‘Managed democracy’

MOSCOW — Count your blessings, we’re often told. It’s always easier to do this by looking at those worse off than you.

In this case, it’s the state of press freedom — and democracy in general — in this country where glasnost and perestroika led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war nearly two decades ago.

In accordance with tradition, the 13th annual gathering of the World Editors Forum in this Russian capital informally started yesterday morning with the so-called Press Freedom Round Table. The topic: The Russian Media: From Dictatorship to Democracy?

Philippine journalists will identify with many of the woes of the Russian press. And critics of the Arroyo administration may be tempted to compare Russian President Vladimir Putin’s attitude toward the press with the disturbing tendency of President Arroyo to control news reports, no matter how half-baked and ill-conceived the efforts.

* * *

As a panel of Russian journalists informed forum participants, press freedom in this country faces threats not only from a government that appears to be veering dangerously back to authoritarianism, but also from crime syndicates as well as regional politicians and oligarchs that use the mass media for power and influence peddling.

Journalists in this country are also being killed for reporting about corruption and other government misdeeds. Tax and market disincentives — so-called soft approaches to press censorship — are being used to force unfriendly media to shut down. Aggravating the problem is that Russian journalists are vulnerable to corruption, as in many new democracies with developing economies.

The story of the Russian press shows what happens when mass media loses credibility, and how that affects the growth of democracy. Without credibility, the press loses its power to sway public opinion, effect reforms and promote public accountability. Journalists here report a growing trend: public officials are simply ignoring the press, refusing to answer questions or comment on news reports.

There was a brief period about two decades ago when the Soviet media, emboldened by the political openness and reforms espoused by Mikhail Gorbachev, became identified with the opposition.

"Those were revolutionary years when we had complete freedom," recalled TV anchor Nikolai Svanidze, who served as chairman of state-run TV from 1997 to 1998.

But when Boris Yeltsin took over, the opposition media became the official media. With the growth of capitalism and private ownership, oligarchs and politicians started buying up newspaper and TV companies. Instead of giving journalists editorial independence, many owners used the mass media for personal ends.

It didn’t take long for the typical Russian to realize that he was being fed biased information by the press. So people just stopped buying newspapers and believing what was reported in the broadcast media. With poor circulation and TV viewership, media outfits had no magnet to lure private advertisers and achieve the economic independence that is essential for a free press to thrive.

* * *

The Philippines after the 1986 people power revolt was simply a democracy interrupted. Filipinos had experience with civil liberties. Philippine journalists who feel any form of pressure — from the state, criminal syndicates or advertisers — can elicit public outrage by simply reporting about the pressure. For all the grousing from certain sectors about licentious journalism, Filipinos generally still prefer a boisterous press to a controlled one.

Not so in this country, or so it seems to the Russians who faced us yesterday. Local journalists here explained that until the collapse of the Soviet Union less than two decades ago, Russia had no experience with democracy and the civil liberties, including press freedom, that characterize a free society. Now that press freedom is under threat, the typical Russian is not fully aware of what he’s missing.

William Dunkerley, an American media consultant who does extensive business here, pointed out that various power blocs and interest groups have "conscripted" the Russian media.

"Freedom of the press is an implicit and essential right of the people," Dunkerley said. "With freedom of the press, the people own the news."

Such concepts are alien to many Russians — and even journalists here — who were used to the controlled press of the Soviet era. Dunkerley noted that many in the Russian media are beholden to "financial overlords."

The typical Russian reader is not used to having a choice of opinions, of having several positions on a subject matter offered by the press, Svanidze observed. "He’s used to having a position being handed to him on a silver platter... maybe he just wants to think of something else, perhaps how to feed his family. He just wants to know what’s going on."

Even advertising cannot be trusted when the media is beholden to financial overlords for whom newspapers are meant to please politicians, not consumers, the panelists here pointed out. The Russian media, they said, are full of "hidden advertising."

If the reader feels he’s being shortchanged by a biased or censored press, he doesn’t march in the streets to complain about threats to press freedom. He simply stops buying newspapers or watching the news on TV.

Efforts by the state to control media reporting is helped along by the lack of professionalism among a number of Russian journalists. Petr Godlevsky, director general of Izvestia newspaper, noted that local journalists lack education and training in the role of the press in a democracy. They have no experience working for a financially independent media organization.

This is particularly true, Svanidze said, in the regional press. "They don’t want freedom. They need money in order to live." This remark elicited some disagreement among some of the regional journalists present, who emphasized that they also wanted press freedom. But another pointed out that about 90 percent of Russian journalists get a monthly paycheck equivalent to about $200 — no higher than the earnings of a farmer.

Many journalists here are reluctant to discuss "closed or partially closed" topics such as the conflict in Chechnya or the presidential elections.

Yury Purgin, CEO of a publishing house in Siberia, said, "We have a managed democracy... the situation is pretty serious."

With the press lacking credibility, Russians became disappointed with mass media and lost interest in the fate of their journalists. "The situation really just became disastrous," Godlevsky said.

* * *

There is hope in the fact that Russian journalists recognize what’s ailing their sector and discussing their problems in public. All point out that there are many among them who are honest, competent and dedicated, who understand what press freedom is all about and the crucial role played by mass media in strengthening democracy.

Their problems will continue to be discussed extensively by the international media during the forum here that will be formally opened today by Putin. About 1,500 editors, publishers and senior executives from 111 countries are in this city for the forum and the 59th World Newspaper Congress.

There was initial reluctance among members of the World Association of Newspapers to hold the annual press gathering in this country where the Putin government is seen to be veering back to totalitarian ways. Concerns about the state of press freedom in China had prompted WAN to turn down an offer from Beijing to host this year’s annual meeting in Shanghai.

The Russian Guild of Press Publishers, which invited WAN, gave assurance that the state of press freedom in the country could be discussed openly during the annual gathering that will end on Wednesday.

This in itself gives Russian journalists some hope that they are still headed in the right direction toward press freedom.