REORGANIZATION OF VGTRK
I. Russia—private TV companies cry foul.
The heads of a number of Russian private TV companies
have protested at the advantages given to the state-controlled Russia TV
by the recent reorganization of the state broadcasting company, VGTRK.
Among other things, VGTRK will enjoy tax breaks and exemptions, and it
will run—and charge for the use of—the regional transmission centres used
by its rivals. Russian commentators see this as part of the run-up
to the presidential election in the year 2000. The following is an
editorial analysis by BBC Monitoring’s Foreign Media Unit:
On 10th August the heads of five national and 20
local TV stations sent an open letter to President Yeltsin protesting at
the “unprecedented advantages” given to Russia TV in the recent reorganization
of the state broadcasting company, the VGTRK.
The letter claimed that the government order establishing
the new status of VGTRK was in violation of the constitution, which forbids
monopolies and unfair competition, and gave VGTRK an unfair advantage of
being able to dictate conditions for the use of regional transmission centres,
which are to be transferred to its control. In addition the company
is to enjoy a number of tax breaks and customs exemptions.
Concern about the new set-up has been expressed
in various quarters in recent months and focuses on two main avenues:
commercial and political. The charter establishing it states that
it is “a state producer and distributor of TV and radio programmes,” yet
at the same time it will control the transmission centres on which its
competitors are almost totally reliant, giving it a virtual monopoly on
signal distribution and the possibility of realizing large profits from
the charges it makes for the use of its facilities.
Moreover, fears have been expressed in the press
about the threat to freedom of information posed by a situation in which
the management of the new unified set-up could quickly pull the plug if
their political masters demanded it.
Some commentators have seen the unfavourable coverage
of the government carried on the private or semi-private channels as one
of the spurs behind the shake-up at VGTRK, whose new boss, Mikhail Shvydkoy,
has announced an overhaul of the company’s programming, with more time
devoted to current affairs. What is undeniable is that all the big
media players have their eyes on the presidential election in June 2000.
The widespread media backing given to Boris Yeltsin
enabled him to defeat his rivals in the 1996 campaign. But the year
2000 could well be different, with influential sections of the media backing
competing candidates. Whether Yeltsin decides to run again or announces
a preferred successor, there are likely to be rivals who either already
have a strong media presence—for example Moscow Mayor Yuriy Luzhkov with
his TV Centre consortium—or powerful backers, such as the retired general
Aleksandr Lebed, now governor of Krasnoyarsk region.
The sudden reappointment of Viktor Chernomyrdin
as prime minister on 23rd August and Yeltsin’s virtual endorsement of him
as his successor may render all these changes irrelevant. However,
despite the proliferation of private media and of means of delivery, if
the going gets tough for Yeltsin or his chosen candidate, there are ways
in which the power of the state over the media can still be exercised.
Here are some questions which may be answered in the coming months:
Will the government do about charges for the use
of transmission centres and auctions of licences for radio and TV frequencies?
Private companies have complained that the proposed structure discourages
against broadcasts to less-populated regions, where expenses are high and
profits low.
How will the marriage of federal and regional broadcasters
turn out? Regional TV stations have been promised a three-and-a-half
hour slot for local programming.
The FSTR (federal licensing and regulatory body)
is currently cracking down on TV copyright violators—for example channels
showing pirated copies of Western films. Might the FSTR, which has
lost some of its functions to the new VGTRK, decide to extend enforcement
of regulations within its remit to national rivals to Russia TV?
Will the government assert itself as the majority
shareholder in Russian Public TV, ORT? Although the state holds 51
per cent of the shares in ORT, the channel with the widest national reach,
the channel is seen as being effectively controlled by business magnate
Boris Berezovskiy, who has in the past expressed his support for Aleksandr
Lebed.
BBC Monitoring Research, August 26, 1998
II. Change of mind on powers of state media holding.
The government decree establishing the restructuring
of the state broadcasting company VGTRK underwent a number of changes before
it was issued at the end of July, according to a report in the Russian
newspaper ‘Nezavisimaya Gazeta’. The state-owned Space Communications
company was removed from its control and plans to give it 860m dollars
in foreign loans were withdrawn. The report says that this followed
lobbying from commercial interests opposed to VGTRK having control over
such a large budget. In addition, the report says, the delay in issuing
the decree enabled regional governors to remove much of the assets of regional
TV and radio companies from their books. The following is the text
of the report, headlined : “Television supermonopolist, the largest
bank and a new oligarch: they were almost spawned by a government
decision derailed by the VGTRK’s rivals and the country’s president” ;
subheadings inserted editorially:
[Prime minister, until 23rd August] Sergey Kiriyenko
almost got himself into a new scandal. The day before [10th
August] the president himself showed his disapproval. In response
to an appeal from the heads of 30 television and radio companies, he said
that he would not permit the creation of privileged conditions for the
mass media, including electronic. This was Boris Yeltsin’s reaction
to the government decree granting the VGTRK [All-Russia State Television
and Radio Company] holding company a score of tax and customs breaks and
securing its monopoly position in the television market. The president
noted that “all mass media enjoy equal rights and opportunities for competition”
and therefore the government “must in its activities be guided by the postulates
fixed in the constitution of the Russian Federation.”
Actually, the scandal started to flare up as far
back as the beginning of July. The new oligarch—the master of Russian
television—was almost born in front of the stunned public. The “
birth certificate” had already been signed by the prime minister himself
when certain external circumstances prevented it from coming out and being
legally put into force.
Two decrees
About a month ago the government signed the decree
“On Forming a Production-Technological Complex of State-Owned Electronic
Mass Media.” Essentially, this was a code of rules for the VGTRK
holding’s operations. This document was not released and did not
acquire the status of a decree. Instead, another decree under the
same title was signed on 27th July. The two documents are substantially
different in several principal points.
By itself, the very fact of the existence of two
“identical” decrees signed by the prime minister is unique and demonstrates
the apparent chaos reigning in the government. But this is not the
point right now. Something else is more important: one only
has to analyse the texts of the two documents to see the enormous amount
of money and property that was at stake, and the influential forces that
were fighting for these pieces of state property.
Giant TV monopoly
From the first decree, it follows that the prime
minister virtually sanctioned the creation of a giant television monopoly.
Moreover, by signing this document, the head of the government laid a foundation
for the subsequent privatization of the VGTRK holding—de facto, if not
de jure. The head of the new empire, possessing a huge property and
colossal political opportunities, would in practice slip out of government
control. Especially considering that it would not be a potential
privatizer paying for control over the VGTRK but, on the contrary, it would
the state’s duty to award it benefits for carrying out the operation.
So, what was the new oligarch to rule? First,
the Russia [RTR] and Kultura television channels and the Russia’s Radio
radio station. Second, the main television and radio broadcasting
centre (the GTsRT, that is, generally speaking, the Ostankino Tower), the
state enterprise Space Communications (that is, all state-owned transmission
satellites), and the main control centre for radio broadcast networks and
mainline radio communications (GTsURS). Third, practically all the
regional radio and television relay centres (RTPTs), radio centres (RTs),
and other organizations that were to be reorganized into VGTRK branches.
Fourth, a huge number of regional state-owned television and radio companies
(GTRK), which were meant to become VGTRK subsidiaries.
It should also be remembered that two months earlier
the RIA Novosti news agency was attached to the VGTRK, changing its name
to RIA Vesti. In addition to all the other things, RIA Vesti’s value
lies in its properties abroad, spread out all over the world.
Budgetary aid
The future oligarch also was to receive substantial
monetary aid from the state. In addition to its continuing budget
financing, next year it was to receive 860m dollars in foreign loans.
Plus, it was to be “ forgiven” all its old debts to the budget and granted
customs and tax breaks.
In addition, the prime minister wished to give the
holding all the profits from leasing out VGTRK property: “Profits
earned as a result of leasing to outside organizations the material-technical
base and other property of enterprises that comprise the integrated production-technological
complex” remains at VGTRK enterprises’ disposal. This proposal created
a blueprint for a future conflict of interest between the VGTRK as a state
holding company and the VGTRK as a purely commercial enterprise.
Why should the company toil to carry out the government’s will in creating
a unified television and radio space when it would be easier to lease out
its information capacities? The holding would have monopoly status
and its private rivals would have to resort to its services. As for
advertising revenue, since neither decree mentions it, one would assume
that it continues to remain at the holding’s disposal. According
to ‘ Nezavisimaya Gazeta’ information, the holding also will collect revenue
from regional advertising as well.
Plans for a bank
Naturally, the VGTRK holding’s monetary flows would
be expected to increase dramatically and require special management.
It would be silly, after all, to give such a juicy morsel away to an outside
banker. That is why the text of the first decree contained the prudent
phrase that “starting from 1st January 1999, the Federal Television and
Radio Broadcasting Service of Russia shall finance and subsidize the VGTRK
and its subsidiaries from the federal budget via the VGTRK.” Translated
into laymen’s terms, this means that one of the holding’s enterprises was
to manage hundreds of millions in budget dollars. According to ‘Nezavisimaya
Gazeta’ information, the plan was to create, after the first decree was
put into force, a so-called RTR-Bank, which would concentrate the VGTRK’s
money in its accounts. This was not envisaged as an ordinary cash
box—the plan was to build all over Russia a network of RTR-Bank branches
that would de facto duplicate the VGTRK’s numerous subsidiaries.
It is obvious that a bank with this kind of monetary
flow would immediately make it to the list of Russia’s top 20 commercial
banks. Thus, the VGTRK holding project went outside the scope of
the mass media market and encroached on the sphere of the oligarch bankers’
direct interests. That is, had the VGTRK holding been set up in compliance
with the first decree, this would have changed not only the political-information
but also the economic configuration of society.
As always happens in Russian reality, information
about the first decree leaked out to interested persons. This immediately
resulted in a rush of well-wishers anxious to explain to Sergey Kiriyenko
the consequences of the document he had signed. The prime minister
saw the light. The first decree was shelved, and urgent work began
on the preparation of a second, cardinally revised document.
Revised decree
The new decree, published on 27th July, no longer
contains the most odious point: giving the VGTRK 860m dollars in
budget money in 1999 from foreign loan proceeds. Also, the state
enterprise Space Communications—basically, an enterprise of strategic importance
for the country—disappeared from the list VGTRK of subsidiaries.
A new oligarch failed to emerge.
But the main consequence of scuttling the first
document was not even that. In the time between the signing of the
first and second decrees, the regional bosses transferred everything of
value (which had been purchased with local budget funds) from the books
of local television and radio companies. According to experts, as
a result, the VGTRK holding has inherited a pile of “rusted junk” and it
still does not have the capability to fully control state television broadcasting
in the regions. In this environment, the VGTRK has only one way to
fulfil the task set for it—to create a united information space—and that
is finding a common language with the governors. And this problem
cannot be solved by government decrees.
So the idea of creating a television superholding
has fizzled out. And on top of that, the government still slipped
for the second time on the same banana peel and retained the points on
tax and customs breaks. Which, naturally, caused an outbreak of discontent
among the heads of the 30 nonstate television and radio companies, who
saw in the decree a violation of the principles of fair competition.
Their voice was heard by the president, who made it unequivocally clear
that the government will have to correct its mistake. Which means
that the fate of the second decree—and consequently, the VGTRK holding
itself—is hanging by a thread.
‘Nezavisimaya Gazeta,’ Moscow, August 13, 1998
III. Article on special treatment for state media company.
The reorganization of the All-Russian State Television
and Radio Broadcasting Company, VGTRK, into a unified state media company
has saved it from bankruptcy, but only at a heavy cost to the taxpayer,
according to an article in the Russian newspaper ‘Obshchaya Gazeta’.
The article says that the financial concessions given to the company have
made it the equivalent of a broadcasting “offshore zone” but it has yet
to formulate a clear broadcasting policy or indicate how it would deal
with a conflict of public and state interest. The following is the
text of the report:
Mikhail Shvydkoy is being given the same status
as Rem Vyakhirev. In a government decree dated 27th July of this
year, the state finally acknowledged that while Gazprom is the most important
support of the throne in the economic sphere, in the sphere of telecommunications
it is the VGTRK [All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company].
Belonging to the caste of untouchables signifies a complete pardon for
the VGTRK’s colossal debt. The television workers owe half of 1.942m
dollars to telecommunications workers and half to programme producers,
who, in despair of receiving their hard-earned money for more than six
months, won a number of law suits in capital courts. The almost poverty-stricken
state television and radio structure was unable to find the money, as a
result of which bailiffs sequestered motor vehicles and were preparing
to seize all VGTRK property.
It was saved from bankruptcy only by the intervention
of the president and the premier, who suddenly realized that under conditions
of a tough information policy of the public ORT [Russian Public Television]
and the private NTV [Independent Television], the image of the authorities
and their actions—both inside the country and abroad—had fallen intolerably.
The economy of resources turned into a painful blow to the self-esteem
of the authorities; therefore, it was decided to take the path of least
resistance. The VGTRK was declared a unique offshore zone in which
privileged rules of the game operate: the granting of a three-year
deferment to pay the main debt to the treasury, postponement of the settlement
of penalties and fines for seven years, the company’s inclusion on the
list of enterprises recommended for Western investments, and exemption
for five years from payment of customs duties and taxes, and of other payments
to the federal budget with respect to imported technological equipment
that has no domestic counterparts. But in the end our pockets, the
taxpayers’ pockets, were picked—99 per cent of the expenditure to maintain
the huge media holding company, consisting of the television channels Russia
and Kultura, Radio Russia, 92 GTRKs [state television and radio companies]
throughout Russia, the RIA-Vesti agency, Soyuztelefilm, Sovteleksport,
and in addition two television towers, was included in the 1999 budget.
However, it was decided to consider the Ostankino
and Shukhov towers not branches of the VGTRK, but only subsidiary enterprises—a
subject of particular anxiety for the entire nonstate TV by virtue of their
strategic significance for all broadcasting television companies—that is
to say, institutions that are legal entities which, apparently, according
to the idea of the developers of the decree, should indicate the telecommunications
workers’ independence from the managers of state television who could try
to use such a powerful weapon in the fight against competitors.
“In general, no-one previously thought about the
fact that the Ministry of Communications belonged to the state, which owned
both the Ostankino and Shukhov towers,” Shvydkoy himself tried to put the
public at ease at his last news conference. “The button that makes
it possible to turn off channels in our faces belongs to the government
as before.”
If Mikhail Yefimovich [Shvydkoy] is ordered to turn
off one or another objectionable channel, he has a powerful tool for such
an event—he would immediately resign. And thereby, in all probability,
he would frighten the authorities to such an extent that they would forget
even to think about something like this.
When we say that the government is bad, it must
not be forgotten that in the final analysis it is the government and not
someone else that for many is the principal philanthropist and benefactor
and the last hope in this life. The drama of the miners, pickets,
and strikes being shown in abundance on nonstate channels is that they
do not comprehend how easy it is to manipulate them.
Mr Shvydkoy hinted mildly that the interests of
the VGTRK are not simply the interests of one separately taken state corporation,
but—guess again!—the interests of those television viewers who are worried
about the country. In the meantime, the Bolsheviks should not be
disturbed by the absence on the second channel of a clearly formulated
state policy. There will be all of this—but by autumn. Or by
winter. But there will be. The country’s authorities with a
human face will be shown, without the confused articulation and the miners.
“I am an optimist, and I became one when we established
the Kultura channel. In a few months and without money. And
in this case we simply have no other way out. Something has to be
done.”
The decision is absolutely correct, but for some
reason the logo of “ Vesti” always comes to mind—three white, blue, and
red horses galloping off somewhere. Russia, where are you galloping?
Give us an answer. It does not answer.
‘Obshchaya Gazeta,’ Moscow, August 6 – 12, 1998
IV. Yeltsin says all media have equal rights.
President Boris Yeltsin, on vacation in his Valdai
country residence in Central Russia, received Valentin Yumashev, in charge
of the presidential staff, to debate current social and political developments
in Russia and prospects for autumn, reports a spokesman of the presidential
press service.
Prominent on the agenda was a recent appeal to the
president by managers of several Russian-based television and radio companies.
In this context, Mr. Yeltsin stressed that he was clinging to his
previous stances on the legal bases of mass media activities.
Russian laws rule out a preferential status for
electronic and any other mass media. Irrespective of property forms,
they are all entitled to equal rights and similar terms of competition.
The federal government is to firmly adhere to these constitutional premises
in its policies toward the media, pointed out President Yeltsin.
RIA news agency, Moscow, August 11, 1998
V. Paper sees new state media company as “TV Godfather.”
[On 10th August], the heads of the major national
TV channels and regional TV companies (ORT [Russian Public Television],
NTV [Independent Television], Ren-TV, TNT, Moscow TV-6, the National Association
of TV Broadcasters, and 23 regional companies) sent an appeal to Russian
President Boris Yeltsin. In their opinion, Government Decree No 844
on concessions for the VGTRK [All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting
Company] state media holding company (for details see ‘Segodnya’ No 167
of 1st August and No 171 of 4th August) violates the constitution, in particular
the provisions stating that monopolization of the market and unscrupulous
competition are impermissible.
Generally speaking, it would still be possible to
come to terms with the granting of concessions to the VGTRK and its subsidiary
regional state TV companies; on one condition—that state TV fulfils its
public role. But the VGTRK is now a regular channel involved in placing
advertisements and other commercial activities. The company has almost
entirely gone over to showing Western films. This hardly implies
support for domestic producers. On the other hand, state TV is breaking
all records for soap operas. For example, VGTRK chief Mikhail Shvydkoy
solemnly promised TV viewers to keep “Santa Barbara” on the air.
This is, of course, laudable but it certainly does not appear to be a reason
for granting concessions. It emerges that the company will only receive
concessions as a result of its state form of ownership. Here we can
see a violation of Article 8 of the constitution, according to which all
forms of ownership enjoy equal protection.
But the point is not actually that the VGTRK has
been granted unprecedented customs and tax concessions in violation of
the constitution. The main thing is that the VGTRK now has control
over transmission and can from now on “pull the plug” at the necessary
moment. For insufficient loyalty, say. And in spite of the
numerous statements by the present VGTRK chief saying that he will never
press the “button,” it remains a fact that from now on this option has
been enshrined in the government decision. With this freedom of speech
ends.
Apart from this, the following amusing situation
arises: Transmitters used by all TV companies to transmit their signals
are now owned by the VGTRK. What competition can there be when from
now on all TV channels will be forced to pay. . . . [newspaper ellipsis]
another TV channel for airtime—the VGTRK, which, incidentally, can set
broadcasting tariffs for its competitors? What emerges is that the
government, through its decree, has to all intents and purposes appointed
a “TV Godfather” whom all TV entrepreneurs will henceforward have to pay
for airtime.
TV broadcasters find it hard to believe that all
these issues can be resolved in court. Therefore they have resorted
to an extreme measure and appealed to the president “as a consistent defender
of freedom of speech.” They are asking him to “instruct the government
. . . [newspaper ellipsis] to guarantee the same economic conditions for
all TV and radio companies, irrespective of their form of ownership.”
However, the chances of their being heard are not great. Unless perhaps
the constitution’s guarantor does not want to quarrel with nonstate TV
companies over one company—the VGTRK.
“VGTRK appointed ‘Godfather’. Private TV chiefs protest emergence of ‘Godfather’ for electronic mass media,” ‘Segodnya,’ Moscow, August 11, 1998
VI. TV heads protest “advantages” given to Russian TV.
Below is the English text of the letter delivered
[on 10th August] to [Russian President Boris] Yeltsin’s office, protesting
the new advantages and powers being given to Russian TV:
President of the Russian Federation Boris N. Yeltsin:
Respected Boris Nikolaevich! On behalf of national
Russian television channels as well as local television stations working
together with the major TV networks of Russia, we appeal to you as the
guarantor of the Russian constitution.
We believe that governmental order No 844 of 27th
July, 1998, which gives unprecedented advantages to the VGTRK [All-Russian
State TV and Radio Company] holding company, does not conform to articles
8 and 34 of the Russian constitution, which forbid monopolies and unfair
competition and guarantee equal conditions of business operations to all
organizations regardless of their form of ownership.
All non-governmental TV and radio companies are
being put into a position of dependence on VGTRK, which has the ability
to dictate unilaterally the conditions for use of the regional transmission
centres and thus is getting an unfair advantage over its competitors.
In the same order, the government is giving VGTRK
and its subsidiary companies significant, one-sided tax and customs benefits,
giving them major economic advantages, which also violates the Russian
constitution.
Knowing you as a steadfast defender of freedom of
speech in our country, and in the interest of guaranteeing the constitutional
rights of the citizens of Russia to free access to information, we appeal
to you with the request to instruct the government to act urgently to guarantee
equal economic conditions for the operation of all the radio and TV companies
of Russia, regardless of their form of ownership, including lowering the
price on the natural monopoly in the area of transmission services.
Signed,
K. Ponomareva, general director, ORT
O. Dobrodeyev, general director, NTV
I. Lesnevskaya, president, Ren-TV
S. Svortsov, general director, TNT
S. Neretina, vice-president, TV-6 Moscow
E. Zlotnikova, executive director, NAT
M. Aslamazyan, executive director, Internews Russia
and 20 local televisions stations
Internews press release, Moscow, August 10, 1998
VII. ORT boss criticizes state broadcasting company ruling.
[No dateline as received] The Russian government
is creating a monopoly holder in the television and radio broadcasting
sphere with its 27th July resolution, granting privileges to the VGTRK
[All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company] holding,
Kseniya Ponomareva, the director of the ORT [Russian Public TV] television
company, said on Ekho Moskvy radio.
In her opinion, “companies will virtually have to
pay money to their competitors.” Moreover, the resolution does
not comply with the constitution because the rights of other companies,
in particular ORT and NTV [Independent Television], are being infringed.
“The situation in which the broadcasting centres
are becoming branches of the VGTRK is absolutely absurd,” she said.
Ponomareva added that all the country’s television
and radio companies, irrespective of their form of ownership, should operate
under the same economic conditions.
“We understand that the state cannot fully finance
the VGTRK so it has been granted conditions under which it can survive
without state funding.”
She recalled that federal companies like ORT and
NTV survive on advertising revenue alone, whereas the VGTRK receives revenue
from advertisements, public funds, tax breaks and customs payments.
The government has also promised the company credit.
Ekho Moskvy news agency, Moscow, August 10, 1998
VIII. Division of power between federal media bodies.
Text of report headlined “Who owns the TV switch? The reorganization
of the All-Russia State Radio and Television Company eliminates a number
of functions of the Federal Television and Radio Broadcasting Service,”
published on the Russian newspaper ‘Segodnya’ web site:
The announcement of the revocation of the broadcasting
licence of the Izhevsk television company Alva for copyright violation
was greeted with “great satisfaction” by the public: at last the
pirates will be driven into a corner. In fact, the revocation of
the broadcasting licence by the Federal Television and Radio Broadcasting
Service [FSTR] creates a precedent. However, the use of such a mechanism
could turn into an instrument to apply administrative pressure on regional
television and radio companies: under the existing practice of “honouring
copyrights in Russia,” it will not be difficult to find violations on the
part of any television and radio company operating in Russia. On
the other hand, licence revocation is the last way of influencing television
broadcasters available to the FSTR.
A recent government decree on the All-Russia State
Radio and Television Company [VGTRK] (Segodnya published an article on
the decree in issue No 167 dated 1st August) not only provides a legislative
description of the numerous benefits for the holding company, but also
solidifies its virtual monopoly on the broadcasting signals of other companies
since ownership of the transmitters is transferred to the holding company.
Therefore, the FSTR is set to lose the majority of its functions.
This automatically raises the question of reorganization of the federal
service and the need for staff reductions. It all looks like an ordinary
interagency conflict, although the issue is: who will be granted
the opportunity to dictate conditions to nongovernment television broadcasters?
In this regard, the underlying reasons for the decision
to reorganize the VGTRK should be noted. As soon as the year 2000
elections appeared on the horizon and the issue of the willingness of the
owners of private channels to support the “party in power” became unclear,
[Deputy PM] Boris Nemtsov decided it was possible to rely only on state
television. Therefore, it was proposed to structure state television
after the model of private media holding companies. It was perceived
that on consolidation of the state enterprise into a unified holding company,
the state property would start generating profits. Combining purely
commercial activities with the public functions of state TV will clearly
be a very difficult task; practically impossible. It seems that even
now the VGTRK is actively trying to avoid such functions. Thus, even
if the holding company is not planning on discriminating against other
broadcasters by imposing tariffs, under the existing conditions television
companies lose any interest in less-populated regions: broadcasting
expenses are high, and profitability is zero. But a redistribution
of power has occurred in addition to the social consequences: presently
the VGTRK controls the broadcasting “switch,” the FSTR the licence switch.
‘Segodnya’ web site, Moscow, August 6, 1998
IX. VGTRK to enjoy range of perks.
The state television and radio broadcasting company,
VGTRK, which was established by a presidential decree, is to enjoy a range
of privileges, according to a government order that came out [on 31st July].
[Correspondent] The old VGRTK is no more, and
the new one is not yet. The government has given three months for
the technical, legal and financial subtleties of the single united state
broadcasting system to be sorted out. This is a job not only for
the VGTRK management but for numerous ministries as well.
They have to extend privileges and perks for the state corporation.
That means deferring tax arrears for three years, penalties and fines due
on those arrears for seven years, and customs and taxes on imported equipment
for five years. The plan is buy equipment using foreign loans, which
will be included into the state borrowing programme. The document
[government order] distributed to the media today does not say how
much those loans will be worth, but the sum of 850m dollars figures in
government internal memos.
[VGTRK Chairman Mikhail Shvydkoy] These are
substantial concessions. And they have been extended to all structures
in which the state has an interest. Nobody is hiding the fact that
the state has an interest in this holding company.
[Correspondent] Our sources in the government
see no conflict between the perks for VGTRK and senior officials’ talk
of toughening up fiscal policy. Nor does the State Tax Service see
any conflict.
[Russian Federation State Tax Service Head Boris Fedorov]
Most media organizations are clearly unable to pay taxes or come up with
large sums of money at the moment, because they’re in difficulties.
So we don’t object to certain privileges, and we’ve told the government
that.
[Correspondent] But observers reckon that the
consequent losses in state revenue will have to be recouped from all the
other broadcasting companies that have no relation to VGTRK.
[Shvydkoy] They think we could, for example,
start pricing our communications services in such a way as to infringe
on their interests. They think we’d be quicker to pull the plug on
Russian Public TV [ORT] and NTV [Independent Television] if we were told
to. But I’d quit rather than pull the plug. Someone else would
have to do it.
[Correspondent] According to the government
order, VGTRK will be financed from the federal budget. The company
management regards that as unrealistic and will be banking on advertising
revenues.
[ITAR-TASS news agency said on 3rd August that a total of 99 state
TV and radio broadcasting companies, as well as other organizations, were
being transformed into federal state unitary enterprises which would be
VGTRK affiliates.
The agency added: “The appointments of heads
of regional affiliates are made by the VGTRK on agreement with the Federal
Television and Radio Broadcasting Service and the executive authorities
in the parts of the Russian Federation on whose territory they will be
based. The government has also agreed with the proposal by the VGTRK
to set up the following main federal unitary affiliates with the right
to economic self-management: the Russia TV and Kultura TV state television
companies, as well as the Radio Russia state radio broadcasting company.”]
ITAR-TASS news agency (World Service), Moscow, August 3, 1998
X. Decree on state TV-radio company adopted.
The government decree on the well-known presidential
edict No 511 on forming a unified production-technological complex of state
electronic mass media on the basis of the VGTRK [All-Russian State Television
and Radio Broadcasting Company] was officially disseminated [on 30th July].
The new company charter was “ appended” to the decree, as well as five
lists of various enterprises which have become dependent on the VGTRK holding
to one degree or another.
According to information received by ‘Russkiy Telegraf,’
the decree itself was practically completed within the time specified by
the president—in the first 10 days of July. However, time was spent
on coordinating the final text of the charter which, as it ultimately turned
out, granted the VGTRK very broad, if not unlimited, powers and authorities.
At the same time, all the fears and apprehensions expressed by various
forces (the State Duma, Federation Council, the local authorities, private
broadcasters, and even by the most active part of state broadcasters and
communications specialists) over the course of several months regarding
the creation of a super-holding which in fact establishes a monopoly on
the broadcasting of television and radio signals, were left without attention.
The initially planned conciliatory commission with the participation of
interested parties was never created. Within the government, the
comment made to ‘Russkiy Telegraf’ was: “Everyone sent us lists of
candidacies, but they should have sent specific proposals.”
“Compromise” with some regional broadcasters
The plan of the state holding company’s ideologists
worked. Judging by the lists, the holding in fact includes everyone
who was planned initially—even the Krasnoyarsk GTRK [State Television and
Radio Broadcasting Company], which was the most stubborn of all.
Then again, a compromise had to be reached with
some of the most active and independent enterprises, as for example GTRK
Kuzbass or GTRK Tatarstan.
The former was promised that it would retain its
full eight hours of local broadcasting, instead of the three and a half
hours of local “ windows” approved for everyone else.
For the latter, as ‘Telegraf’ already wrote, the
entire company was generally left intact, with a new state channel to be
created in Tatarstan “for the holding company.”
In turn, the status of the kray and oblast television
and radio broadcasting centres, which had lost their juridical autonomy,
remained the same: they will continue to be subsidiaries of the holding
company, as planned.
Even with a cursory glance at the new company charter,
we may note that it is written very skilfully.
For example, the VGTRK is now a “commercial organization, created
for implementing the functions of a state producer and distributor of television
and radio programmes.”
Thus, it turns out that the company is somehow already
not a state company. Its founder is the government of the Russian
Federation. According to the data on 1st January, 1998, the statutory
fund, formed at the expense of the value of the fixed capital, is computed
at exactly 695,221,794 roubles.
New holding’s vast powers
As for the company’s rights, it is easier to say
what is not within its powers. For example, to fly into space or
to transfer its office to the Kremlin. And even that is debatable.
Otherwise, the holding can do anything: create any commercial or
subsidiary enterprises, formulate funds, institute mass media (including
printed mass media), lease its property, appoint and dismiss managers of
its enterprises. In general, the degree of intervention in the activity
of its “ subsidiaries” is rather great.
The local administrations are not even mentioned
in the text of the charter. Only in the government decree is it stated
that the appointment of managers of local GTRKs must nevertheless be coordinated
with the agencies of executive authority of subjects of the federation.
The best testimony to the might of the VGTRK is
Section 26, Chapter IV of the charter, which states that the company “exercises
other rights and assumes other responsibilities in implementing the specified
types of activity.”
The head of the company, as we might expect, is
its chairman (currently Mikhail Shvydkoy), who, quite understandably, is
appointed and dismissed by the president of Russia.
After that, there are some innovations. The
chairman has deputies (how many is not specified, but for the present these
are the two first deputies Mikhail Lesin and Eduard Gindileyev), among
whom he distributes responsibilities and to whom he has the right to delegate
part of his powers and authorities . . . .
“Commercial organization with state functions; government decree
on VGTRK holding company adopted,” ‘Russkiy Telegraf,’ Moscow, July
31, 1998
I. Crackdown on pirate TV operators faces problems.
Federal defenders of intellectual property rights
are looking with a stern eye at the television broadcasting community in
search of offenders. According to Mikhail Seslavinskiy, head of the
Federal Television and Broadcasting Service of Russia (FSTR), in September
his agency will begin to actively crack down on Moscow cable channels that
violate copyrights.
The point in question is broadcasting films without
the copyright holders’ permission. The monitoring of airwaves will
be carried out by the FSTR’s trusted partner—the Interregional Copyright
Protection Agency (MAAP). So far, however, according to the agency’s
chairman of the board, Lev Vildavskiy, his organization does not possess
the technical capabilities to fully monitor even Moscow’s airwaves.
The proposed blueprint for action is simple: the FSTR will use compromising
materials recorded by the MAAP to force the culprits to stop unlawful practices
and provide material restitution to the injured party. The highest
measure of punishment is revocation of the broadcasting licence.
The plan looks attractive, but brings up several
questions. The first is the sheer quantity of the channels violating
regulations. Aleksandr Lavrov, chairman of the Foundation for Protection
of Intellectual Property, believes that there is not a single channel,
including nationwide broadcasters, that does not routinely violate film
companies’ copyrights. According to Yuriy Berbikov, deputy chairman
of the Moscow Mayoralty’s Telecommunications Committee, more than 60 cable
channels broadcast in Moscow—some of them on a regular basis but many only
from time to time. Of these, channels with regular broadcasting schedules
operate in strict compliance with the law, while small studios without
a regular schedule account for the lion’s share of violations. At
the same time, according to his information, there is a perceptible number
of cable channels coming on the air that do not have a broadcasting licence
at all.
Monitoring the broadcasts of every television studio,
however, would require a permanently functioning cumbersome snoop service,
which the capital does not have. The opinion in the telecommunications
and mass media committee is that currently the city cannot afford it.
Thus, at this point nobody fully monitors the content of city studios’
broadcasts. And there is no organization that has the technical capabilities
required to ensure blanket monitoring of television broadcasts in the city
in the foreseeable future. In this situation, in Yuriy Berbikov’s
opinion, the only means of persuasion that can be used against unscrupulous
television operators would be show trials or revocation of broadcasting
licences. Thus, for now television pirates are offered, in a sense,
the chance to play “Russian roulette” with the authorities: Maybe
you will get caught, maybe you will not.
“Cable television pirates face show trials: capital cable channels the target of the FSTR’s watchful eye,” ‘Segodnya’ web site, Moscow, August 7, 1998
II. Clampdown on TV copyright violators.
There has been a sensation in the world of television:
a television channel has had its licence revoked, i.e. its right
to broadcast. The Izhevsk television company Alva TV has paid for
its thieving tendencies: it was showing pirate copies of American
films and programmes, and foreign ones in general.
Most Russian television companies simply cannot
afford to buy the rights to show good foreign films, and viewers as a rule
don’t think about how legal the pictures on their screen are.
This is why some small regional cable companies
recently were not ashamed to show demonstration copies with rolling text
in English giving a telephone number in America for reporting copyright
infringements.
When the interregional copyright agency in June
proved at the central commission for television and radio broadcasting
that the Izhevsk television company Alva had shown The Godfather series
illegally, few believed that specific action would follow.
The agency this year has registered 51 cases of
the illegal broadcasting of films on local channels, but experts believe
the real amount of infringements could be 20 times higher.
Alva’s management refuses to believe that it has
paid for copyright infringement, and sees a political undertone to the
Federal Radio and Television Service’s [FSTR] action.
[Vasiliy Shatalov, general director of Izhevsk television company Alva]
Our television company’s case is an ordinary regional fight between two
political forces, in particular in Udmurtia, and the media of course are
taking part in this—well, they are not taking part, they are being dragged
into it. We are no better or worse than other television companies.
This is happening in all regions now.
[Correspondent] Alva is preparing to protest
against the FSTR’s decision in court, and is accusing the copyright agency
of forging material on the illegal showing of “The Godfather.” Meanwhile,
the FSTR denies any political motivations and warns that the Izhevsk television
company will not be the only victim of the attack on television pirates.
[Mikhail Seslavinskiy, head of FTSR]
In September the monitoring we carry out with public organizations in the
Russian regions will be severely tightened. We will contact the copyright
owners, we will make complaints, we will issue warnings without a second
thought about infringing intellectual property and copyright legislation
in all Russian regions, including Moscow, because cable studios in Moscow
sometimes commit these sins. Unfortunately no serious work to monitor
cable television channels in Moscow has yet been undertaken. This
will be done.
Ren TV, Moscow, August 8, 1998
III. Izhevsk TV station closed for copyright violations.
The Izhevsk-based Alva television company’s licence
was revoked by order of Federal Television and Radio Broadcasting Service
(FSTR) head Mikhail Seslavinsky on 31st July. The company violated
the Media Law, regulations on the use of its licence and the Copyright
Law, he told a briefing in Moscow [on 4th August]. Official
warnings were sent to Alva in February and June 1997. Warnings have
been sent to about 30 television companies over the last 12 months, Seslavinsky
said.
What is important is that this punishment has been
meted out for offences against the Copyright Law, in particular for unauthorized
showing of well-known feature films made by Paramount Pictures and Twentieth
Century Fox Corporation, he said. In particular, Paramount Pictures
estimated its losses from an illegal showing of its movie “ The Godfather”
at 300,000 roubles, or 48,400 dollars.
Nearly 2,500 licences for television broadcasting
have been issued over the last five years, but 30 per cent of the licensees
did not start operations within the three months allowed. About 10
licences will be revoked and the unused frequencies auctioned in the fall,
Seslavinsky said. The Inter-regional Copyright Agency, established
on the initiative of the FSTR, has discovered 51 cases of illegally showing
feature films on regional TV channels in, 1998. “The actual number
measures at least in the hundreds,” Seslavinsky said.
Interfax news agency, Moscow, August 4, 1998
I. Plan for new “Russian Regions” TV channel.
‘Nezavisimaya Gazeta’ has given a lot of attention
to the information that has emerged concerning the fact that the Federation
Council is thinking about establishing its own television channel.
Almost none of the officials of the upper chamber of parliament to whom
our correspondent turned for explanation could confirm or deny these rumours,
and only Anatoliy Kostyukovich, deputy director of the Federation Council
Committee for Science and Culture, reported that the senate actually had
such plans. There is talk of creating a “ Russian Regions” channel.
Its supervisory and founding councils, which were joined by a group of
members of the Federation Council, have already been formed. Some
time ago they filed an application to obtain a licence for one of the UHF
channels that broadcast to Moscow and the oblast.
However, the outcome of the matter is still not
clear, primarily because of the problem of financing. As explained
by Leonid Kravchenko, editor in chief of the recently started ‘Parlamentskaya
Gazeta,’ who is also general director of the “Russian Regions” television
channel, the channel has already been established juridically, but it is
not functioning inasmuch as it does not have its own carrier. Therefore,
the Federation Council is hoping to attract wealthy cofounders to the enterprise—given
successful progress, it will be possible as a consequence to think about
an expansion of the geographical broadcasting range.
Despite the fact that the fate of the “Russian Regions”
channel remains in doubt, its concept has already been created. At
present, remote areas come under the lens of the television camera only
in the event of a sensation, most often criminal sensations. But
the viewer knows practically nothing about the real state of affairs in
other places. According to the idea of the general director of “Russian
Regions,” one of the most important functions of the new channel should
be “protective”—Mr Kravchenko admitted to our ‘Nezavisimaya Gazeta’ correspondent
that he would like to return to that path he trod under socialism, working
mainly as editor in chief of the newspaper ‘Trud,’ especially since in
our day ordinary citizens need protection more than ever before.
‘Nezavisimaya Gazeta,’ Moscow, August 21, 1998
II. Moscow mayor Luzhkov expands his media interests.
Yuriy Luzhkov’s rapidly growing media empire, whose
prospects ‘ Kommersant Daily’ described last week, lacked only a major
advertising agency. That gap has been filled: the Moscow “Sistema
Joint-Stock Financial Corporation” holding company has bought the Maxima
advertising agency. The documents will be definitively signed in
two days’ time. The inclusion of a powerful advertising structure
in the mass media system under the Moscow mayor’s control will put Luzhkov’s
empire among the leaders in the country’s information market.
Luzhkov “already a media magnate”
About a year ago the mass media over which the Moscow
mayor had influence looked like children’s toys compared to the empires
of Gusinskiy and Berezovskiy and even the more modest Gazprom and Unexim
structures.
The first signal was the appearance of TV Centre
[TV Tsentr]. The consortium of the same name, apart from the TV channel
itself, now has a TV channel operating on VHF, the TV Centre- Stolitsa
cable TV channel and the Meteor TV satellite project. To maintain
the Metropolis holding company created this February, which includes the
newspapers ‘Rossiya,’ ‘Kultura,’ ‘Literaturnaya Gazeta’ and ‘Metro,’ the
Sistema joint-stock financial corporation that owns them intends to spend
20m dollars a year, not counting expenditure on planned large-scale projects,
which are so far being kept secret.
Lev Gushchin, who heads Metropolis, now recognizes
only the Most group’s empire as a rival to Sistema: “We have a chance
of creating the country’s first balanced holding company. It is geared
to broader influence than the Most media holding company. And, forgive
me, I see no other holding companies. The Unexim holding is increasingly
moving into business and influencing public opinion is being ignored.
Gazprom is constantly stating it does not care about it. Berezovskiy
has either got cold feet or the time is not right. So I cannot see
anyone else.”
If we add to this the real prospect of controlling
the publishing giant Moskovskaya Pravda publishing and printing complex,
then Yuriy Luzhkov may already boldly be called a media magnate.
Without any doubt, by the 2000 elections the pro-Luzhkov mass media could
play on an equal footing with all the others and perhaps even more persuasively.
Advertising agency a “natural step”
After the recent acquisitions and reshuffles in
Luzhkov’s media business, a step like the purchase of an established advertising
agency was an entirely natural step. After all, someone must sell
advertising in the mass media under the mayor’s control. So far advertising
has not been among the priorities of the Sistema joint-stock finance corporation,
although the more than 100 enterprises of which this holding company is
co-owner include several small advertising agencies—Atis, Reklama-fond
and others. According to Sistema’s vice-president, Vyacheslav Kopyev,
the Maxima agency will play the part of a media structure which will amalgamate
all Sistema’s advertising capacities into a single entity . . . .
“Luzhkov’s media holding company growing,” ‘Kommersant Daily,’ Moscow, August 12, 1998
III. Defence Ministry wants new TV channel.
The last TV broadcasting licence to be issued under
the current system is due to be allocated soon, for Channel 29 in Moscow,
and the Russian Ministry of Defence is a strong contender to win the battle
for it. The head of the ministry’s broadcasting studio says that
if it gains the licence, it will provide “television for men,” some of
it provided from its unique access to military archives. However,
the channel would only have enough money to operate for a few months, after
which it would have to seek more, either from the ministry’s budget or
from advertisers. The following is the text of a report headlined
“Men’s channel: Ministry of Defence will show women a real man” published
on the Russian newspaper ‘Kommersant-Daily’ web site; subheadings as published:
A new television channel is going on the air in
Moscow this autumn. One of the main contenders for it is the Ministry
of Defence. Among the competition are the Federation Council, the
Moscow Patriarchy, and Rolan Bykov’s “Children’s Project.” This is
the last channel to be given away practically for free, so the fight for
it will be quite bitter. Minister of Defence Igor Sergeyev has sent
a letter to Sergey Kiriyenko asking him to “assist” in issuing the broadcasting
licence to the Ministry of Defence. Svetlana Smetanina has the details.
One cannot serve the motherland without television
“The readiness to loyally serve the fatherland and
provide objective coverage of the activities of the president as the supreme
commander are inconceivable without the use of the capabilities of television,”
the minister of defence writes in his letter. It turns out in the
process that the channel the Ministry of Defence is claiming will be broadcasting
in Moscow. Apparently, the situation with the readiness to loyally
serve the fatherland is particularly bad in the capital. But there
is also another, more prosaic, reason that makes the military the chief
contender for the channel.
It turns out that it is the Ministry of Defence
that is giving away to new broadcasting channels some of the frequencies
it owned until recently. The military’s logic is simple and understandable:
if we give away what used to belong to us, we must get something for it.
“ Until recently, the Ministry of Defence was giving away frequencies for
free,” says Igor Serebryakov, head of the Russian Ministry of Defence central
television and radio broadcasting studio. “Many people made good
money reselling these frequencies. The Ministry of Defence should
get something from this—either money or a channel.”
Goskomsvyaz [State Committee on Communications],
however, disagrees with this point. “It has indeed been historically
true that in our country, defence and security interests always commanded
priority in the use of frequencies,” says Valeriy Byshovets, deputy chief
of the Gossvyaznadzor [State Agency for Communications Oversight] electronic
communications administration, “and therefore, when the question comes
up of assigning frequencies to some or other organization, working it out
with the Ministry of Defence is a very laborious process—it takes months.”
This situation will change very soon, however.
On 1st October the new statute of the State Commission on Radio Frequencies
will go into effect, which will revoke all military priorities in the utilization
of frequencies (‘Kommersant’ reported on this in June). After that,
Goskomsvyaz will no longer have to beg the Ministry of Defence. The
military will be obliged to make unused frequencies available to the communications
industry at its request.
Understandably, the Ministry of Defence must hurry
to obtain the coveted television broadcasting licence before October.
There is another serious reason for the haste, however.
Great October television revolution
Also in October, the Federal Radio and Television
Broadcasting Service of Russia (FSTR) will put into effect new rules for
issuing broadcasting licences, putting them up for bids. The licensing
statute currently in effect says nothing about bids. Currently licences
are issued on an ad hoc basis, so to speak: a certain commission,
composed of bureaucrats and public representatives, is convened, and they
decide whether or not to issue a licence.
There is only one way to protect oneself from such
subjectivism—put licence issuing on a financial footing. Indeed,
it is strange to forgo such a source of fees from various people’s desire
to have their own television. Beginning in October one will have
to pay substantially more than the current symbolic 30 times the minimum
wage for a licence. According to ‘Kommersant’s information, the figure
will be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It remains unknown
at this point, however, whether this will be a fixed price or whether the
idea of [Deputy PM] Boris Nemtsov—who, as ‘Kommersant’ has already reported,
has proposed that licences be sold at auctions—will win.
Under any circumstances, Channel 29, the subject
of this current battle, will be the last one for which a licence will be
issued almost for nothing.
Channel everybody needs
Naturally, this situation is creating quite a lot
of agitation around Channel 29. “All of a sudden everybody wants
this channel,” puzzled Goskomsvyaz employees told us. There is nothing
surprising in this, though. Available frequencies are few, and there
is a surplus of those wishing to have their own channel. There are
already at least 11 contenders for the new channel, all of which are quite
respectable organizations—in addition to the Ministry of Defence, there
is the Federation Council, the Moscow Patriarchy, and Rolan Bykov’s “ Children’s
Project.” According to a source in Goskomsvyaz, the “ Children’s
Project” has paid for all preparatory work for the channel. Under
current rules, however, this does not convey any advantages in obtaining
a licence.
The idea of creating a special channel for children
has long been floating in the bowels of the government and the FSTR.
“We would like to see a channel with an original concept, the kind we have
not yet had,” says FSTR deputy head Dmitriy Zasluyev. “There is a
channel called Culture,” but there is no family channel.”
Actually, from the standpoint of originality, the
Ministry of Defence would put any channel, let alone a children’s one,
to shame. “We will be doing television for men,” says Igor Serebryakov.
In reality, however, it turns out that it will be more for women:
“We want to show that our women make a mistake emigrating abroad in search
of good men. They exist in Russia, too.” Igor Serebryakov did
not elaborate on how exactly they will show “good men,” only saying that
this will be the task for the channel’s artistic director—actor and director
Andrey Rostotskiy of “Peter’s Youth” and “Flying Hussars Squadron” film
fame.
All in all, the military studio’s management does
not foresee any difficulty filling the future channel (12 hours of daily
broadcasting, at least). Among potential attractions are the military
archives holding unique footage of military action—for instance, the taking
of Pearl Harbour. “Western companies are offering big money for these
archives,” says Serebryakov, “but they are not for sale.”
On the other hand, the military archives alone,
unique as they may be, are not going to keep the viewer glued to the television.
This is where the Ministry of Defence studio has another card up its sleeve.
They are planning to fill the future channel’s air time—with the help of
their current rivals for the licence. “We will work with the patriarchy
and use their programmes, as well as with the ‘Children’s Project,’“ says
Igor Serebryakov. “They can even become our shareholders if they
want.”
The question of money is very acute, of course,
and at this point concerns the studio’s management far more than the programming
question. “We have enough money to operate for three-four months,”
says Igor Serebryakov. Let us explain that for a regional channel,
a month of operations means a minimum of 500,000 dollars. And what
next, when the money runs out? In Serebryakov’s own words, he “would
rather not take the money from the ministry’s budget.” Apparently,
this option is indeed under discussion.
The studio’s management is counting, however, on
the fact that very soon “everybody will see what a good channel we have
and will come to us.” “Everybody” means, of course, advertisers.
The channel’s future owners would like to succeed in profit-making, too,
not just in “ raising readiness to loyally serve the Fatherland.”
How one will go with the other, the military itself is not yet sure.
As Serebryakov confessed, the management does not yet have a unified opinion
about advertising Pampers and Snickers on the men’s channel.
‘Kommersant-Daily’ web site, Moscow, August 7, 1998
I. Chechnya resumes relaying Russian TV on 28th July.
The relaying of broadcasts by Russian television
companies NTV, ORT [Russian Public TV] and RTR [Russia TV channel], banned
earlier by the military commandant in connection with the state of emergency
on Chechen territory, resumed in Chechnya at 1300 Moscow time [0900 gmt]
[on 28th July].
The ITAR-TASS correspondent was told at the press
service of the Chechen president that the ban had been lifted automatically
in view of the expiry of the state of emergency regulations.
ITAR-TASS news agency (World Service), Moscow, July 28, 1998
Leadership of the Chechen Republic decided to let
Russian RTR [Russia TV] and ORT [Russian Public TV] companies to resume
partial broadcasting in the republic beginning from [25th July].
However, according to press secretary of the Chechen President Mayarbek
Vachagayev, only several non-political programme are to be allowed for
broadcasting.
The decision of Chechen leaders to resume some broadcasting
by Russian TV companies was taken with regard to interests of Russian-language
population, which is actually separated from the outer world. [On
23rd July], military commandant of the Chechen Republic decreed to cease
broadcasting by Russian mass media over the republic’s territory, since
the Chechen leadership found their interpretation of what is happening
in the republic “ preconceived, distorted and harmful.”
On [24th July] all TV channels in Chechnya including
private ones were shut. The only state-run channel begins broadcasting
after 6 p.m. in Chechen language. According to Vachagayev,
Russian mass media can fully resume broadcasting in Chechnya only after
their leadership promise to truly cover events in the republic and offer
their official apologies to Chechen people.
Vachagayev also blamed Russian mass media correspondents
accredited in Chechnya for betrayal of national interests and venality.
Vachagayev also threatens to deprive foreign correspondents of their accreditation
if they do not stop carrying out orders by their agencies.
RIA news agency, Moscow, July 25, 1998
III. Chechen action “unconstitutional.”
The ending of relays of federal TV broadcasts in
the Chechen Republic violates the constitutional right of citizens in this
republic to receive full, reliable and speedy information, the first deputy
chairman of the All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company
[VGTRK] and chairman of the board of RIA-Vesti, Eduard Gindileyev, stressed
in an interview with an ITAR-TASS correspondent [on 24th July].
Gindileyev noted that a unified information sector
is an inalienable part of a unified state. Eduard Gindileyev recalled
that the most dismal episodes in the history of Russia and other countries
had begun with attempts to disconnect federal TV channels.
The first deputy chairman of the VGTRK also said
that for purely technical reasons the authorities in the Chechen Republic
could not “ pull the plug” fully on Channel 2 [RTV]. Some districts
of the republic receive their signal from Stavropol and Krasnodar Territories,
so residents of these districts will still be able to watch RTR [alternative
name for VGTRK] programmes, admittedly with a poorer picture.
As we know, the order to terminate ORT [Russian
Public TV] and RTR relays in Chechnya from 24th July was issued by Chechnya’s
military commandant, Brig-Gen Aslambek Ismailov. The press service
of the commandant’s office claimed the order was motivated by the fact
that the two leading Russian TV companies were, allegedly, “covering recent
events in the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria in an unobjective way and broadcasting
unverified and distorted information” and that “ this was having a negative
impact on the sociopolitical situation in the republic.”
ITAR-TASS news agency (World Service), Moscow, July 24, 1998
We received news from Chechnya [on 24th July] that
the people there will not be watching the Russian television channels ORT
[Russian Public TV], RTV [Russia TV] and NTV [Independent Television].
The military commander of the Republic of Chechnya has issued an instruction
stopping the transmission of these channels. The instruction states
that the ORT and RTV television companies do not provide objective coverage
of the events in the republic and sometimes distort it. But a bit
later we learnt that this decision was taken by Shamil Basayev.
The general director of ORT, Ksenia Ponomareva,
comments:
[Ponomareva] First, Chechnya switched
off non-state Chechen television companies, then Russian television companies.
There is only one left on the air—the Chechen state television company.
It is absolutely clear that all talk of a lack of objectivity is just for
public opinion. In actual fact, the authorities are trying to cut
sources of information not under their control. Only a totalitarian
government can do this in an emergency situation, but even it should understand
that this might appear a rational measure, but only if it is not imposed
for a long time—otherwise you lose the people’s trust. And this will
disappear faster if innocent people who are nothing to do with this battle
are affected. We have still not received any guarantees of safety
for Russian television correspondents working in Chechnya, nor any official
explanation as to what exactly was considered not objective.
Russian Public TV, Moscow, July 24, 1998
V. Chechen independent broadcasters listed.
All private television and radio companies ceased
operation in Chechnya as of [22nd July]—they have bowed to a directive
of Aslanbek Ismail, the military commander of the republic. Fearing
provocative statements and appeals, the recently appointed commander decided
to begin restoring order in the republic with the electronic media.
Six independent [TV] channels and two radio stations were broadcasting
in Groznyy recently, and each district of Ichkeria [Republic of Chechnya]
had its own television studio. If they violate Ismailov’s order,
they will lose their licence and equipment. Now residents will have
to content themselves with ORT [Russian Public TV] and RTR [Russia TV]
and the local “Ichkeria” channel, which operates in the evenings on a Russian
television frequency.
On the one hand, the Chechen television channels
are entirely innocuous: the majority of them contain no political
programmes and show mainly feature films and concerts—whatever they can
acquire. The Kavkaz channel, which is owned by Movladi Ugudov, the
Chechen minister of foreign affairs, is an exception. It puts out
political news and periodically comments on this event or the other.
On the other, any inhabitant of the republic could
appear on practically each private channel. Pay up, and television
time was yours . . . .
The chances are that the closure of the commercial
channels will lead to yet further clashes. The Chechen leadership
has already had sorry experience of the closure of private television companies—after
Salman Raduyev’s channel was prohibited from broadcasting and equipment
was taken away, the terrorist came to demand airtime from the “Ichkeria”
state-owned company. Raduyev’s supporters seized the Groznyy television
centre, and during the armed clash Lechi Khultygov, head of the national
security service, and Vakha Dzhafarov, chief of staff of Raduyev’s army,
were killed.
But Groznyy believes that there will be no such
conflicts now since neither Udugov nor Akhmed Zakayev, minister of culture,
press and information, who could influence certain TV channels and radio
stations, will agree to clashes.
Aslanbek Ismailov’s directive has not affected the
press—newspapers and journals will appear in the usual way. But the
management of the publications has been warned that they will be closed
down if they publish statements that the official authorities find objectionable.
“Chechnya is waging war on radio and television: the press
has been warned also,” ‘Russkiy Telegraf,’ Moscow, July 23, 1998