Journalists Expecting the Worst From Media Law
By Elena R Kovtseva Moscow News June 19-July 2 1997.

Today's press world has changed profoundly and now legislators are attempting to make the law on the media fit their own corporate interests. Draft amendments to the law "On the Mass Media" have been prepared and even debated.

The Founder Moving away from the understanding of the word "founder" (the person who actually starts an enterprise) is where lawmakers are making their main thrust. Henceforth, the word "founder" will be replaced by the word "publisher," and publisher will become the equivalent of "owner of the publication". However, the authors of the bill do not intend to interfere in the relationship between the publisher and the editor-in-chief (who represents the interests of the entire editorial staff). The draft amendments propose that these two sides conclude agreements which determine "the publisher's main demands with regard to media content." So, while the new law confirms the media's new relations, it won't be able to save newspapers such as Izvestia from writing strictly about oil if such is demanded by Lukoil. On the other hand, the amendment contains an extremely radical provision for protecting newspapers from founder harrassment: get rid of them! In the present draft, only individuals exclusively involved in publishing will be able to become founders. This will end media ownership by Lukoil, Logovaz, and Gazprom. But it will also put an end to the overwhelming majority of what is offered by the mass media. The publishing business is one that is completely fraught with losses. As Pavel Gutiontov, the secretary of Moscow's journalists union, said "Publishing houses are currently controlled not by those who we like, but by those who can pay." So members of the media are likely to put up a fight against legislative plans to eliminate a large number of rich founders.

Theoretically speaking, an amendment preventing government bodies from becoming founders of the mass media should have become law a long time ago. But such an idea is practically impossible to introduce even in a draft. Igor Yakovenko, a member of the State Duma's Committee on Information and Communication Policies, was only able to include it in a report that proposed limiting government publishing to only bulletins and reports. One reason the idea of limiting government ownership is unpopular is because regions are terribly afraid of being left without handouts from the state. "Muscovites are lucky, they have alternative forms of founding. They can turn to Uneximbank or climb on the back of either Berezovsky, Luzhkov, Chubais... In 80 percent of Russia's regions there is no such alternative. You either have to depend on the local administration or not exist at all," stated Vladimir Ugryumov, who works for one of St. Petersburg's public relations centers. Even in Russia's second capital the five leading newspapers receive significant financing, a total of 1.3 billion rubles, from the state. According to Ugryumov, if the state were to suspend financing, four of the papers would immediately fold and the fifth would lead an agonizing existence for about two years.

Censorship The amendment to the mass media law is clear in its interpretation of the term "censorship." According to it, in addition to being a ban on spreading certain kinds of information, censorship also means that editors will be required to get prior approval from government officials before printing certain material. MN already reported about the Duma's plans to debate the draft law entitled "On Television Coverage of the Activities of Government Bodies." Besides giving government press services the sole right to broadcast the daily business of the government and both houses of parliament, the law also deprives broadcasters of the right to edit broadcasts without the permission of the government press services. This is in clear contradiction to the current media law which forbids censorship in the form of mandatory approval. But an article on censorship has been added so that the two laws correspond. To the part that says "Bans are not allowed to be placed on spreading reports and materials, any shape or form," the following addition is being proposed: "Except in cases established by the law."

Interests The impression the draft amendments make is that lawmakers are trying to make the lives of those who work in the mass media as difficult as possible. If the Duma has its way, in addition to requiring television companies and newspapers to publish the sources of their financial support on a biannual basis, judges will be able to close down publications for reasons other than those contained in Article 4, which makes it a crime for newspapers to call for violence, seizure of power, or to incite hatred. According to the new amendment, judges will be able to ban a publication based on dozens of articles (ranging from the publication's status to journalists' rights), many of which in reality are extremely difficult to fulfill the way the law requires. By itself, the procedure of debating a draft law looks democratic. However, will the opinion of the mass media be taken into account if the amendments that have been prepared are themselves amended?