Moscow 28th Sept 2005.


Ladies and Gentlemen,
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and its communist government, Russia has been engulfed by advice from outsiders. Not all the results have been happy. In these circumstances, you might be understandably wary of an editor from London talking about press freedom. All that I can do here today is to describe some important aspects of press freedom outside Russia and make some observations, which I hope are constructive. Any decisions about anything to be done are yours alone.

People who use the term “freedom of the press” frequently don’t define that phrase, or don’t define it in ways which make much useful sense in the daily life of newspapers, broadcast channels and websites. What are the basic standards? Each country sees them differently and debates them differently.

If a newspaper, website or broadcast channel influences its audience, then organizations public and private, governments and political parties, companies large and small will want to influence the output. That is the normal traffic in any democratic society. But some interests will want to pass beyond influence to manipulation or control, preferably in ways not visible to those reading or watching the news.

The only way for media to be beyond the reach of manipulation and control – by anyone, from the state or any other interest, who might want to colour the truth – is to be secure in solidly founded independence.

Real media independence rests on three foundations.
•    Firstly, transparency. That is to say that there is an assumption that any and every attempt to restrict the freedom to publish will itself be brought to public attention and deserves to be known.
•    Secondly, financial independence.
•    Lastly, independence entrenched in law.

That leads to another basic assumption: that such restrictions as there are on freedom of expression are functions of the law and not of executive action. A British government, for example, faced by a disclosure that it wishes to prevent, must ask the courts to help to do so and justify its action by pointing to the infringement of a law protecting, say, national security or shielding citizens against invasions of their privacy.

Next, both the law and the government of the day have to observe an important distinction between speech and action. Many lawmakers have struggled with the question of how to punish words or pictures that incite or encourage terrorism while leaving citizens free to express extreme opinions. This distinction is much more easily expressed as a principle than it is to write into a good law. In any society where terrorist attacks occur – and my own country is certainly one example and such arguments have also ricocheted in recent years in Germany, Spain and Ireland – this will be a furious debate.

This necessary distinction between speech and action was well expressed by the novelist Salman Rushdie who says: “Democracy is not a tea party where people sit around making polite conversation. In democracies people get extremely upset with eachother. They argue vehemently against each other’s positions. But they don’t shoot.” Don’t forget that Mr Rushdie, who spent years in hiding and under police protection, knows a thing or two about being the target of threats by Islamic terrorists.

In societies where the media are lucky enough to have a fair degree of freedom, education protects that freedom. Good schools should teach, among other things curiosity, perhaps we should call it “civil” or “civic curiosity”. Newspapers should not only to report the news accurately, but they ought also give those items of news a coherent context and help the reader understand their meaning.

“The function of truth,” the great commentator Walter Lippman wrote, “is to bring to light the hidden facts, to set them into relation with eachother, and make a picture of reality upon which men can act.”

But if citizens are not interested, then the process Lippman describes cannot start. And by education of the citizen, I include tuition in skepticism about the media and its influence as well. No democratic society of which I am aware is without a burning debate about the irresponsible use of media power, media ownership, plurality and concentration. Dan Rather, perhaps the world’s most famous retired TV anchorman, was talking only the other day about the “new journalism order” in America in which, according to Rather, even major media there are now afraid to criticize or vigorously investigate the government. I’m not sure that Hurricane Katrina’s destruction of News Orleans helps Mr Rather, since the American media descended in a feeding frenzy on the federal, state and city authorities. But that only gave the debate a new lease of life.

But of all the assumptions which underpin press freedom, perhaps the most important one of all imposes a far heavier duty on journalists than it does on governments, legislators or judges. The cornerstone of media freedom is trust. Newspapers may be run as businesses, but they are more than just objects or products, more than “ink marks on squashed trees”.

Newspapers are ideas: a promise that you can trust what a newspaper says. Not an assumption, please note, that newspapers are infallible but that they have tried to find out what is happening and to express it, free from hidden bias. This trust can’t be reached by a short cut, can’t be created by laws and has to be earned. Accumulated over years or decades, it can be lost in days. Trust rests on many of the basic ideas that I have listed, but its foundation is journalists who are worthy of trust. Newspapers and websites which enjoy independence from control or manipulation must still worry about trust every day. Hard as trust is to measure, it is the benchmark that counts in any era, anywhere.

Last December, President Putin described the relationship between the authorities and the media by saying that (and I quote) “The authorities have always tried to ensure their interests, reduce criticism, and so on, while the press and other media have always found out everything they could to draw attention of the authorities and society to the current authorities mistakes.” Fair enough.

But he then went on to say: “Russia is neither better nor worse than other countries in this respect”.  On this last point, I beg to disagree.

If Russia is “neither better nor worse”, would it be the case that on all the World Bank’s ratings of governance - that is to say accountability, stability and lack of violence, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law and corruption - Russia remains well below other big middle-income countries like Brazil and Mexico, let alone below central and eastern Europe and the Baltic republics?

And on measures of press freedom is Russia really “neither better nor worse”? If that was the case, would Russia be on the International Press Institute’s global watch list monitoring states where press freedom is at risk?

If Russia is “neither better nor worse”, why is Russia at 140th place out of 167 in the 2004 world press freedom league ranked by Reporters Sans Frontieres? That places Russia between Mauritania and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Every state in the European Union appears in the top 40.

These overall judgements of course obscure a very varied picture. Magazines, owned by both Russian and foreign publishers, and on subjects from fashion to fishing, launch frequently and grow steadily. Outside publishing investors, including Finland’s Sanoma Group, the Financial Times, the Wall St Journal, Metro International and Newsweek, see business to be done here. Prestigious foreign publishers with small Russian circulations report very few attempts to interfere with their reporting. Small circulation Russian papers, magazines and websites criticism of authority experience little restraint or intimidation. Opinions highly critical of government are aired.

Kommersant’s front page headline on President Putin’s state of the nation speech in April – “Head of state Attacks Putin Regime” – must rank as one the best written anywhere in the world this year. But the editor in charge of the paper when that appeared is no longer working in Russia.

And that may give us a clue to the fact that the indisputable gains have been eroded by…
•    the systematic closure of television news programmes which resisted suggestions and hints from the government. There are now no television news channels reaching a national audience regarded which are seen as as independent.
•    murders of  journalists which go unsolved and unpunished. Twelve journalists have been killed since 2000. It is possible to believe claims that not every single one of these killings was connected to the victim’s work as a journalist. It is hardly credible that none of them are connected to reporting. Journalists are killed not only to prevent them going further but also to send a message to others. Those messages  must be bound to have an effect.
•    On one single day last year, the lively television discussion programme “Freedom of Speech” was closed. Hours later, the founding editor of Forbes Russia, Paul Klebnikov, was shot dead 100 metres from his office.
•    The authorities, both federal and local, have exploited the press’s economic weakness to have friendly companies take shareholdings in newspapers. Refusal of accreditation is used as a means to inconvenience or punish publications whose work is disliked. Only last week, the World Association of Newspapers president Gavin O’Reilly and I signed a protest against the refusal of a visa to a Swedish television reporter who has been working in Moscow since 2003. And this is not the only case of its kind.
•    Newspapers and magazines have suffered commercial intimidation and their employees have been harassed. Official obstructions reached a recent low point during the school siege at Beslan just over a year ago. Under official pressure, the Editor of Izvestia was sacked for having covered, a little too graphically, a terrorist incident which was a tragedy for those involved and a humiliating disaster for the authorities.

And lastly….
•    The lack of trust and interest in the media. I have heard suggestions that, 15 years ago both circulations and trust in newspapers were something like 10 times higher than now. The “information wars” between governments and businessmen owning major media no doubt played a part in the decline of trust. In many societies, journalism in print and on the airwaves is monitored, and often corrected, by reporters and bloggers on the internet. But in Russia, internet users are not yet a large force. News websites develop only slowly.

The Russian media does not face classic censorship, as that word would normally be understood. As far as the government’s approach goes, I would christen this technique of smart, informal censorship as “predatory manipulation”.

If the authorities, federal or local, believe that press freedom in Russia is “neither better nor worse” than elsewhere in the democratic world, they are deceiving themselves. Such things of course do happen elsewhere; some or all of these things happen in the Philippines, Colombia or Bangladesh. But they are not normal in, for example, the states of the G8, bitter though the conflicts may be in any of those democracies between the media and the state. There was, after all, a prominent New York Times reporter in jail in the United States until recently as a result of just such a stand-off. But taking normal press freedoms overall, Russia is currently moving away from – not towards – the basic understandings which underpin the relationship between the media, society and the state in Europe and America.

How might independence of the media and trust in the media be built on better foundations in Russia today? Let us look quickly at law, the culture of journalism and economics.

It is often assumed that media freedoms rest on law. Indeed they cannot be guaranteed without a legal framework and honest judges. But I think law may be the least important of these topics in Russia at the moment.

The media law of 1991 is, as written, one of the most liberal documents of its kind in the world. Yet it has not prevented the Russian press from having to struggle with the problems I have mentioned.

What I have heard and read of the new proposed media law is discouraging. Parts of that proposal appear to be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. There is a very real issue in any country as to how the law deals with incitement to commit terrorism and what are sometimes called “hate crimes”, incitement of violence by one ethnic group against another. The law does have to deal with them, but the sweeping catch-all nature of what seems to be proposed in the new Russian law, from loose definitions of support for terrorism or prior permission required for reporting on terrorist incidents, is hardly democratic and may be unworkable.

But away from the law and the courts there has also been a lively discussion inside Russian newspapers over codes of conduct for journalists. Here is something which has the power for a larger influence on the future of newspapers and their reputation than any number of laws.

Again I hope that I speak humbly. “Self-regulation” as it is practiced in British newspapers has been exported as a model all over the world, but our arrangements are the subject of a steady stream of vilification and criticism in Britain itself. This criticism comes from readers who consider that what we call the Press Complaints Commission has failed to correct inaccuracy or to prevent invasions of privacy. Yet many people complain to the Commission about newspapers and have their case heard by a panel which includes newspaper editors but who are in a minority.

The Commission can force the newspaper to carry a correction or reply or, if that fails, issue a public criticism of its own. This system works well with quality papers and the regional press; it works less well with the most popular papers with national circulations, who treat such warnings as no more than a slap on the wrist. Imperfect as this self-regulation is, I am sure that it is better than a clumsy and restrictive press law from the government. Self-discipline and honesty on the part of reporters is partly a matter of good examples and a strong newsroom culture, but that “culture” also depends on a clear and known definition of what is right and what is wrong.

It is also becoming increasingly common for newspapers to appoint, on the American model, “ombudsmen” who act as readers representatives. Whether or not they have a publicly identifiable ombudsman (or woman) serious newspapers should have someone who is empowered by and answerable to the editor to deal with reader complaints about unfairness and who can override a journalist’s objections to a correction or right of reply. The speed and ease of internet and email communications have brought forth bloggers, who or who may not be professional journalists, and who keep up a skeptical running commentary on prominent media. Blogs bring greater transparency and greater accountability.

One of the things which is prohibited by all codes of conduct is payment for journalism by anyone outside the editorial staff. European newspapers struggle with a host of different rules, if they have them at all, covering – for example - the political affiliations of journalists but they all agree that editorial and advertising are different and separate. Advertising is what people pay for. A journalist asking for payment for a particular piece of journalism, or being paid for it, would be likely to be fired and would find it hard to find another job.

One last point on that elusive idea the “culture” of news organizations. The commitment to truth and persistence in pursuing and publishing needs to go right to the top. If the owner and managers do not understand the stamina and disciplines required for newspapers to gain a reputation for accuracy and integrity, it is unlikely that editors and their staffs will do so on their own. The toughest part of this is self-restraint. Sometimes, owners and managers have to have the sense not to interfere and to trust their journalists and an editor’s sense of the readers or the audience. For owners this is not easy anywhere, anytime.

I said a moment ago that independence has to be underpinned by financial autonomy. In Russia that surely means that
•    The state should not be the owner of printing presses. It may not want to own them but currently it seems to own more than 60 across the country.
•    Government should lift or simplify legislation which is unnecessarily inhibiting the growth of what remains a small and weak advertising market.
•    For the sake of the media’s credibility, subsidies - paid to media here most often by regional and local authorities - cannot continue for ever. It is as simple as this: in a democracy, people are less likely to believe a newspaper whose existence depends on handouts and are more likely to believe a newspaper which survives as, or inside, a viable business.

Europe is probably not the most helpful example here. The press in China is not politically free at all. But even the Chinese government has worked hard to see if more and more newspapers can survive as businesses on their own and the advertising market is expanding fast. In India, which has the fastest-growing newspaper circulations on the planet, deregulation has helped fuel an extraordinary print boom.

Dislike this truth as many journalists do, freedom of expression is inseparable from business. The only way in which newspapers can be truly independent of state and political pressures is to be viable businesses. Russian news websites are engaged in just the same search as news websites in almost every other country: trying to find an internet business model that actually works. Please let us know if you find one: we’d like to copy it.

Given the legacy which history has given to the Russian media and those who work in it, some of the things I have described as desirable may seem – even if you agree with me about them – very distant dreams.

But history shows that attitudes, political cultures and practices do change. It takes calm determination and faith to effect it. Let me finish with a story about Thomas Jefferson; no presentation on press freedom would ever be complete without a story about President Jefferson.

Visiting Jefferson in 1804, the famous German scientist and explorer Baron Alexander von Humboldt was surprised to find on the President’s desk a copy of a newspaper riddled with vituperative criticism of Jefferson’s performance and conduct.

“Why is this libellous journal not suppressed?” the Baron asked, clearly not able to believe his eyes. And bear in mind that in that era, many people would have shared the Baron’s indignation. “Why do you not fire the Editor or imprison him?”

“Put that paper in your pocket Baron,” Jefferson replied with a smile, “and if you hear the reality of our liberty or the freedom of the press questioned, show them this paper and tell them where you found it.”

I have a modest hope that, one day, proud Russians might tell this story about a Russian president who not only sees a critical press but lives with it.

ps. If you have any questions for George, click on the 'Contact Us' button at the top of the page and write to John Burke.