DOCSLIB.ORG

Russian TV Market

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Russian TV market: Between state supervision, commercial logic and simulacrum of public service Ilya Kiriya STATE UNIVERSITY – HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS, MOSCOW, RUSSIA Elena Degtereva MOSCOW STATE UNIVERSITY, RUSSIA ABSTRACT: Th e state plays supervising rather than regulative role on the Russian TV market, being an acting force per se on this market. Th e state takes care of the ideological and moral health of citizens as a missionary. In this respect the Russian State TV cannot be classifi ed as public TV – as the social order could not be formed by society. Instead the order is dropped down from power structures, im- posing state ideas of social development and providing reproduction of power elite. KEYWORDS: state television, broadcasting, power, state and social control, state ownership, state regulation, homogenization of TV content INTRODUCTION Th e situation of Russian television cannot be perceived outside the context of social structure of the Russian society and the role of state in this society. Th is paper con- siders the role of the state in the TV sphere according to the logics of formation of the Russian media market. Th e Russian media market has been linking together market structures and mechanisms with non-market and state-paternalistic ones. Th is duality should not be regarded as a transition factor. In our opinion, the period of transition of the Russian media system from Soviet to market-oriented is over. We are convinced in the necessity of describing the actual situation within TV- sector as stable and organized, having already passed the period of post-Soviet tran- sition. Th is system joints the market-oriented and social-oriented media with the state-oriented and propagandistic into a much instrumentalized media system. It is necessary to stress that Russian television sector is formed not under post- Soviet predictions of globalization or commercialization but according to the spe- cifi c social conditions of modern Russia; the new role of power and new concept of social stratifi cation. Th is new system of Russian television is formed under presi- CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 1 (2010) ISSN 1899-5101 37 JJournal_3(4)_new.indbournal_3(4)_new.indb 3377 22010-05-05010-05-05 115:10:125:10:12 Ilya Kiriya, Elena Degtereva dent Putin and will exist for a continuous time aft er his rule. We will try to verify our hypothesis by examination of structure of television property, state presence in the television sector, content model that this new television proposes and fi nally the new social role played by state-television and state policy on the television market. BETWEEN STATE OWNERSHIP AND PRIVATE OWNERSHIP In this part we will shortly remind the main principles of formation for the main actors at the Russian TV market and infl uence of the state onto this process. Mo- nopoly of the state in the TV broadcasting sphere was broken in 1993 aft er estab- lishing of the fi rst private TV Company NTV. However, the mechanism of launch- ing NTV did not follow the market logics: broadcasting license was given by the Kremlin administration according to the decree of president B. Yeltsin. Th is decree gave NTV a chance to start broadcasting using the frequency of a former state edu- cational channel (Hlebnikov, 2001). NTV was founded by V. Gusinsky, one of the well-known businessmen in Russian Federation. In 1995 when the Russian advertising market was formed, the ‘grey cardinal’ of the Kremlin, B. Beresovsky (a businessman who was close to B. Yeltsin’s family), lobbied the privatisation of the Channel One. As a result, Russian ‘public’ TV, ORT, was established. Th e notion ‘public’ in this title has been purely decorative, because 51% of shares belonged to state enterprises and 49% were distributed between a num- ber of private companies. One of the biggest shareholders was a bank owned by B. Beresovsky (Hoff man, 2002; Richter, 1999). Th e second private TV channel, Ren-TV, was launched in the similar way. Its founder Irena Lisnevskaya got president B. Yeltsin’s approval to start the new TV channel. Political and economic context of the epoch was plain. Russian govern- ment at that time was in need of fi nance; obtaining fi nancial support was possible only with the help of ‘authorized’ banks. Th e above mentioned banks (about 10) together served the accounts of all the state organizations. All these banks were run by private persons. Th e year 1995 introduced a change. Bank owners received huge parts of state property in exchange for fi nancial support of the state (so-called second stage of Rus- sian privatisation) (Gaydar, 1998; Nureev, 2003). One of the most important events of the time was support of B. Yeltsin and his policy at the elections 1996. B. Yeltsin would never have won the elections for the second time without such support. Th us, the biggest Russian fi nancial industrial groups were formed. Th ey got control of the most eff ective state enterprises; the most of the Russian media companies were affi li- ated with them. At that period the so-called oligarchs did not consider media as a source of income because the advertising market was weak. Accordingly, the media income was not comparable with the income from their main branches of businesses. One of the evidences of this function was the so-called oligarchies’ wars during the end of the 1990s. At that time the Channel One, which was controlled by B. Be- 38 CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 1 (2010) JJournal_3(4)_new.indbournal_3(4)_new.indb 3388 22010-05-05010-05-05 115:10:125:10:12 Russian TV market resovsky, was confronting NTV channel, belonging to V. Gusinsky. Th e two oli- garchs were supporting opposite political forces and used their media for support of respective election campaigns. B. Beresovsky was trying to lead to empower the Edinstvo party, affi liated with prime minister V. Putin, while V. Gusinsky was sup- porting the left forces as led by former prime minister E. Primakov and Moscow mayor Y. Luzhkov. Th e attitude of power to the media property (as well as to any property) was spe- cial. Th e state considered media property as a privilege. Such approach is very typical for estate based society (Burtin, 1995). In other words, the privilege to own a TV channel was granted by the state. Only one channel remained independent of the state or oligarch capital: Ren-TV. It belonged to I. Lisnevskaya. However, in the end of the 1990s, due to fi nancial problems, Lisnevskaya was forced to transfer a part of shares to the possession of the state energetic company RAO ES. In 1998 Russia was hit by the fi nancial crisis. Th e crisis led to the decay of adver- tising market. For TV channels that was the reason to search for fi nance in the form of credits. Credits were obtained from state banks and companies in the form of gift s and privileges rather than credits in traditional understanding: NTV got the money from the state monopoly Gasprom, ORT – from state bank Vnesheconom- bank. When V. Putin took power on the verge of 2000s, Russian governmental policy in media sphere and in business in whole rapidly changed. Th e state began to re- deem the media power once given to oligarchs back in its own hands. All the com- panies not acting loyally towards the current power were abolished or were imposed to change owners for more obedient ones. Th e same process happened in the soci- ety: the state was starting the restriction of civil liberties. Both processes were linked together as civil liberties were given by the power as well as TV estate, but never became the result of people’s struggle. Th is phenomenon was described by Russian sociologist Y. Levada (Levada, 2005). According to his research data, people were granted liberties as gift s or presents. In the public mentality these liberties were depolarized. When the liberties were slightly restricted by the state, people became passive. Estate sphere followed the same way. Th e property, which was also acquired as a gift , rather than according to market mechanisms, was required back while the society remained passive. So, in the beginning of the 2000s the state started the re- placement of media property especially in the sphere of television. Such replace- ment was realized by economical methods. In case of NTV channel the scheme of so-called ‘repayment’ was used: the creditor (Gasprom) required the debt back and fi nally became the main shareholder of company. Th is debt claim showed plain ‘political selection’ as the Channel One had similar debts but was exempted from similar sanctions. Th e state forced B. Beresovsky (already having fallen into disgrace) to sell his shares (49%), but offi cial information about the new owner still was not publicized. CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 1 (2010) 39 JJournal_3(4)_new.indbournal_3(4)_new.indb 3399 22010-05-05010-05-05 115:10:125:10:12 Ilya Kiriya, Elena Degtereva Non-offi cial information attributes them to R. Abramovich (Russian businessman, close to power and owner of Chelsea club) (Kachkaeva, Kiriya & Libergal, 2006). Th us, in the middle of 2000 the principally new structure of TV property was formed. Th e key owners became the state (directly) or state companies or at least oligarchs personally bound with political elites. Channel One belongs to the state (51%) and non-offi cially to R. Abramovich (49%). Channel Rossia, channel Kultura, information Channel Vesti-24 belong to state directly. Channels NTV and TNT belong to the state corporation Gasprom, and fi nally National Media Group (NMG) is the owner of Channels Ren-TV and Channel 5 now.
Recommended publications
  • Organisational Structure, Programme Production and Audience

    Organisational Structure, Programme Production and Audience

    OBSERVATOIRE EUROPÉEN DE L'AUDIOVISUEL EUROPEAN AUDIOVISUAL OBSERVATORY EUROPÄISCHE AUDIOVISUELLE INFORMATIONSSTELLE http://www.obs.coe.int TELEVISION IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE, PROGRAMME PRODUCTION AND AUDIENCE March 2006 This report was prepared by Internews Russia for the European Audiovisual Observatory based on sources current as of December 2005. Authors: Anna Kachkaeva Ilya Kiriya Grigory Libergal Edited by Manana Aslamazyan and Gillian McCormack Media Law Consultant: Andrei Richter The analyses expressed in this report are the authors’ own opinions and cannot in any way be considered as representing the point of view of the European Audiovisual Observatory, its members and the Council of Europe. CONTENT INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................................6 1. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK........................................................................................................13 1.1. LEGISLATION ....................................................................................................................................13 1.1.1. Key Media Legislation and Its Problems .......................................................................... 13 1.1.2. Advertising ....................................................................................................................... 22 1.1.3. Copyright and Related Rights .........................................................................................
  • (Stop a Douchebag) Vigilantes in Russia

    (Stop a Douchebag) Vigilantes in Russia

    © Laboratorium: Russian Review of Social Research. 2019. 11(3):16–45 16 DOI: 10.25285/2078-1938-2019-11-3-16-45 EROES OR HOOLIGANS? HMEDIA PORTRAYAL OF STOPXAM (STOP A DOUCHEBAG) VIGILANTES IN RUSSIA Rashid Gabdulhakov Rashid Gabdulhakov, Department of Media and Communication, Erasmus University Rotterdam. Address for correspondence: Erasmus University Rotterdam, Postbus 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, Netherlands. [email protected]. The author expresses sincere gratitude to the informants for their contributions, as well as to peer reviewers and editors of this special issue for their valuable feed- back. This work was supported by the Dutch Research Council (NWO) project num- ber 276-45-004. Several state-supported digital vigilante groups emerged in Russia at the downturn of the pro-Kremlin youth group Nashi (Ours), when its former commissars formed issue- specific movements to counter perceived legal and moral offences through exposure of targets on social media. One of such groups is StopXam (Stop a Douchebag), specializ- ing in road-traffic and parking violations. StopXam participants confront the drivers and retaliate by placing stickers that read “I spit on everyone I drive where I want” on the targets’ windshields. The retaliation is often accompanied by verbal and physical fighting; the process is filmed, edited, and shared on YouTube, receiving millions of views. While digital media made such practices possible, traditional broadcasters maintain significance in rendering meaning to the phenomenon of vigilantism and in framing vigilantes, their targets, police, and other actors. As the existing literature on digital vigilantism is predominantly focused on digital media affordances, this article aims to address this gap through a qualitative analysis of traditional media coverage of StopXam.
  • Mr. Chairman, I Welcome the Opportunity to Appear Before The

    Mr. Chairman, I Welcome the Opportunity to Appear Before The

    Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to appear before the Helsinki Commission to discuss the current situation in Russia and the concerns of all of us about the Putin government and the future of Russia. First, I wish to emphasize the value of the Commission’s mandate and stated criteria to promote compliance with the fundamental standards of civil society in Russia and the other former Soviet republics. Second, those of us who have witnessed first-hand the travesty of justice in Russia much appreciate the concerns expressed by the co-chairmen about the improper handling of the Yukos trial and the sentencing of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his colleagues by Russian authorities. Your formal statement to the world’s press that the “case appears to the world to be justice directed by politics” and that the “selective prosecution such as appears to be the case here will wreak havoc on Russia’s legal system” reflects that the chairmen of this commission have an accurate view of the Khodorkovsky trial and the weakened state of the legal system in Russia. Third, it is vitally important that the Helsinki Commission continue monitoring the implementation of the provisions of the 1975 Helsinki Accords as they relate to Russia and report its findings to the public. While the U.S. Administration and Congressional leaders must necessarily balance many variables in the bilateral relationship, the Helsinki Commission has a clear mandate to insure that human rights and basic freedoms are maintained in the countries under its jurisdiction. Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that the rule of law is the cornerstone of civil society because it serves to protect the rights and freedoms of all citizens.
  • Censorship Among Russian Media Personalities and Reporters in the 2010S Elisabeth Schimpfossl the University of Liverpool Ilya Yablokov the University of Manchester

    Censorship Among Russian Media Personalities and Reporters in the 2010S Elisabeth Schimpfossl the University of Liverpool Ilya Yablokov the University of Manchester

    COERCION OR CONFORMISM? CENSORSHIP AND SELF- CENSORSHIP AMONG RUSSIAN MEDIA PERSONALITIES AND REPORTERS IN THE 2010S ELISABETH SCHIMPFOSSL THE UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL ILYA YABLOKOV THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER Abstract: This article examines questions of censorship, self-censorship and conformism on Russia’s federal television networks during Putin’s third presidential term. It challenges the idea that the political views and images broadcast by federal television are imposed coercively upon reporters, presenters and anchors. Based on an analysis of interviews with famous media personalities as well as rank-and-file reporters, this article argues that media governance in contemporary Russia does not need to resort to coercive methods, or the exertion of self-censorship among its staff, to support government views. Quite the contrary: reporters enjoy relatively large leeway to develop their creativity, which is crucial for state-aligned television networks to keep audience ratings up. Those pundits, anchors and reporters who are involved in the direct promotion of Kremlin positions usually have consciously and deliberately chosen to do so. The more famous they are, the more they partake in the production of political discourses. Elisabeth Schimpfossl, Ph.D., teaches history at The University of Liverpool, 12 Abercromby Square, Liverpool, L69 7WZ, UK, email: [email protected]; Ilya Yablokov is a Ph.D. candidate in Russian and East European Studies, School of Arts, Languages and Cultures, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester,
  • Telecoms & Media 2021

    Telecoms & Media 2021

    Telecoms & Media 2021 Telecoms Telecoms & Media 2021 Contributing editors Alexander Brown and David Trapp © Law Business Research 2021 Publisher Tom Barnes [email protected] Subscriptions Claire Bagnall Telecoms & Media [email protected] Senior business development manager Adam Sargent 2021 [email protected] Published by Law Business Research Ltd Contributing editors Meridian House, 34-35 Farringdon Street London, EC4A 4HL, UK Alexander Brown and David Trapp The information provided in this publication Simmons & Simmons LLP is general and may not apply in a specific situation. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any legal action based on the information provided. This information is not intended to create, nor does receipt of it constitute, a lawyer– Lexology Getting The Deal Through is delighted to publish the 22nd edition of Telecoms & Media, client relationship. The publishers and which is available in print and online at www.lexology.com/gtdt. authors accept no responsibility for any Lexology Getting The Deal Through provides international expert analysis in key areas of acts or omissions contained herein. The law, practice and regulation for corporate counsel, cross-border legal practitioners, and company information provided was verified between directors and officers. May and June 2021. Be advised that this is Throughout this edition, and following the unique Lexology Getting The Deal Through format, a developing area. the same key questions are answered by leading practitioners in each of the jurisdictions featured. Lexology Getting The Deal Through titles are published annually in print. Please ensure you © Law Business Research Ltd 2021 are referring to the latest edition or to the online version at www.lexology.com/gtdt.
  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE June 20, 2000 to Intimidate the Press, Mr

    CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE June 20, 2000 to Intimidate the Press, Mr

    June 20, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 11437 to protect those things we hold dear. In the name of those who died, we before his inauguration, there were dis- Quite often these volunteer depart- will continue the fight to pass gun turbing signs of government hostility ments are the only line of defense in safety measures. toward Radio Free Europe/Radio Lib- these rural communities. It’s time we I yield the floor. erty, evident in the harassment of provide them with the needed funds for f RFE/RL correspondent Andrei proper training and equipment to bet- Babitsky. ARREST OF VLADIMIR GUSINSKY ter protect their communities. I am encouraged to see that promi- I offer my sincere gratitude to our IN RUSSIA nent Russians have been speaking out Nation’s fire fighters who put their Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I about the arrest of Mr. Gusinsky, and lives on the line every day to protect rise today to express my deep concern that our Government is signaling its the property and safety of their neigh- about the recent arrest in Russia of concern too. I echo the New York bors. They too deserve a helping hand Vladimir Gusinsky and its negative im- Times editorial on June 15 that this is in their time of need. pact on press freedom and democracy ‘‘A Chilling Prosecution in Moscow.’’ I I commend Senators DODD and under the leadership of President would ask unanimous consent that this DEWINE for introducing this important Putin. piece, as well as similar editorials from legislation, and urge all my colleagues Mr.
  • Treisman Silovarchs 9 10 06

    Treisman Silovarchs 9 10 06

    Putin’s Silovarchs Daniel Treisman October 2006, Forthcoming in Orbis, Winter 2007 In the late 1990s, many Russians believed their government had been captured by a small group of business magnates known as “the oligarchs”. The most flamboyant, Boris Berezovsky, claimed in 1996 that seven bankers controlled fifty percent of the Russian economy. Having acquired massive oil and metals enterprises in rigged privatizations, these tycoons exploited Yeltsin’s ill-health to meddle in politics and lobby their interests. Two served briefly in government. Another, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, summed up the conventional wisdom of the time in a 1997 interview: “Politics is the most lucrative field of business in Russia. And it will be that way forever.”1 A decade later, most of the original oligarchs have been tripping over each other in their haste to leave the political stage, jettisoning properties as they go. From exile in London, Berezovsky announced in February he was liquidating his last Russian assets. A 1 Quoted in Andrei Piontkovsky, “Modern-Day Rasputin,” The Moscow Times, 12 November, 1997. fellow media magnate, Vladimir Gusinsky, long ago surrendered his television station to the state-controlled gas company Gazprom and now divides his time between Israel and the US. Khodorkovsky is in a Siberian jail, serving an eight-year sentence for fraud and tax evasion. Roman Abramovich, Berezovsky’s former partner, spends much of his time in London, where he bought the Chelsea soccer club in 2003. Rather than exile him to Siberia, the Kremlin merely insists he serve as governor of the depressed Arctic outpost of Chukotka—a sign Russia’s leaders have a sense of humor, albeit of a dark kind.
  • Russian Federation 2012

    Russian Federation 2012

    RUSSIAN FEDERATION 2012 Short-term prognosis RUSSIAN FEDERATION 2012 Short-term prognosis Editors: Karmo Tüür & Viacheslav Morozov Editors: Karmo Tüür & Viacheslav Morozov Editor of “Politica” series: Rein Toomla Copyright: Individual authors, 2012 ISSN 1736–9312 Tartu University Press www.tyk.ee CONTENT Introduction ..................................................................................... 7 Evaluation of the last prognosis. Erik Terk ...................................... 9 INTERNAL DEVELOPMENTS Political system. Viacheslav Morozov .............................................. 21 Legal system. Aleksey Kartsov .......................................................... 26 Economy. Raivo Vare ...................................................................... 30 Energy sector. Andres Mäe .............................................................. 35 The Russian Military. Kaarel Kaas ................................................. 40 The political role of the Russian Orthodox Church. Alar Kilp ...... 45 Mass media development. Olga Chepurnaya ................................. 49 Civil society. Zhanna Chernova ...................................................... 54 Demography of the regions. Aimar Altosaar ................................... 58 Nationalities policy of Russia. Konstantin Zamyatin ...................... 62 Center – Northern Caucasus. Nona Shahnazarian ....................... 67 Foreign relations of Russian regions. Eero Mikenberg .................... 71 EXTERNAL RELATIONS Russia and the WTO. Kristjan
  • Labor Migration and Integration Final.Pdf

    Labor Migration and Integration Final.Pdf

    LABOR MIGRATION AND MIGRANT INTEGRATION POLICY IN GERMANY AND RUSSIA Edited by Marya S. Rozanova SAINT PETERSBURG STATE UNIVERSITY Copyright © 2016 by Saint Petersburg State University; Print House “Scythia-Print;” Center for Civil, Social, Scientifc, and Cultural Initiatives “STRATEGIA” Recommended for publication and published by Saint Petersburg State University Center for Civil, Social, Scientifc, and 1/3 Smolnii Street, entrance 7 Cultural Initiatives “STRATEGIA” Saint Petersburg 191124 22-24 7th Krasnoarmeiskaya Street Russia Saint Petersburg 190005 Russia All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or uti- lized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafer invented, including photocopying, microflming, and recording, or in any information stor- age or retrieval system, without the prior permission from the publisher, except by a review- er who may quote passages in a review. Saint Petersburg State University; the Center for Civil, Social, Scientifc, and Cultural Initiatives “STRATEGIA;” and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation in Russia do not take in- stitutional positions on public policy issues; the views and recommendations presented in this publication do not necessarily represent the views of these organizations, their staf, or trustees. Labor migration and migrant integration policy in Germany and Russia / edited by Marya S. Rozanova. p. cm. Copyeditor and Proofreader: Larissa Galenes Primary Proofreader: Herbert Horn ISBN 978-5-98620-209-9 Typeset and printed on acid-free paper by Te Print House “Scythia-Print” 10 Bolshaya Pushkarskaya Street Saint Petersburg 197198 Russia Contents Acknowledgements vii Introduction: Migration Policy in Russia and Germany: Challenges and Perspectives (Conference Overview) 1 Marya S.
  • Alfa Annual Report

    Alfa Annual Report

    ALFA GROUP CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND REPORT OF THE AUDITORS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2001 STATEMENT OF MANAGEMENT’S RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE SHAREHOLDERS OF ALFA GROUP . International convention requires that Management prepare consolidated financial statements which give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of Alfa Group (“the Group”) at the end of each financial period and of the results, cash flows and changes in shareholders’ equity for each period. Management are responsible for ensuring that the Group keeps accounting records which disclose, with reasonable accuracy, the financial position of each entity and which enable it to ensure that the consoli- dated financial statements comply with International Accounting Standards and that their statutory accounting reports comply with the applicable country’s laws and regulations. Furthermore, appropriate adjustments were made to such statutory accounts to present the accompanying consolidated financial statements in accordance with International Accounting Standards. Management also have a general responsibility for taking such steps as are reasonably possible to safeguard the assets of the Group and to prevent and detect fraud and other irregularities. Management considers that, in preparing the consolidated financial statements set out on pages to , the Group has used appropriate and consistently applied accounting policies, which are supported by reasonable and prudent judgments and estimates and that appropriate International Accounting Standards have been followed. For and on behalf of Management Nigel J. Robinson October ZAO PricewaterhouseCoopers Audit Kosmodamianskaya Nab. 52, Bld. 5 115054 Moscow Russia Telephone +7 (095) 967 6000 Facsimile +7 (095) 967 6001 REPORT OF THE AUDITORS TO THE SHAREHOLDERS OF ALFA GROUP .
  • William R. Spiegelberger the Foreign Policy Research Institute Thanks the Carnegie Corporation for Its Support of the Russia Political Economy Project

    William R. Spiegelberger the Foreign Policy Research Institute Thanks the Carnegie Corporation for Its Support of the Russia Political Economy Project

    Russia Political Economy Project William R. Spiegelberger The Foreign Policy Research Institute thanks the Carnegie Corporation for its support of the Russia Political Economy Project. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Author: William R. Spiegelberger Eurasia Program Leadership Director: Chris Miller Deputy Director: Maia Otarashvili Edited by: Thomas J. Shattuck Designed by: Natalia Kopytnik © 2019 by the Foreign Policy Research Institute April 2019 COVER: Designed by Natalia Kopytnik. Photography: Oleg Deripaska (World Economic Forum); St. Basil’s Cathedral (Adob Stock); Ruble (Adobe Stock); Vladimir Putin (kremlin.ru); Rusal logo (rusal.ru); United States Capitol (Adobe Stock; Viktor Vekselberg (Aleshru/Wikimedia Commons); Alumnium rolls (Adobe Stock); Trade War (Adobe Stock). Our Mission The Foreign Policy Research Institute is dedicated to bringing the insights of scholarship to bear on the foreign policy and national security challenges facing the United States. It seeks to educate the public, teach teachers, train students, and offer ideas to advance U.S. national interests based on a nonpartisan, geopolitical perspective that illuminates contemporary international affairs through the lens of history, geography, and culture. Offering Ideas In an increasingly polarized world, we pride ourselves on our tradition of nonpartisan scholarship. We count among our ranks over 100 affiliated scholars located throughout the nation and the world who appear regularly in national and international media, testify on Capitol Hill, and are consulted by U.S.
  • Covering Conflict – Reporting on Conflicts in the North Caucasus in the Russian Media – ARTICLE 19, London, 2008 – Index Number: EUROPE/2008/05

    Covering Conflict – Reporting on Conflicts in the North Caucasus in the Russian Media – ARTICLE 19, London, 2008 – Index Number: EUROPE/2008/05

    CO VERIN G CO N FLICT Reporting on Conflicts in the N orth Caucasus in the Russian M edia N M AY 2008 ARTICLE 19, 6-8 Am w ell Street, London EC1R 1U Q , U nited Kingdom Tel +44 20 7278 9292 · Fax +44 20 7278 7660 · info@ article19.org · http://w w w .article19.org ARTICLE 19 GLOBAL CAMPAIGN FOR FREE EXPRESSION Covering Conflict – Reporting on Conflicts in the North Caucasus in the Russian Media – ARTICLE 19, London, 2008 – Index Number: EUROPE/2008/05 i ARTICLE 19 GLOBAL CAMPAIGN FOR FREE EXPRESSION Covering Conflict Reporting on Conflicts in the North Caucasus in the Russian Media May 2008 © ARTICLE 19 ISBN 978-1-906586-01-0 Covering Conflict – Reporting on Conflicts in the North Caucasus in the Russian Media – ARTICLE 19, London, 2008 – Index Number: EUROPE/2008/05 i i ARTICLE 19 GLOBAL CAMPAIGN FOR FREE EXPRESSION Covering Conflict – Reporting on Conflicts in the North Caucasus in the Russian Media – ARTICLE 19, London, 2008 – Index Number: EUROPE/2008/05 ii i ARTICLE 19 GLOBAL CAMPAIGN FOR FREE EXPRESSION A CKN O W LED G EM EN TS This report was researched and written by the Europe Programme of ARTICLE 19. Chapter 6, on ‘International Standards of Freedom of Expression and Conflict Reporting’ was written by Toby Mendel, Director of ARTICLE 19’s Law Programme. Chapter 5, ‘Reporting Conflict: Media Monitoring Results’ was compiled by Natalia Mirimanova, independent conflict resolution and media consultant. The analysis of media monitoring data was carried out by Natalia Mirimanova and Luitgard Hammerer, (formerly) ARTICLE 19 Regional Representative - Europe, CIS.