Medvedev Tells The World Association of Newspapers (WAN) the Ongoing Dialogue With The Kremlin Over Russian Press Freedom Is Positive For It Would Never Have Been Possible Under The Soviet Era

Philip Stone June 7, 2006

On the Monday President Vladimir Putin gave rather short shrift to The World Association of Newspapers campaign for more press freedom in the Russian Federation, and the next day the Kremlin rolled out Putin’s first deputy prime minister who said pretty much the same thing, but at least he did it with a smile.

Dmitry Medvedev
First Deputy Prime Minister Russian Federation

Dmitry Medvedev, who is thought in Moscow to be Putin’s favorite to take over the helm when the Russian President’s term of office ends in 2008, made himself available to speak with a few delegates at a special lunch during the WAN annual congress being held next door to the Kremlin.

Medvedev didn’t eat. After a short opening speech he said he wanted questions, and he stayed answering those questions for about an hour.

He was asked what he thought of WAN President Gavin O’Reilly’s challenge to Putin on Monday in a speech given in the Kremlin to bring more freedom of the press  to the Russian media.

“I didn’t think the speech was too biting,” Medvedev said. “I only read it today and it does discuss a critical situation but we know it was done with the best intentions.,” the charm and smile really now beginning to ooze through.

“It’s a common task to hear what each side has to say. I partly agree and partly disagree with what was said.” And he, like Putin, reminded the lunch crowd that O’Reilly’s speech was given in the hall built in the Soviet era in the Kremlin to host congresses of the communist party. “Talks like that would have been impossible some years ago,” he reiterated in a position that Putin had taken the day before.

The front-page headline in the English-language Moscow News read “Putin Scolded for Curbing the Press” with a huge picture of him below speaking at the WAN conference. Putin’s speech and Medvedev”s comments were each made in Russian with English translation, so it’s not s possible to catch all the nuances to what is actually said in the native language, but one had the impression that each was bit miffed that WAN’s scolding came on their own doorstep --  in the Kremlin itself.

Medvedev has been a board member of Gazprom for six years, and he understands well the complaint that the giant energy company also has considerable media holdings. In his mind there is a nuance in Gazprom’s ownership. “Gazprom is not state-owned,” he says, “it’s just that the government controls a majority of its shares.”

With that enlightenment out of the way he explained that the media is not Gazprom’s core business. Back in 1991 the Putin administration took over oligarchic media properties, that were placed in “temporary” Gazprom custody. The most famous of these was probably the NTV television network. What has happened in between is that   more media outlets were acquired over time and were it any other Russian business Gazprom would consider itself the owner of a considerable media empire.

 Medvedev points out that Gazprom is actually doing quite well from its media investments.  “Gazprom holds these media holdings from the past. Since then their capitalization has increased from what was the hundreds of millions to now billions of dollars,” he explained.

The way he was talking indicated that it was now an economic decision whether to sell or not. Media may not be its core business but the value of the business has increased considerably as Russia itself becomes wealthier.

As if two days of Kremlin-bashing wasn’t enough the Coordinating Committee of Press Freedom Organizations, meeting in Moscow, expressed its concern over intensified attempts by the Russian authorities to place controls over news media. The Committee called upon the Russian government to take steps to ensure that its stated commitment to press freedom is not compromised by misguided applications of policies.

The Committee said it took note that Putin and members of his have made positive public statements about their support for freedom of the press.  “There is reason, however, for concern over the interpretation of laws and regulations by bureaucrats who apparently expect their hierarchies to approve their actions to stamp out legitimate criticism.

“Freedom of speech in a democracy involves the right to criticize those in power - this is not only one of the basic tenets of democratic societies, it is vital for two-way communication between the government and the public,” the resolution said.

The resolution went on to protest three particularly worrying signs of Rusian journalism:

• the alarming growth in the last five years of the number of criminal cases brought against journalists for defamation. In the decade up to 2000 there were fewer than 10 such criminal cases. Since then, the number has grown to an average of 45 a year. In democracies, independent civil courts deal with such cases. Jail sentences and criminal prosecutions by governmental authorities are not justified for the exercise of freedom of expression.
• Russian legislation on counteracting terrorism enjoins the press not to disseminate information which might serve to propagandize or justify terrorism. In recent years, several prominent national and regional newspapers have received warnings for being in breach of these regulations. The Committee calls on the Russian government to ensure that such regulations do not endanger the right of the people, in the words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas” about any matter of public interest, including armed conflicts in the country, even as the government seeks to protect the nation from terrorist activities.
• It is also a matter of concern that in recent years all national television channels have come under the control of companies which are owned either directly by the state or by companies with close ties to the government. There is an uneven playing field - with politically loyal or state-owned companies getting better access to information, special privileges, preference with regard to financial agreements and placement of advertising in their media. Such an environment stifles competition and the free development of professional media.

To create an environment for the support of press freedom, the Committee made the following recommendations:

• laws and regulations on defamation should be confined to independent civil courts, and defamation suits should only be brought by persons acting in their private capacities;
• state broadcasters should be transformed into public service broadcasters, and there should be a level playing field for non-state media;
• independent private national news broadcasters should be allowed to emerge;
• bureaucrats should be officially enjoined from using administrative and legal mechanisms to restrict freedom of speech and press freedom;
• journalists should be allowed to report all sides even of sensitive stories, and reporters and media support staff should not be denied access to conflict zones;
• for the sake of the credibility of the press as a whole, news outlets -- both individually and through their representative professional associations -- should take immediate steps to end the unethical practice of zakazuka, hidden advertising masked as normal news stories;
• the Russian government should apply the recommendations favoring free speech and press freedom made by international bodies, such as the OSCE and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, to whose freedom of expression principles Russia has subscribed.

There is some sympathy from WAN members in Moscow that Russia has indeed come very far in the past 15 years and while there is still a lot to do it is making small progress. But there are others who say that since the Russian Federation is now a full fledged member of the G8 -- Putin is hosting their meeting next month in St. Petersburg – then it can be shown no special favors for press freedom.

In other words, if you want to play in the big boys’ club, then you have to abide by all the rules of that club, and not just some.

Members of the Press Freedom Organization are: The Committee to Protect Journalists, Inter American Press Association, International Broadcasting Association, International Federation of the Periodical Press, International Press Institute, World Association of Newspapers, and the World Press Freedom Committee.

ftm Follow Up & Comments