GLASNOST DEFENSE FOUNDATION DIGEST No. 445

TOPIC OF THE WEEK

CPJ special report “Anatomy of Injustice: The Unsolved Killings of Journalists in Russia” presented in Moscow

RUSSIA

1. Yekaterinburg. Journalist imprisoned for writing on a fence?

2. Republic of Dagestan. Reporters succeed in getting colleague released

3. Kirov. Major layoffs pending

4. Chelyabinsk. One person, different liabilities

5. Republic of Karelia. TV channel Nika Plus insists it has not engaged in broadcasting

6. Arkhangelsk. Journalistic competition “Anti-Bribery” announced

7. Maritime Territory. Press freedom acknowledged in some parts of Russia

UKRAINE

Russian refugee reporter detained by police

GLASNOST DEFENSE FOUNDATION

Some statistics cited

OUR PUBLICATIONS

Authorization or censorship?

OUR PARTNERS

Press Development Institute Siberia to hold online press conference

DIGEST MAIL

TOPIC OF THE WEEK

CPJ special report “Anatomy of Injustice: The Unsolved Killings of Journalists in Russia” presented in Moscow

In Moscow on September 15, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) presented its special report “Anatomy of Injustice: The Unsolved Killings of Journalists in Russia”, prepared by a group of CPJ researchers. The presentation took place at the Independent Press Center outside which Novaya Gazeta reporter Anastasia Baburova and lawyer Stanislav Markelov were killed a few months ago, with none of the killers called to justice.

The report lists the world’s ten deadliest countries for the press during the past ten years: Iraq (89 journalists killed), the Philippines (27 killings), Russia (17 killings), as well as Somalia, Pakistan, Columbia, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, India and Mexico.

The authors focus on the 17 killings of journalists in Russia since 2000: Paul Khlebnikov, editor of Forbes Russia; Anna Politkovskaya, Novaya Gazeta observer; Eduard Markevich, reporter for Novy Reft weekly, Sverdlovsk Region; Pavel Makeyev, cameraman, Puls TV Company, Rostov Region; Yuri Shchekochikhin, deputy editor of Novay Gazeta; Ivan Safronov, Kommersant Daily correspondent; Maxim Maximov, reporter for Gorod magazine, St. Petersburg; Magomed Yevloyev, founder and editor of Ingushetia.ru website; Natalia Skryl, Nashe Vremya reporter, Rostov Region; Vaghif Kochetkov, reporter, newspaper Molodoi Kommunar, Tula; Valery Ivanov and Alexei Sidorov, editors-in-chief, newspaper Tolyattinskoye Obozreniye, Samara Region; Vladimir Yatsina, ITAR-TASS photo correspondent; Telman Alishayev, program anchor, TV-Chirkey, Dagestan; Magomedzahid Varisov, analyst, Novoye Delo magazine, Dagestan; Anastasia Baburova, freelance reporter for Novaya Gazeta; and Igor Domnikov, special projects coordinator with Novaya Gazeta. Of those 17 crimes, in only one case, that of Igor Domnikov, have the killers been convicted and, even there, the masterminds are still at large.

“For all their differences, the victims shared one thing: they covered sensitive subjects in probing ways that threatened the powerful, from government officials to businesspeople, military to militants, law enforcement officers to criminal gang members,” the report says.

The main conclusion of the research is: “Corruption, lack of accountability, conflicts of interest, and a shortage of political will are the main obstacles to achieving justice in the unsolved, work-related murders of 17 journalists in Russia since 2000.” Impunity leads to a situation where “journalists start to refrain from covering sensitive topics, and the press is compelled to withdraw behind self-censorship, resulting in ever less important information being reported to the public,” Program Coordinator Nina Ognianova added during the presentation.

In its report, CPJ offers specific recommendations to Russian and international authorities as to ways of ending impunity for the killers of journalists in Russia. It urges President Medvedev and Premier Putin to “condemn publicly and unequivocally all acts of violence against journalists”, “commit all of the resources of your offices to bringing the perpetrators of these crimes to justice”, and “demand regular progress reports from your subordinates in Russia’s investigative agencies”. CPJ recommends that the Prosecutor General and the Investigative Committee “assign new, unbiased investigators in cases in which conflicts of interest have hampered probes”, “reopen all closed investigations and restart investigations that are technically open but dormant in practical terms”, “pursue unchecked leads, seek out and question witnesses, track down and detain wanted suspects”, and “ensure that vigorous investigative work is being done in each case by requiring regular, specific progress reports from subordinates at district and regional levels”. CPJ also urges Russian judicial authorities to “open court proceedings in journalist killings to the public and the press”, “ensure that jurors and witnesses are protected from intimidation”, “demonstrate independence from political, corporate, criminal and other external pressures”, and “review and, where appropriate, reverse questionable, unfair or unexplained judicial decisions”.

CPJ recommends that the European Union should monitor closely the press freedom situation in Russia, and that the European Parliament and U.S. Congress should hold public hearings on press freedom, attacks on journalists and impunity in Russia. It urges leaders in the United States, “in bilateral and multilateral meetings, to engage Russian leaders on human rights, press freedom and impunity; offer assistance and cooperation to combat impunity”; and the U.N. Human Rights Council, to “hold Russia accountable to international human rights standards”.

RUSSIA

1. Yekaterinburg. Journalist imprisoned for writing on a fence?

Y. Denisova, justice of the peace of Precinct No.2 in the Zheleznodorozhny District of Yekaterinburg, has sentenced Alexei Nikiforov, editor of the website YekaterinburgNews.ru, to one year in prison.

The editor faced charges of organizing extremist activities (Article 282.2 of the RF Criminal Code) – participating in the work of the outlawed National-Bolshevist Party (NBP), circulating banned publications, writing on a concrete fence the slogans “NO to Chinese expansion!”, “The islands are ours!”, “Lavrov, resign!”, and making a poster and leaflets reading “We’ve had enough of Putin!” Awful “crimes” indeed, are they not?

Significantly enough, A. Nikiforov admitted he had sympathized with E. Limonov’s party at one time but had later moved to the ranks of the Communist Party which is known to be perfectly legal and even having its own faction in the RF State Duma.

Clearly, writing on fences can hardly be called a wise thing to do, and NBP is a party many people find loathsome. But sentencing a person to a real term of imprisonment for that kind of activities seems too harsh a punishment. A. Nikiforov’s lawyers intend to challenge the sentence before a higher-standing judicial authority.

2. Republic of Dagestan. Reporters succeed in getting colleague released

By Dmitry Florin,

GDF staff correspondent in Central Federal District

A picketing action was held in Makhachkala’s Lenin Square on September 14 to protest penitentiary officers’ unlawful treatment of two convicts in Dagestan.

The beginning of the picketing action was covered by several official media, with the police merely watching from afar – although the action had not been officially authorized. According to one picketer, the organizers had duly applied for authorization but had received no reply; so they decided to hold the action without official approval.

After the official media reporters left the square, the police rushed to curtail the protest. Ruslan, a photographer who asked not to disclose his full name, was taking pictures of the dispersal when a police officer came up to detain him, confiscate his camera and remove the memory map. A group of colleagues demanded that Ruslan be released, and he finally was. His camera was returned without the memory map, but journalists’ insistence helped the photographer to get that back, too.

Speaking to the GDF correspondent, Ruslan said he had no claims to the police officers whose behavior he thought to be “understandable” because the number of violent attacks on law enforcement officers in Dagestan had been growing. “Of course, it would be great to see the media laws observed universally, but the current situation in Dagestan is very complicated indeed,” Ruslan said.

3. Kirov. Major layoffs pending

The staffers of the public and political newspaper Kirovskaya Pravda (KP) have been warned of impending layoffs. The founder, the Kirov Region State Property Management Department, is planning to have the newspaper merge with the media holding VyatInfo led by Roman Titov, reducing its staff to only 6 employees. KP editor-in-chief G. Tyutrina has already been dismissed.

The staffers are not sure the region’s oldest newspaper will manage to survive. It has undergone drastic changes in both form and content lately, but the latest reorganization decision calls its future, as well as its obligations to subscribers, into question.

Both the KP staff and freelance reporters, whose number includes merited citizens of Kirov and members of the regional Public Chamber, are wondering whether Nikita Belykh, Russia’s sole opposition governor, will be able to explain the situation the newspaper is finding itself in today.

4. Chelyabinsk. One person, different liabilities

The Sovetsky District Court in Chelyabinsk has turned down a legal claim by the prominent journalist and human rights activist Irina Gundareva for the payment of author’s fees she earned as a freelance reporter for www.gazetachel.ru, an online newspaper owned by Valery Alyoshkin, a former media tycoon and a member of the United Russia faction in the regional Legislative Assembly.

The parliamentarian closed his web resource quietly, without paying his debts to the staffers. Some employees organized picketing actions outside the Legislative Assembly building to get their salaries – but not the authors’ fees – paid off to them in line with a court decision. Others preferred to quit without getting involved in protracted litigations. I. Gundareva filed a legal claim for what was due to her for five web publications dated September-October 2008.

Alyoshkin chose a very peculiar line of defense. Soon after the first court hearing, Gundareva’s publications vanished first from the website, and shortly afterwards – from the Internet browser. His lawyer, Ms. Anelikova, insisted they had never had Gundareva on their payroll, and she just could not think how a freelancer’s publications could ever be posted on Alyoshkin’s website. But Gundareva brought a witness, the web newspaper’s former editor-in-chief, and produced a Pension Fund certificate listing all the deductions made from her author’s fees in September and October last year. Alyoshkin’s second lawyer (there is a whole crowd of lawyers working for him) had to acknowledge the fact of Gundareva’s contributing reports on a contractual basis. But then, all contracts had been formalized post factum, allowing the employer to pay as he pleased. Finally, the court established that Alyoshkin had not paid Gundareva for the underlying five publications – but nevertheless turned her compensation claim down on the pretext that the claim was to Alyoshkin as a physical person, not the head of the MediaPolis Company he owned.

In vain did the lady journalist try to persuade the court that Alyoshkin as an individual was answerable for the actions of Alyoshkin as general director of MediaPolis, and liable for his own debts and obligations. His company was deliberately bankrupted, with all of its assets transferred away long ago and actually nothing left on its bank accounts. Since it made no sense to sue MediaPolis, Gundareva filed a legal claim against her former employer in person. The court, however, disregarded those arguments, stating that an individual was not deemed liable for a legal entity’s actions – and that’s that.

For some unclear reason, Judge Marina Gubanova of the Sovetsky District Court insistently invited Mr. Alyoshkin (as an individual, or a legal entity head, or both?) to come to the court to talk. She actually begged him via his lawyer to do so!

It looks as if he finally found the time to come and talk things over in private with the judge…

5. Republic of Karelia. TV channel Nika Plus insists it has not engaged in broadcasting

By Anatoly Tsygankov,

GDF staff correspondent in North-Western Federal District

Karelia’s Arbitration Court has considered the Nika Plus television company’s legal claim against the Petrozavodsk administration for a review of the size of rent payable for the municipal premises it occupies.

Nika has long been housed in the building of the former movie theater Stroitel. For many years, its owner A. Mazurovsky had not paid any rent at all due to a contract concluded in his favor with the city administration and his good personal relationships with former Petrozavodsk leaders. But when a group of people were elected to the City Council of Petrozavodsk who were not afraid of quarreling with the republic’s government, to which Mazurovsky was known to be close, they demanded that the city administration put Mazurovsky, whose company produces information products, on a par with all the other businessmen by requiring him to pay for the renting of municipal property. The administration charged Nika RUR 280 per square meter of floor space per month, an amount that Mazurovsky found inordinately large and challenged before the arbitration court, insisting that it be reduced to about RUR 56 per month (and this despite the average municipal rent rate in Petrozavodsk established at approximately RUR 300). Meanwhile, compelled to meet the current rate of RUR 280, Nika paid into the municipal budget RUR 2.3 million more per year than before, throwing into bold relief the losses the capital city had annually suffered until then.

Mazurovsky’s lawyers insisted in court that the City Council had had no right to charge as much as it did, but their claims were disregarded as irrelevant. That caused them to make a totally unexpected move – start claiming that Nika is not a television but an advertising company, which status might spare it the need to spend more in rent payments. The change of tactics looked absolutely ludicrous, considering the company’s long record of work as a TV broadcaster – a thing known by everyone in Petrozavodsk. 

The arbitration court turned Nika’s claim down but its decision may be challenged before a higher-standing judicial authority.

6. Arkhangelsk. Journalistic competition “Anti-Bribery” announced

By Tamara Ovchinnikova,

GDF staff correspondent in North-Western Federal District

The Arkhngelsk branch of the United Russia Party (URP) has announced a journalistic competition titled “Anti-Bribery”, for the best newspaper or TV story about the unseemly behavior of nominees for seats on the City Council in the run-up to the election scheduled for October 11.

The regional URP leader Vitaly Fortygin said that “in the event of information surfacing about a United Russia nominee acting unfairly and attempting to buy votes instead of winning them through public trust, we will react accordingly – maybe even expel him or her from the party”. Oh well, severe punishment, is it not?

The newspaper “Arkhangelsk” joined the competition and invited its readers to report all facts of corrupt canvassing.

7. Maritime Territory. Press freedom acknowledged in some parts of Russia

By Ann Seleznyova,

GDF staff correspondent in Far Eastern Federal District

Experts of the international organization Reporters Without Borders (Reporter sans frontiers, RSF), having studied the media situation in the Russian regions (see http://www.gdf.ru/digest/item/1/644#event), have found press freedom prerequisites in some of them.

Specifically, according to Radio Liberty, “individual courageous journalists with irreproachable reputation are known to work in the Russian regions”, with Yuri Purgin, editor of the newspaper Svobodny Kurs in the Altai Region and Arsenyevskiye Vesti observer Marina Zavadskaya in Vladivostok identified as two examples of “hero reporters”.

“Well, that was unexpected and very pleasing,” commented M. Zavadskaya, a nominee for the Andrei Sakharov Award “For Journalism as a Deed”. “It’s a pity too few independent journalists caught the RSF researchers’ attention. Are they so few indeed? Definitely, we have some folk here who speak and write freely… Anyway, with my efforts assessed as highly as that, I’ll have to work hard to maintain my good reputation.”

UKRAINE

Russian refugee reporter detained by police

Journalist Alexander Kosvintsev was detained in Kiev on September 14 and questioned by the Desnyansky District police headquarters at the request of the regional police department of Kemerovo.

“I was detained in connection with a criminal case opened back in 2006 on trumped-up charges of illegal entrepreneurship by the independent newspaper Rossiyskiy Reporter of which I was a co-founder and director,” Alexander says. “We never engaged in any but publishing activities. But we wrote a lot about corruption and various unseemly schemes by regional administration officials led by the notorious governor Aman Tuleyev, as well as by the regional prosecutor’s office, FSB department, and tax-collecting bodies. The investigation is conducted by the police, but a search was carried out at one time by an FSB officer, for some unclear reason. He searched for traces of illegal commercial activities but confiscated a computer with the findings of independent journalistic investigations… I was declared wanted by the police, but they did not touch me for the first two years, although dozens of newspapers wrote about where I lived and worked at the time. Now they want to get me back to Russia.”

According to Kosvintsev, Desnyansky police officers treated him very politely. However, despite his showing a refugee certificate (which status Ukraine granted him in December 2007), they made him give a written pledge of returning to Russia.

“Of course, I told the police officers I was not going to return to Russia,” Alexander continues. “I said I was under the protection of Ukraine; to obtain the refugee status I had presented a heap of documents, publications and petitions from the Russian Journalists’ Union, the Glasnost Defense Foundation, the Human Rights Movement, and the Russian PEN Center. To that, I was told very politely that in that event they would have to make me stay with them. I guess that was a joke…

“I would like to believe the whole thing was pure misunderstanding and that things will finally clear up,” Kosvintsev says. “Over the past two years I have seen police officers treating journalists respectfully in Ukraine. But if need be, I am prepared to request help from the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees.”

[Zik.com.ua report, September 15]

GLASNOST DEFENSE FOUNDATION

Some statistics cited

Last week, the Glasnost Defense Foundation was referred to at least 10 times in the Internet, specifically at:

http://www.novayagazeta.ru/data/2009/104/17.html

http://www.novayagazeta.ru/data/2009/101/03.html

http://zik.com.ua/ru/news/2009/09/15/196305

http://www.pdi.spb.ru/article.php?id=812

http://www.comstol.ru/ob/2009/370.html

http://www.ruj.ru/

OUR PUBLICATIONS

Authorization or censorship?

By Dmitry Florin,

GDF staff correspondent in Central Federal District

A troublesome trend

During the past few months I have observed a trend: people, and not only my bosses, have increasingly often reminded me of the need to have my stories authorized, i.e., approved by interviewees. Here is the latest example: I called on the phone a recommended employee of the Sova Center for Information and Analysis to discuss what claimed to be an “anti-nationalist” group organized by young Caucasians. My respondent had been warned I would be recording the conversation, and she knew who I was and why I was calling. We had a lengthy and substantial discussion and thought together about an assumed name to sign the interview because the lady I was talking to was too shy to sign a material criticizing fascists by her own name.

On the following day, after I published my story, the telephone started ringing. My boss was called, as well as other colleagues, and finally I received a phone call myself. The lady I had interviewed the day before sounded angry:

- Dmitry, I didn’t know you would record it word for word. You said it would not be an interview, you just wanted some comments. Would you please clip out one passage, add a few words to another, and cross out a couple more words – like this, let me read… And, generally, THINGS LIKE THAT NEED TO BE COORDINATED prior to publication!

- Well, that’s what is called censorship which is prohibited under the law. Are you a supporter of censorship?

- Are you kidding? What censorship are you talking about!

I did not rush to correct the text. After a lengthy discussion with my boss I agreed to write a completely new story adding the necessary details to the first one. My respondent refused to grant another interview, and I wasted a lot of time cross-checking the facts and reporting them to my chief. We did not change our position, but as regards authorization, I was told: “If they do not offer it, go ahead and ask for it yourself!”

Struggling with the struggle

Here are a few more examples concerning authorization. I was given an editorial assignment – to interview two pretty clever guys. One has been busy “authorizing” his interview since August 24, the other for a week and a half so far. In the process, the texts of the interviews have been glossed over as a minimum twice – by the editor and by my own self. Those are anything but word-for-word transcripts; they are interviews prepared for publication in line with all journalistic norms. One of them, about September 1 events, is growing less and less interesting. Who needs that stuff now?

An interview is a two-way process. Both parties need it equally much (but then, this “authorization” nonsense reduces the efficiency of a reporter’s work almost to naught). What do I get, after all? I make a phone call, talk to the respondent, then spend hours transcribing audio tapes (not much fun, I assure you), then write a story that the editor will smooth over, and finally, we send it to the interviewee for approval.

But the point is that the interviewee is, one, not a journalist; two, not our staffer; and three, a person pursuing his/her narrow, selfish goals. That is why we produce not an interview but a PIECE OF FICTION IN THE FORM OF A MONOLOGUE.

And who am I in that case? A kind of biological supplement to the telephone with a built-in voice recorder?

GDF editor comments: Our correspondent touched upon a very complicated and urgent matter having to do with reporters’ relationships with people who grant interviews and make comments. For the full text, see http://www.gdf.ru/lenta/item/1/646 

You are welcome with your own comments, objections and suggestions that will be published in the GDF Digest or posted on the GDF website.

OUR PARTNERS

Press Development Institute Siberia to hold online press conference

An online press conference will be held on the website of the Press Development Institute Siberia (www.sibirp.ru) on October 15, entitled “Three Actors for One Role: Citizens, the Press and Human Rights Activists”. The conference will continue from 9:00 a.m. through 4 p.m. Moscow time, with PDI Siberia experts staying online in a Novosibirsk studio to discuss with you public communication development trends and opportunities opened up by the website www.taktaktak.ru.

On October 12, the website will present the Tak-Tak-Tak network as “a meeting place for citizens, human rights defenders and journalists”, and the Public Investigation technology as a form of civil control. Before the discussion, you will be able to watch a small video clip featuring our experts, whose ideas may become a starting point in the discussion.

The conference organizers welcome anyone seeking answers to the following questions:

- What will public communications be like in the future?

- Will citizens be in a position to control the media and government authorities?

- Will journalism of indifference ever be turned into journalism of participation and co-action?

- Will bloggers and ordinary citizens be able to compete with professional journalists?

To apply for participation in the conference and ask questions, please send a message before October 14 to sibirp@sibirp.ru (with the mark “Online Conference” in the “Theme” box).

DIGEST MAIL

“Dear colleagues,

“I am Vyacheslav Golubtsov from the town of Sharya, Kostroma Region. I have worked for 32 years with the district newspaper Vetluzhsky Krai, including 10 years as editor and the past three years as director of the state enterprise ‘Vetluzhsky Krai Publishers’, the region’s first company of its kind that I established personally.

“The problems I am faced with are as follows. I have repeatedly appealed to the regional branch of SvyazNadzor [authority supervising the sphere of public communications] over violations of the Media Law, Constitution and other laws by our regional authorities and the governor in person. SvyazNadzor forwarded my complaints to the regional prosecutor’s office. The facts I  reported were confirmed, but no measures were taken. Besides, last July’s issue of Zhurnalist magazine featured a story ‘If Gogol Were Told About It…’ that criticized the governor’s performance. On the following day I was fired – officially, because of coming to work drunk. No protocols or probes were made, of course. All the staffers (sic!) stood up to defend me. Messages to different authorities were sent, and a rally in my defense was held in my town. The confrontation has continued for two months now. I filed a legal claim, and the first, preliminary court hearing took place on September 17. The guys from the regional administration compiled some fictitious documents and keep telling brazen lies about me. They are planning to clamp down full weight on me. The Auditing Department has carried out an inspection and is blaming the loss of RUR 250,000 on me – I do not know why, I have not read any act yet.

“When I started issuing the newspaper Golos Sharyi, its printing in the Kostroma Region was banned. I am now printing it in the neighboring region of Nizhny Novgorod.

“Could you possibly offer me any help?

“Sincerely,

Vyacheslav Golubtsov”

This Digest has been prepared by the Glasnost Defense Foundation (GDF), http://www.gdf.ru.

We appreciate the support of the John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

Digest released once a week, on Mondays, since August 11, 2000.
Distributed by e-mail to 1,600 subscribers in and outside Russia.

Editor-in-chief: Alexei Simonov

Editorial board: Boris Timoshenko – Monitoring Service chief, Pyotr Polonitsky – head of GDF regional network, Svetlana Zemskova – lawyer, Vsevolod Shelkhovskoy – translator, Alexander Efremov – web administrator in charge of Digest distribution.

We would appreciate reference to our organization in the event of any Digest-sourced information or other materials being used.

Contacts: Glasnost Defense Foundation, 4, Zubovsky Boulevard, Office 432, 119992 Moscow, Russia.
Telephone/fax: (495) 637-4947, 637-4420, e-mail: boris@gdf.ru, fond@gdf.ru

To be crossed out from the Digest list of subscribers, please e-mail a note to fond@gdf.ru .

← Все новости