| Objective(s): |
Different parts of the “Law on the Mass Media'' of the Russian Federation, in particular those dealing with the relations between owners and editorial staff, were discussed. Recent amendments proposed to this law in certain areas, for example to fight v. terrorism, or the new legislation on coverage of elections by the media was also addressed. The aim of the meeting was to identify shortcomings in the existing legal framework for the media, and to explore possible mechanisms to secure editorial independence and professional integrity in the Russian media context.
|
| Output/Results: |
The organisation by NAT was very good. They managed to secure the participation of a large number of practising professionals, and to involve top Russian speakers (academics, policy makers and industry representatives). There were also some persons from the non-governmental sector, which made a good composition.
Following each presentation participants raised lots of questions, which resulted in a lively and good-level debate. The main points of discussion were:
(i) The legal framework in the Russian Federation: the Law on the Mass Media, which dates back to 1991, contains vague and imprecise terms (the concepts of media owner, broadcaster, editor, etc apparently lead to misunderstandings, and should be revised in a future version of the law). Furthermore, the law is almost silent on the question of the regulation of the broadcasting sector. Many participants expressed discontent with the lack of an independent regulatory body for the broadcasting sector and mentioned problems in the licensing practices conducted by the Ministry of Press and Broadcasting: for example, the high fees for obtaining a licence, or the fact that the Ministry could not impose fines, which sometimes resulted in an unjustified withdrawal of a licence after a mere warning (extreme sanction with severe consequences). It was mentioned that such decisions of the Ministry did not protect capital investments enough, and could deter further development of the sector.
(ii) Although there are some declarative provisions in the Law on the Mass Media which protect the rights of journalists, a number of cases where journalists had been unjustifiably prosecuted for example for the disclosure of state secrets or defamation were presented. Editorial charters or contracts between media owners and staff exist in some enterprises (in principle positive for independence of the staff), but are not always respected. Owners are generally free to determine the editorial line of their company. Self-regulatory mechanisms are slowly being developed in the regions, for instance by the setting up of Chambers for Information Disputes (along the lines of the former Judicial Chamber for Information Disputes under the Russian President).
(iii) Generally speaking, the new legislation on coverage of elections by the media conforms to Council of Europe standards on this question. However, the representative from the Central Electoral Commission attending the seminar referred to a proposal to introduce amendments to the law on the Mass Media, with a view to the suspension of media outlets that violated the coverage rules. Concern was expressed with the “chilling” effect such an amendment would have. Likewise, the proposed controversial amendments to the Law on the Mass Media as regards coverage of anti-terrorist operations were addressed. Interestingly, the representative from the non-governmental sector responsible for speaking on this subject mentioned that the amendments were not so radical, and that they merely stipulated that information which could prevent or hinder an anti-terrorist operation was inadmissible, as was the spreading of information that justified extremism.
|
| Conclusions/Follow Up: |
It can be concluded that the Law on the Mass Media needs to be reviewed with a view to its improvement. National discussions on this are already underway in Russia. It seems there are two alternative drafts for the revision of this law in circulation, one prepared by the Ministry of Press and Broadcasting and the other by industry circles (in which the NAT has been involved), and that a draft text might be submitted to the Duma during the first half of 2003. Particular attention should be paid to the following questions during the re-examination of this law:
- the precise grounds for the withdrawal of licences should be in the law, and a wider range of sanctions for infringements of the law or licence should be foreseen;
- clear definitions and terminology should be introduced (“broadcaster”, “retransmission”, “owner”, “editor”, etc);
- the remit of public service broadcasters should be included in the law, as well as provisions on their accountability;
- the inclusion in the law of mechanisms to ensure the editorial independence of staff would also be beneficial.
|
