The last year has seen tumultuous shifts for media freedom. But core problems still remain in the world’s troublespots, says Padraig Reidy
(more…)
One of Russia’s best known television news presenters Alexey Pivovarov revealed the extent of state media censorship during President Dmitry Medvedv’s final interview before he hands power to Vladimir Putin.
During the wide-ranging interview with journalists from a number of the country’s major television channels, NTV host Pivovarov said: “The hand of the state is obviously seen in controlling federal TV channels’ editorial policy.” He added:
I regularly confront certain limitations, stipulated by political suitability. This [control] prevents me from fulfilling my professional duty – informing people of current events.
Medvedev denied censorship exists, pointing out the Russian constitution forbids it. He said that it is “natural that political influence is higher on bigger channels”, adding that “the question of censorship within a channel is a question of chemistry between the management, journalists and audience”.
Media observers believe Pivovarov’s brave expose will cost him his job at NTV. Pivovarov was already notorious for confronting NTV management, after the first mass protest against allegedly fraudulent parliamentary elections on Bolotnaya square. He delivered an ultimatum to his bosses, refusing to host the evening news if the channel did not cover the rally – in the end programmed bosses capitulated.
Last week, Russian Forbes quoted anonymous sources in NTV, who alleged several leading journalists have been forced out after clashing with NTV’s head Vladimir Kulistikov over censorship. Kulistikov denied the conflict, saying he is guided by ratings and not personal attitude in his policy. The journalists involved refused to comment.
Several NTV anchors have left the station in recent weeks: Pavel Lobkov, Nikolay Kartoziya, Anton Krasovsky.
NTV is notorious for censorship. The list of programmes and stories pulled in recent months includes, among others, a broadcast about kidnappings and tortures in Chechnya; news about Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s cellmate who assaulted him in prison; and coverage student arrests during Dmitry Medvedev’s visit to the journalism department of Moscow State University.
The channel also angered Russian opposition activists by airing a documentary claiming that election fraud protesters were paid for attending rallies. The programme is the subject of several defamation lawsuits.
Russian human rights activist Olga Romanova wrote on Facebook that no journalists who confront NTV’s management and fight for the freedom of speech could continue to work at the channel. Romanova emotionally added: “And let the ones who stay there burn in hell”
DDT, one of Russia’s biggest rock bands, have had several concerts in Siberian cites cancelled according to frontman Yuri Shevchuk. He has said that local authorities forbade concerts in Omsk, Yugra, Kemerovo and Tumen. Shevchuk is a noted critic of the Putin regime.
“Dodgy officials gave the orders by phone, which makes it almost impossible to sue them,” said a statement published on the DDT website. “Apparently, there isn’t enough ‘erotic patriotism’ our shows for them. But we won’t lose heart, because despair is a sin. We believe that this burly gang of zealous advocates of a “disintegrating order” will soon dissolve in the embrace of a different future,” the official statement went.
Government officials in the Siberian Kemerovo region denied the allegations, saying “this was all about business and risks”.
Yuri Shevchuk has been actively supporting the Russian protest movement, including being involved in recent mass protests for fair elections. He has also taken part in public campaigns in support of the Khimki forest defenders and opposition activist Taisiya Osipova. He also puzzled Vladimir Putin with questions about democracy, freedom of speech and assembly in 2010, during an official meeting between Putin and Russian intelligentsia representatives.
“I don’t know what exactly they are afraid of, but they are definitely afraid,” Shevchuk told Index on Censorship. “They [government officials] were scared by the winter and spring protests against election fraud and they are obviously concerned about losing their material benefits, which is most likely to happen sooner or later.”
Shevchuk added that DDT concert tour’s core idea was “philosophical” and aimed to “make each person ask himself what will happen to him and his motherland”. Authorities don’t need people to be clever and ask such questions, Yuri Shevchuk told Index.
Incidents of this nature are not new to Shevchuk. DDT had problems with concert organisation in November and December 2011 in the run-up to the parliamentary elections. At that time one of the band’s concerts was cancelled and another was rescheduled to the last day before elections — so called “silence day”, when, according to Russian law, no political activism involving propaganda is allowed.
Stopping concerts is a technique often used by the Kremlin to silence critics. Satirist writer and veteran Putin opponent Viktor Shenderovich had a concert in a Saint Petersburg theatre cancelled in April 2010 on the pretext of inspecting the building ahead of repairs.
Similarly, rock musician Vasily Shumov had problems with organising a concert in support of Russia’s leading music critic Art Troitsky, who faced several libel suits in Moscow. The management of some concert halls reported pressure from local authorities, whilst others received notification from the prosecutor’s office that they were suddenly in breach of fire regulations.
Shevchuk assured that the concert tour would continue as there are still some cities where DDT concerts were not cancelled.
UPDATE 27 April: Communications Minister Mashhour Abu Daka resigned yesterday, citing personal reasons. Abu Daka reportedly accused al-Mughni of “gagging free expression” shortly before his resignation.
The Palestinian Authority has reportedly enforced a block on accessing sites critical of President Mahmoud Abbas by pressuring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) since February.
Local news agency Ma’an made the discovery in cooperation with Open Observatory of Network Interference and after a member of Prime Minister Salam Fayyed’s cabinet agreed to speak publicly about the story. The blocking of sites including Amad, Fatah Voice, Firas Press represents a crackdown on those which tend to cover internal Fatah politics and are thus critical of the President, who is already being accused of a power grab due to his ever-increasing number of roles within the Authority. Due to some of the sites being loyal to former Fatah official Muhammed Dahlan, Ma’an describes how following a political spat between Dahlan and Abbas, resulting in a raid on Dahlan’s house, “the Palestinian Authority was complaining about its inability to shut down alleged Dahlan media based abroad” from June 2011. Four of these sites are currently blocked, meaning that the PA have no qualms about censoring sites based outside of their jurisdiction if it suits their political purpose.
According to Ma’an, the order to block the sites was hand-delivered by the Palestinian Attorney General Ahmad al-Mughni to the CEO of the Palestinian Telecommunications Company (or PalTel) and other smaller ISPs based in the West Bank. Ma’an also state that al-Mughni, whose name appears to be increasingly connected to cases of crackdowns on the press, including the arrest without charge of several journalists in recent weeks, has dismissed these claims and refused to respond to questions on the topic.
The Committee to Protect Journalists’ Advocacy Coordinator Danny O’Brien stated in response that “by blocking these websites, the Palestinian Authority is creating a dangerous new infrastructure for the suppression of speech in its own country.” With the PA already entering a phase of arresting journalists whose work or opinions they dislike, “a dangerous new infrastructure” which censors the internet appears to be precisely the right description.
Padraig Reidy of Index on Censorship told Ma’an: “The blocking of these sites seems to be blatantly political. This kind of action is not the kind that any genuine democratic government should be involved in, and it reflects extremely poorly on the Palestinian Authority.”
In February, Abbass’ own Communications Advisor as well as PalTel representatives spoke out against Denial of Service attacks that were frequently disabling certain news sites or even making internet access an impossibility in the West Bank. PalTel Chief Executive Ammar al-Ikir went as far as to state that “there is an electronic war against Palestine, which began after Palestine became a member of UNESCO.”
Yet the same representatives who spoke out against an external attack on internet access and net freedom are those who are complicit in blocking sites for political gain from within. The only positive element of the situation is the hope that the discovery of Abbas’ and the PA’s efforts to clamp down on dissent is likely to be entirely counterproductive in its effects.