary to organize in such
a way that they would work effectively, sensibly and expediently,” the
head of the VGTRK noted.
He emphasized that “today it is impossible to build
a rigid centralized vertical of control in the immense country which Russia
is.” In Mikhail Shvydkoy’s opinion, relations between the federal
and regional TV and radio companies must be those of partnership.
As for the orientation of their activity, it must not be “pro-government
or pro-power.” In their work the state-run mass media “must orient
themselves to common sense.”
It is the VGTRK head’s firm conviction that “there are
certain values which are important to Russia today. They are the
preservation of the state’s integrity and stability, opposition to any
extremism and political radicalism, and the comprehension of the fact that
national security should be preserved in all the spheres, including information.”
In Mikhail Shvydkoy’s view, these are “normal tasks facing any state and
mass media which know what country they live in and love this country.”
“The gist of the matter is not the scale and size of the criticism of the
government or of the presidential structures but what this criticism is
made for,” he emphasized.
RIA news agency, Moscow, May 22, 1998
IV. Kultura TV head to be new head of VGTRK.
Russian President Boris Yeltsin has signed a decree
appointing Mikhail Shvydkoy as the new chairman of the Russian State Television
and Radio Broadcasting Company (VGTRK), replacing Nikolay Svanidze, the
ITAR-TASS news agency reported.
Shvydkoy had been head of the state-owned Kultura TV
channel since August 1997. He is to be replaced by his deputy, Tatiana
Paukhova, the Russian news agency RIA reported.
RIA news agency, Moscow, May 21, 1998
V. VGTRK chief resigns pending formation of holding
company.
Head of the All-Russia State TV and Radio Broadcasting
Company (VGTRK) Nikolay Svanidze has tendered his resignation to Russian
President Boris Yeltsin, an informed Russian government source has told
Interfax. The report was confirmed by Svanidze in an interview with
Interfax on [18th May].
He explained his decision by the desire to let “the
president and the new cabinet make personnel appointments freely, pending
the formation of a state-run media holding.” Svanidze said he has
been an advocate of such a holding. He said he is unwilling to leave
VGTRK for good, and he pledged “to stay with VGTRK in any event.”
He said he preferred not to answer yet who would lead the new holding and
whether he would accept an offer to lead it.
He confirmed the appointment of his first deputy, Eduard
Gindileyev, as chief of the RIA Novosti news agency, adding that Gindileyev
is not going to quit VGTRK. “He is staying, and his powers as VGTRK
first deputy chairman in charge of news broadcasting will expand,” Svanidze
said.
RIA and VGTRK will merge with the new holding, he said,
but he did not name other possible members of the state-owned media holding.
Meanwhile, Interfax has learned from VGTRK sources that, despite his resignation,
Svanidze will continue his weekly TV news and views show “Zerkalo” (Mirror).
Interfax news agency, Moscow, May 18, 1998
I. Duma moots “moral” curbs on broadcasting.
Hearings have been held in the State Duma on “problems
of morality, social harmony and censorship on Russian television channels.”
But speakers endeavoured to avoid the dangerous word “censorship,” substituting
for it phrases like “ensuring psychocultural safety measures.”
The initiator of the Duma hearings on this topical issue,
Sergey Lisovskiy, the leader of RART (the Russian Association of Regional
TV Companies), clearly initiated them in order to forestall the adoption
of the Federal Law “On the Supreme Council for Ethics and Morality in the
Sphere of Cinematography and Television and Radio Broadcasting” in the
form proposed by deputies headed by Stanislav Govorukhin. Lisovskiy’s
fears are entirely understandable, since the draft law describes the council
as a standing state organ whose jurisdiction will include “monitoring the
observance by television and radio broadcasters of the norms of morality
and ethics” ; this provides for the possibility of applying against “immoral”
broadcasters punitive measures up to and including cancellation of their
licences.
For broadcasters the law’s adoption would mean the introduction
of censorship: The legal haziness of the grounds for cancelling licences
gives the Supreme Council’s functionaries the possibility of “putting pressure”
on television companies for “showing a product of a cynical, indecent or
offensive character containing the detailed portrayal of scenes of cruelty,
violence, the commission of crimes” and so forth. These restrictions
would rule out the possibility of transmitting virtually all the biggest
box office motion pictures and even big-name films [Russian: avtorskoye
kino], to say nothing of currently popular television programmes.
Opening the hearings, Oleg Finko, chairman of the Duma
Committee for Information Policy and Communications, remarked that the
draft law sets up a media-punishing organ, and would encourage petty tyranny
against TV on the part of local authorities. Sergey Lisovskiy referred
to his experience of work in advertising, describing the advertising agencies
as the most serious regulator of this market. In order to avoid censorship
and at the same time to guard the TV viewer against the “immorality” of
broadcasters, Lisovskiy called for deputies to rely on self-regulation
by the television community.
Lisovskiy was vehemently opposed by deputies and by
specially invited experts—a children’s psychologist and an academician
of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Yuriy Chernichenko, whose appearance
at the rostrum was unexpected, remarked that, while “everything was hunky
dory” between himself and his wife, he had paid no particular attention
to TV; but now it took the place of “that sort of thing” for him.
His proposals to improve broadcasting amounted to awarding “immoral” channels
not “that rarity, a TEFI” [expansion unknown—presumably an award] but “plastic
members of various sizes,” depending on the degree of immorality.
Forgetting in her excitement to introduce herself, the
children’s psychologist described the rejection of moral prohibitions as
clinical imbecility. She described our country’s TV as violating
“psychocultural safety procedures.” Renata Galtseva, an academician
of the Russian Academy of Sciences, assured deputies that there was no
need to fear censorship, and asked: “Who authorized these TV bosses?!”
No answer was forthcoming. Nor, according to the Duma’s custom, were
specific proposals to improve the draft law. Oleg Finko only proposed
to strengthen the role of the Federal Service for Television and Radio
Broadcasting in resolving vexed television questions, and to give Valentin
Lazutkin, the head of the service, more powers, in particular in the ORT
[Russian Public TV] council.
“Duma opts for safe TV. But TV wants to take its own precautions,”
‘Kommersant Daily,’ Moscow, April 25, 1998
I. New Internet-TV “hybrid” to carry government
news.
In the very near future an entirely new type of
information service is to appear in our country—the All-Russia Technical
Information Channel (OTIK). It is being created on the instructions
of Boris Yeltsin and with direct participation of the Presidential Affairs
Administration. As representatives of the Rostsentrproekt State Unitary
Enterprise, which is putting the idea into practice, said [on 13th May],
the OTIK’s technical groundwork is completely ready, and subscription to
the channel’s services will start in the near future.
The principle of the OTIK’s operation is a hybrid between
the Internet and satellite television. Information collected from
various sources—press services, analysis centres and news agencies—will
be transmitted via geostationary satellite to the user’s computer.
Taking into account the nature of the information being transmitted, the
OTIK’s designers are counting mainly on regional government bodies and
commercial structures. Testing of the system in Saratov and Leningrad
Oblasts has proved the wisdom of this approach.
In principle, the channel will transmit quite a number
of information blocks. Only one of them is free of charge.
It comprises information from state structures such as the presidential
staff, the government apparatus, parliament, the Constitutional Court,
and federal ministries. All other blocks are meant for more specialized
purposes—ranging from legal or financial information to astrological and
meteorological forecasts. As things stand at present, the OTIK is
ready to offer eight different blocks, and the number may be increased
considerably in the future. Every subscriber has the right to select
only the blocks that he needs.
The main purpose of the technical channel is extensive
dissemination of official information in the regions. Moreover the
very concept of the OTIK does not envision any alteration or censorship
[of the information being transmitted]. The satellite used to transmit
the signal covers 76 per cent of Russian territory and a part of Belarus.
In the future an additional satellite will be launched, and then not only
citizens of Russia but also residents of all CIS countries will be able
to use the OTIK’s services.
“Technical information channel ready to start broadcasting. Grandiose
project launched by Russian Federation Presidential Affairs Administration
is hybrid between Internet and satellite television,” ‘Nezavisimaya Gazeta,’
Moscow, May 14, 1998
II. Chechen president decrees control of state
TV-radio.
Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov issued a decree
which brings the state-owned television and radio company out of the Culture,
Information and Communications Ministry.
The decree makes the company a state television and
radio committee to be headed by presidential press secretary Mairbek Vachagayev.
Vachagayev told ITAR-TASS on [25th April] that the decree
aims to bring order to operation of TV and radio companies with heed for
importance of centralized control of state-owned online media and providing
a more objective information to the population.
“The state television and radio company must propagate
the ideology and policy of the state and not individual parties, movements
and organizations,” Vachagayev said.
ITAR-TASS news agency (World Service), Moscow, April 25, 1998
III. Article views growth of regional TV networks.
A festival, including the “All Russia” forum organized
by the Russian Regional Television Companies’ Association (RART), is not
just art. Regional professionals finally had the opportunity to rub
elbows with central television’s unreachable stars, be photographed with
television business moguls and receive from them prizes and gifts, and
in return give out their own gifts—for instance, the latest model Volga,
which “by pure accident” was given to Sergey Lisovskiy, no less.
A festival also is big politics.
And the biggest item in television politics today is
building regional networks. Which is understandable, since the central
channels’ advertising potential is practically used up and the further
development of the television and advertising market overall depends on
what inroads can be made in the regions. Over the next few months
we should expect a very active recarving of this market. In any case,
that is the conclusion one could reach after Sergey Lisovskiy’s speech
at RART’s open meeting on the final day of the festival. In this
speech he de facto announced—in very cautiously couched words, though—the
possibility of a merger of three regional networks this year. Which
precisely, he did not say, only indicating: “rather well known and not
too large.”
Nevertheless, it is natural to assume that the networks
and stations in question are the ones Lisovskiy is directly involved with.
Until now, only one network which Lisovskiy fully owns has been officially
linked with his name. It is MuzTV, which broadcasts in 10 major cities
in Russia. It is also known (although so far it has not been officially
confirmed) that Lisovskiy—or rather, the Premier-Media company founded
with his participation—owns, depending on the information source, between
40 and 45 per cent of the stock of Moscow’ s Channel 31. And the
buzz in television circles has long treated this channel’s joining Premier’s
multimedia empire as a fait accompli.
The second network Lisovskiy might have had in mind
for his new regional project is STS. According to, again, so far
unconfirmed information, Lisovskiy, jointly with Alfa-Group, owns a relatively
small block of stock in the STS network. Until now, it was believed
that this network had only one owner—Story First—an international company
of US origin, which in addition to STS owns radio stations in Moscow and
St Petersburg.
The third network is harder to figure out. But
we can try, if in fact we are talking about an established or even on-its-way-up
network. There are not that many of them, after all. If we
take into account that Vladimir Gusinskiy’s fast growing regional network
TNT, actively supported by the Video International advertising agency,
is unlikely to merge with Lisovskiy’s channels, this leaves only four “unattached”
networks. Channel TV-6, increasingly controlled by Boris Berezovskiy;
REN TV, controlled by Lukoil; AST, controlled by Gazprom; and TV-Tsentr
[TV-Centre], currently in the process of formation and controlled by the
[municipal] government of Moscow. In this case, all sorts of possibilities
cannot be precluded. It all depends on whether the owners of the
networks forecast to become part of the planned triumvirate will find common
interests.
Naturally, each owner has great ambitions with respect
to his own network. Premier SV, in turn, could offer them the advertising
technologies it honed over the time it operated at Channel One and in its
work in the regions. So far, we can only speculate on who will indeed
be the third in this alliance. It is particularly noteworthy, however,
that this year, in addition to Lisovskiy, Yuriy Luzhkov [mayor of Moscow
and driving force behind TV-Centre] and Eduard Sagalayev were among the
festival organizers. And although Sagalayev’ s association NAT is
RART’s old rival, nevertheless, as many observers noted, there is a noticeable
rapprochement between their owners.
“Sergey Lisovskiy wants to catch ‘All Russia’ in his network: the III
regional television companies festival has ended,” ‘Russkiy Telegraf,’
Moscow, Apr 17, 1998