Media activists from Russia and the Ukraine called for urgent EU and civil society help to protect press freedom in their counties at a public meeting held in Brussels yesterday (26 November). They proposed establishing an international Pen Centre, holding “mega-forums” and adopting charts, similar to those used in the run-up to the Helsinki process.
Setting up an all-European Pen Centre (see background) to gather journalists from Russia and the Ukraine, as well as EU countries - especially ex-Soviet Bloc newcomers - could be an answer to the deteriorating media situation, visiting journalists said.
Speaking at a conference, organized by the Friedrich Naumann Stiftung, Alexander Morozov, editor in Chief of ‘Russki jurnal’, recognized that the EU's leverage in upholding media freedom was limited. He called for 'mega forums' on media freedom issues, as a way of influencing governments and preventing press crackdowns. Other journalists advocated international assistance to provide judical support to colleagues facing trials.
Worse than USSR?
Morozov said that he had been a journalists since 1976, but that the present media situation in his country was the worst he had known.
The EU's efforts to preserve freedom of expression had “definitively entered into a dead-end street”, he said. The various projects for assisting investigative journalists, training provided and occasional statements “make no difference” to the situation.
Just as before the Helsinki process of 1975 (see background), a “big new decision hangs in the air” for a European reconceptualization of democratic norms, which would make it impossible for Russia’s Putin or Belorussia’s Lukashenko to claim that they abided by the rules of democracy, he said.
He refererred to a series of legislative acts in Russia aimed at cracking down on regional media freedoms, including a restoration of libel as a criminal offense punishable by many years in jail, and a ‘treason law’ which describes Russian NGOs receiving funding from abroad as “foreign agents”.
Morozov said that some people had thought these negative trends merely demonstrated Putin’s anger with the protests which accompanied his return to power as President, and would be reversed. But most people now realised this was part of a transition to a tougher form of Russian authoritarism.
EU’s action in Ukraine...
Setting up an all-European Pen Centre (see background) to gather journalists from Russia and the Ukraine, as well as EU countries - especially ex-Soviet Bloc newcomers - could be an answer to the deteriorating media situation, visiting journalists said.
Speaking at a conference, organized by the Friedrich Naumann Stiftung, Alexander Morozov, editor in Chief of ‘Russki jurnal’, recognized that the EU's leverage in upholding media freedom was limited. He called for 'mega forums' on media freedom issues, as a way of influencing governments and preventing press crackdowns. Other journalists advocated international assistance to provide judical support to colleagues facing trials.
Worse than USSR?
Morozov said that he had been a journalists since 1976, but that the present media situation in his country was the worst he had known.
The EU's efforts to preserve freedom of expression had “definitively entered into a dead-end street”, he said. The various projects for assisting investigative journalists, training provided and occasional statements “make no difference” to the situation.
Just as before the Helsinki process of 1975 (see background), a “big new decision hangs in the air” for a European reconceptualization of democratic norms, which would make it impossible for Russia’s Putin or Belorussia’s Lukashenko to claim that they abided by the rules of democracy, he said.
He refererred to a series of legislative acts in Russia aimed at cracking down on regional media freedoms, including a restoration of libel as a criminal offense punishable by many years in jail, and a ‘treason law’ which describes Russian NGOs receiving funding from abroad as “foreign agents”.
Morozov said that some people had thought these negative trends merely demonstrated Putin’s anger with the protests which accompanied his return to power as President, and would be reversed. But most people now realised this was part of a transition to a tougher form of Russian authoritarism.
EU’s action in Ukraine...
Hrant Kostanyan, research fellow at the Centre for European Political Studies (CEPS), said that levels of media freedom reflected levels of democracy. He compared the situations in Russia and Ukraine, stressing that the EU's leverage was much smaller than that of its biggest neigbour.
In Russia, the media landscape was characterized by largely state-owned and controlled media companies. Pressure on independent journalists intensified prior to the legislative elections in December 2011, he added. Topics that are “difficult to cover” include elections, corruption, organised crime, rising unemployment and the treatment of opposition activists, the researcher said.
The EU has been less active than the Ukraine on press freedom in Russia. Unlike in the Ukraine, the EU has few if any concrete projects on the ground there, he said.
Deterioration under Yanukovich
In Ukraine, Kostanyan argued, the relative media flowering during the 2004-2005 'Orange Revolution' had increasingly eroded under the rule of President Viktor Yanukovich.
He said that the President’s inner circle consolidated its power over media outlets and passed restrictive laws that fostered self-censorship. As many as six broadcasters had been forced to shut down ahead of the 28 October parliamentary elections. Ukraine’s politicized judicial system failed to protect journalists from politicians, oligarchs and criminal elements, he said.
Kostanyan insisted that the EU had responded with clear statements, outlining its concerns about deteriorating democratic standards in the Ukraine. Specific incidents, including harassment of journalists, have been repeatedly raised by EU representatives in their contacts with Ukrainian authorities. The EU has also provided training to journalists, in cooperation with the Council of Europe.
Mustafa Nayyem, Anchorman of the Ukrainian programme “Today” on TVi,gave a concrete example to illustrate the decline of media freedom in his country. In 2005, under the former president Viktor Yuschenko, Sergei Leschenko, a TVi journalist, investigated the lifestyle of the President’s son, showing (among other things) that he drove in a $200,000 gift limousine. The scandal continued for three months, with constant TV reports. As a result, the President’s son apologized and disappeared from public life, while Yuschenko's popularity collapsed.
Five years later, Nayyem and Leschenko undertook another investigation, into the new president, Viktor Yanukovitch's allegedly illegal acquisition of real estate spanning hundreds of hectares. “You will not find this subject in the Ukrainian media, politicians ignore the subject, while the journalists who want to speak about it are never invited in big TV channels,” he said.
A tool for the oligarchs
According to Nayyem, no major Ukrainian media outlets are run for-profit, or “not conducted as a business”. Some big media make losses of hundreds of millions of dollars. “This is serving staff, which is an appendage of the large capital. There are oligarchs who owe factories, and media. Media for them is an instrument for communicating with the political power,” the journalist explained.
But since Yanukovich took power in December 2010, oligarchs have had to safeguard their business by aligning with the party in power, and they have used media outlets as pawns to this end.
Power in Ukraine, Nayyem explained, is interested only in media which can impact on the electorate – ie. the large TV stations and print press. The first national TV channel is under the prime minister's authority, while the second largest channel, Inter, is owned by the former head of the secret services and current deputy prime minister, Valeriy Khoroshkovskyi, he added. Together, Together, these channels cover 90% of the country’s audience.
Eight out of the Ukraine's ten biggest channels had decided to abandon their political programs, resulted in the lay-off of prominent journalists. Instead of political news the channels focus on sensationalism, creating a “parallel reality”, he said.
“If you speak to the authorities, they will deny this and claim the media are free,” Nayyem added. on the internet, it is still possible to read political news and even see videos of clashes between protesters and the police, but only between 3% to 5% of people in Ukraine use the internet to inform themselves, he said.
Las year the EU announced a new programme called 'the European Endowment for Democracy', which will seek to support political parties, non-registered NGOs, trade unions and other social partners mainly in the countries of the Eastern Partnership (Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan).
Earlier this month, the programme received a modest funding of €6 million. But this funding only covers administrative costs, while activities are expected to be funded by member states or other donors, such as foundations. EurActiv has learned that for now, the programme is struggling hard to secure funding for its activities.
