 | To Our Readers |
Has something you've read here startled you? Are you angry, excited, puzzled or pleased? Do you have ideas to improve our coverage? |
Inevitably, out came the government apologists, scoffing that VGTRK is vastly overstaffed and inefficient. They believe the state broadcasting company has been crying out for reorganization for years and that simply being the bloated lapdogs of the local authorities -- and the Soviet authorities before that -- does not give them the right to hang on to a cushy sinecure. One rather interesting point made by the supporters of the proposed government reorganization is that the real people behind this so-called "journalist'" protest are the regional governors. Unable to openly criticize the president's policy regarding their own re-appointment, they are apparently fanning the flames of this dispute, furious that their levers of control over regional television and radio stations are about to be handed over lock, stock and barrel to the central government.
So what are we to make of all this? The regional state media are not what most observers would call "free," so this is not an attack on press freedom. It would also be fair to say that the state regional media companies are indeed overstaffed and inefficiently managed -- although not, as a general rule, generously paid. Also, since they are dependent on regional governments for funds, many companies have a tendency to be slightly less than critical of the authorities. The reorganization is entirely logical within the government's general reform package: It is about cutting programs and services the government believes the people will not cry over and centralizing control over the regions. The law foresees a new "special management unit," which will have the goal of strengthening government management.
So why should we care if some regional journalists lose their jobs? And indeed, why bother about regional state television stations being directly controlled by the Kremlin? After all, soon enough the governor will be handpicked by the Kremlin anyway, so what's the difference?
No one has tried, to my knowledge, to portray this issue as an attack on media freedom. What it is though, essentially, is an attack on the freedom of state organs other than the Kremlin to manipulate the media. The sustained attack on the previously commercial and now state-controlled NTV channel was a sign of the times and of the government putting its foot down over oligarch control of the media. Reorganization of VGTRK represents the central government wresting control of the media away from regional government.
In the interests of full disclosure, I ought to say that I work for an organization that assists non-state media development, in the hope that a commercially independent media sector could provide better access to reliable information. State-funded media here do lead a rather pampered existence, subsidized by government funds, allowed to make money from advertising as well, and unlikely to rock the boat by doing their job effectively as media watchdogs with regard to casting a critical eye on the government, central or regional.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that it would be no great thing to have a new law that establishes stronger state control over the state media. Indeed, the very existence of such a law seems somewhat absurd, unless you live in Russia, where such absurdities have become a daily phenomenon. And even if the Russian parliament eventually passes this law, that does not mean that anything will actually come of it. One thing we learned from the fiasco over the monetization of benefits was that the government clearly underestimated the scale of public protest. This media reform is a similar kind of strategic mistake, born of the disconnect between the Russian government and the Russian people. Here they are attacking government loyalists -- journalists and propagandists, some of whom have been working for the state all their lives.
If things turn out as feared, these cuts could lead to a drop in local news and cultural programming, and in turn to a loss of audiences for state media companies. It is hard to see how the government will benefit from any of this -- not to mention journalists or regional populations, especially in smaller towns where people are more dependent on state broadcasters for any kind of local news.
This is another Kremlin blunder -- pointless, antagonistic and most likely destined for the dustbin. VGTRK does need reorganization, but this plan has nothing to do with streamlining, efficiency or a genuine attempt to create public service broadcasting, and so deserves to fail.
Gillian McCormack is a media consultant for Internews Network, a U.S.-based nongovernmental organization working to improve access to information. She contributed this comment to The Moscow Times.