| Since Vladimir Putin became President of Russia,
the Kremlin has clashed frequently with a media company that exposed,
among other things, the government`s handling of the war in Chechnya.
A year later, though, the government is very close to winning
the battle against its media critic.
The directors of NTV television have been replaced at a shareholders`
meeting that staff claim was illegal. The government argues the
media company had not paid its debts. The journalists insist it
was a political move to kill off free speech. The network is now
in the hands of GAZPROM, an oil and gas monopoly largely owned
by the government. The station`s takeover brought thousands of
Russians onto the streets in protest.
Jana Wendt spoke with Grigory Yavlinsky, the voice of Russia`s
democratic opposition.
JANA WENDT: Grigory Yavlinsky, why do you believe
that the takeover of NTV is an attack on free speech?
GRIGORY YAVLINSKY, YABLOKO PARTY LEADER: Because
the NTV is the only television channel which is private and secondly
explains to the country what is happening in the Northern Caucasus
during the war, the channel which explains to the people what
happened with the submarine 'Kursk', the channel which exposed
corruption, and also reports on the explosions in Moscow in '99.
That was the only channel to speak openly and honestly to the
people - that's why I think the attack on NTV is a purely political
attack.
WENDT: How damaging do you believe NTV's coverage
of those issues that you've spoken of was for President Putin?
YAVLINSKY: I don't think that it was really
damaging for our President, but if they had been consistent and
had taken this line for a long time, they could certainly have
created a lot of problems for him before the elections.
WENDT: Do you believe that the new management
that has taken over will simply do the government's bidding?
YAVLINSKY: I have no doubt about that. This
represents in actual fact the nationalisation of the company through
GAZPROM and some politicians on the right in Russia. I have no
doubt that this is the main goal of this whole operation: to repress
NTV and make them an independent channel in name, creating a new
line in Russian media which formally would be independent and
private, but in fact certainly would be part of the state propaganda.
WENDT: How closely involved do you believe Mr
Putin himself is in developments at NTV?
YAVLINSKY: I have no doubt, and nobody has any
doubt, that Mr Putin has his own line here, and that he is well
aware of everything happening with the NTV channel, he is well
aware of developments and this is his own goal and his own line.
WENDT: A judge ruled that the emergency meeting
that brought about this takeover was illegal. A few minutes, later
that same judge reversed his own decision. What does that say
to you about developments here?
YAVLINSKY: Millions and millions of people
in Russia are in the same position. We have no independent justice
at all. We have a justice system characteristic of the Soviet
era, which is under telephone orders from the authorities - in
this case, under telephone orders from the Kremlin.
WENDT: Mr Putin has reassured Chancellor Schroeder,
who has been visiting your country, that this case will ultimately
go to the Supreme Court, and that is something that I understand
NTV's employees want to happen as well. Can you be sure that any
judgment it issues will be independent?
YAVLINSKY: It's very hard to say that it will
be completely independent, but we really need public proceedings
in the Supreme Court. If the procedure was open enough and public
enough, and correspondents from all over the world were in the
room, that would give us some arguments to say that it was a fair
case.
WENDT: Do you think that Mr Putin is responsive
to international scrutiny - for instance, Chancellor Schroeder's
visit - and international media scrutiny of current developments?
YAVLINSKY: To some extent. But I want to say
that there is now a clear general viewpoint in the international
media on this case. This is converted into a contradiction between
private property rights and freedom of speech, which is in fact
not a problem here in this case, as the main issue can be summed
up as follows: to what extent was the shareholder meeting legal?
This is the key question. Instead of that, a lot of the media
in the world are discussing a different issue - who is right or
wrong - the private property-owners or the journalists defending
freedom of speech? But this is a false dilemma.
WENDT: Let me just ask you - there are many
reports that the US media baron Ted Turner is interested in taking
out a stake in NTV. How do you feel about that prospect?
YAVLINSKY: I think that would be OK. It would
in my opinion and that of my party be much better than ownership
of this channel by the Russian state through GAZPROM.
See also:
the original at
www.sbs.com.au
NTV case
| 