This project is funded by the European Union

Inspired by

EASTERN PARTNERSHIP MEDIA FREEDOM LANDSCAPE-2013

Kyiv-2014 УДК 342.732(477+47+57) ББK 7.9(4укр)400.7+67.9(4Укр)400.7 ISBN 978-617-7157-07-5 М42 Project partners:

Yerevan Press Club (Armenia) «Yeni Nesil» Union of Journalists (Azerbaijan)

Association Green Wave (Georgia) Independent Journalism Center (Moldova)

Partners from Belarus

Internews Ukraine (Ukraine)

This publication was prepared through the efforts of:

Armen Nikoghosyan, Yerevan Press Club (Armenia) Mikayel Zolyan, Yerevan Press Club (Armenia) Boris Navasardian, Yerevan Press Club (Armenia) Elina Poghosbekian, Yerevan Press Club (Armenia) Arif Aliyev, «Yeni Nesil» Union of Journalists (Azerbaijan) Gulu Magerramli, «Yeni Nesil» Union of Journalists (Azerbaijan) Tamar Tsilosani, Independent media expert (Georgia) Petru Macovei, Independent Press Association (Moldova) Ion Bunduchi, Radio Moldova national public broadcaster (Moldova) Cristina Leva, Independent Journalism Center (Moldova) Lyudmyla Opryshko, Regional Press Development Institute (Ukraine) Valeriy Ivanov, Ukrainian Press Academy (Ukraine) Oksana Voloshenyuk, Ukrainian Press Academy (Ukraine) Diana Dutsyk, Telekrytyka (Ukraine) Vitaliy Moroz, Internews Ukraine (Ukraine)

This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The content of this publication is the sole responsibility of its authors and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. CONTENT

Foreword ...... 4

Armenia ...... 7

Azerbaijan ...... 15

Belarus ...... 26

Georgia ...... 36

Moldova ...... 41

Ukraine ...... 52

Infographics ...... 68

3 FOREWORD

The present publication constitutes an issues, on the other. The web resource also aggregate result of the first year of the acts as a platform for sharing best practices Eastern Partnership Media Freedom Watch of journalists’ rights protection in Eastern project. The aim of the project is to support Partnership countries, which have a lot in media freedom in Eastern Partnership common in their history and development countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, paths, as well as in issues related to mass Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine) by informing media. That is why the project finds it vital both the citizens of the mentioned countries to inform journalists, public figures and and the international community on the public officials on practices of efficient media state of journalists’ rights and freedoms. The freedom protection. project was inspired by the activities of the Media sub-group of the Eastern Partnership The Media Freedom Index measures media Civil Society Forum, initiated in 2009 by freedom in the Eastern Partnership region. the European Commission. The Project was The Index reveals the degree to which media launched in March 2013 with the financial and journalists are allowed to exercise support of the European Union. their rights and freedoms without fear of reprisals and pressure from authorities, The main products of the project include media owners or other connected entities. website ENP East Media Freedom Watch The research methodology relies on expert (http://mediafreedomwatch.org) and the quarterly surveys incorporating all the best Media Freedom Index of the Eastern approaches of already available international http://mediafreedomwatch.org/ru/ Partnership countries. freedom of expression indexes. The study focuses on a specific region thus allowing The web resource is a concentrated source for a more detailed exploration of the of information on the events and processes, issue. An extended team of 60 specialists taking place in the field of media freedom (ten from each country) ranging from local in the above-mentioned countries. The journalists, to human rights defenders, to site serves as a connecting bridge between lawyers, to sociologists and public figures the journalistic community and non- with a five-year experience at least in their governmental media organizations of the field of expertise and maintaining close Eastern Partnership countries, on one side professional relationships with the media and official EU institutions, European sphere were invited as Index experts. In human rights and civil society organizations order to ensure a more accurate media directly engaged with freedom of expression landscape of the region the selection of

4 Foreword

experts excluded representatives of political Vladimir Soloviov, Alina Turcanu (Moldova); organizations and state authorities. Oleksandr Chekmyshev, Andriy Kulykov, Kostyantyn Kvurt, Tetyana Lebedeva, The project team expresses gratitude Nataliya Ligachova, Anatoliy Martsynovskyi, to journalists, media experts and public Lyudmyla Opryshko, Natalya Pedchenko, figures, lending a helping hand in project Taras Petriv, Vitaliy Portnikov, Oksana implementation: Gulu Magerramli Romanyuk, Nataliya Sad, Viktoriya Syumar, (Azerbaijan); Irene Aloyan, Vardan Aloyan, Oksana Voloshenyuk (Ukraine). Levon Barseghyan, Shushan Doydoyan,

Anna Israyelyan, Gegham Manukyan, The present review, as well as all the Media Freedom Index Armen Nikoghosyan, Arthur Papyan, Elina materials, forming its backbone, are Poghosbekian, Nouneh Sarkissian, Lusineh available in electronic format at the ENP Vasilyan, Mikayel Zolyan (Armenia); Oleg East Media Freedom Watch Project site at Ageev, Andrei Bastunets, Pavel Bykovskiy, www.mediafreedomwatch.org. Svetlana Kalinkina, Aleksandra Koktysh, Zhanna Litvina, Mikhail Yanchuk (Belarus); Mamuka Andguladze, Sopho Bukia, Luba Eliashvili, Maraim Gogosashvili, Nino Boris Navasardian (Armenia) Jangirashvili, Nino Jojua, Ninia Kakabadze, Tamar Khorbaladze, Natia Kuprashvili, Arif Aliyev (Azerbaijan) Nino Lomjaria, Ia Mamaladze, Giorgi Mshvenieradze, Ramaz Samkharadze, Irakli Manana Jakhua (Georgia) Tabliashvili, Tamar Tsilosani (Georgia); Ludmila Andronic, Lucia Bacalu, Ion Nadine Gogu (Moldova) Bunduchi, Doina Costin, Cristina Leva, Petru Macovei, Olivia Pirtac, Alina Radu, Andriy Kulakov (Ukraine)

5

ARMENIA

Policy

The media in Armenia is governed which substantially restricted commercial by the Laws of the Republic of Armenia advertising on public broadcaster. In «On Television and Radio», «On Mass particular, it is proposed to introduce Communication», «On Freedom of a ban on commercial advertising on Public Information», «On Copyright and Related Television of Armenia, however retaining Rights», «On Advertising» and by the social ads, as well as acknowledgements relevant provisions of the Electoral Code of the sponsors in cultural, educational, regulating media activities during elections scientific, and sports programs only once and referendums, as well as by other laws throughout the program. At that, the total and regulations. duration of the above-mentioned advertising should not exceed 90 seconds within an On September 30th, 2013 the National air hour. The Government substantiated Assembly of the Republic of Armenia adopted its legislative initiative by the fact that the final amendments to the Law «On the cancellation of commercials in public Copyright and Related Rights». The current broadcasting will free time for higher value Law has been supplemented by Article 22.1 programs. The package of amendments is which establishes the terms of copying now pending the approval of the National content from printed/online media, in full Assembly. or in part, by other printed/online media. For the first time ever, the draft law was In this context, «Asparez» Journalists’ released for public discussion on Facebook Club conducted monitoring of six national between its first and second reading in channels in August 2013 to reveal numerous parliament. The newly amended legislation violations of the legislation on advertising caused mixed feelings in the journalistic by the broadcasters. Thus, the provision of community. It set the terms for information the Law «On Advertising» prohibiting more use, especially in online media, but failed than one ad in less than 20-minutes of TV to shut down unprofessional journalism. program was infringed, to a greater or lesser extent, by all six TV channels, including On December 26th, the Armenian the public broadcaster. Another provision Government approved a package of setting a 14-minute limit on advertising in amendments to the Laws «On Television one hour of broadcasting was ignored by four and Radio» and «On Advertising» of the monitored TV channels, and in some

7 Armenia

cases the limit was exceeded twice or several with the Main Law. The Article establishes times. It should also be noted that, according various kinds of losses, except moral damage. to Armenian legislation, the control over The ruling was issued following the television, including compliance with the petition of citizen Arthur Khachatrian. latest legal requirements, lies with the His lawsuit on material and moral damage regulatory body — the National Commission compensation was heard by all court on Television and Radio. instances with only partial satisfaction — the claim for indemnification of moral Some laws, in particular the Law «On damage was rejected. The Constitutional Television and Radio» and several legislative Court adjudicated Article 17 Clause 2 of the provisions continue to attract criticism from Civil Code at variance with the Armenian journalists and the European institutions. Constitution and ineffective. However, the The EU Commissioner for Enlargement Court stated that the provision would lose and Neighborhood Policy Štefan Füle and effect on October 1st, 2014, as its immediate the OSCE Representative on Freedom of cancellation may lead to legal imbalance. the Media Dunja Mijatovic during their To prevent the imbalance, the Constitutional visits to Yerevan, in July and October 2013, Court stressed the need to systematize reminded authorities about the necessity the legislative provisions governing moral to bring the broadcasting legislation of damages. According to some lawyers, Armenia in line with the recommendations amendment of the Armenian Civil Code of the OSCE and the Council of Europe. It is insofar as it concerns compensation for the noteworthy that there were precedents moral damage and introduction of a clear when the recommendations of international mechanism for determining the size of organizations were ignored: for example, financial compensation would contribute a package of amendments to the Electoral greatly to the protection of privacy and the Code (adopted by the parliament on May 26th, increase of media responsibility. 2011), proposed by the OSCE/ODIHR after the parliamentary elections of 2012. The claim filed by businessman Khachik Khachatrian, owner of a major The pace of legislation improvement is holding «X-Group», against the founder of rather slow. Some laws, even if they are in «Zhoghovurd» daily revealed one of the old, line with international standards (including but unsolved problems. Armenian legislation the Laws «On Mass Communication» and is unable to protect citizens, including «On Freedom of Information») started to lose journalists, from non-public abusive or their applicability. For example, the Law «On defamatory statements: despite the fact Freedom of Information» still lacks any rules that the November 15, 2011 decision of the governing electronic requests, the same as Constitutional Court proposed parliament to the Law «On Mass Communication» lacks consider this issue, it still remains pending. provisions on online media. Physical assaults, threats, arrests and intimidation of journalists. Prosecutions. On May 18th, 2010 the Practice Civil, Criminal and Criminal Procedure Codes were amended to decriminalize Judicial practice reveals new legislative libel and insult. Simultaneously, civil problems to be solved. On November 5, 2013, legislation was complemented with a the Constitutional Court passed a ruling on provision on compensation for damage. the compliance of Clause 2 of the RA Civil Decriminalization, which was welcomed Code Article 17 («Compensation for Losses») by international organizations, in practice,

8 Armenia

had an ambiguous effect and to some a motion to seize the property and cash of extent became a tool for restricting freedom the media outlet they pursued (e.g., Khachik of expression. Formerly, the libel and Khachatrian vs «Zhoghovurd» daily lawsuit). insult criminal proceedings were isolated Such motions were usually satisfied by the cases, but within the first year after the courts insofar as it concerned the seizure decriminalization of these offences took of property. The plaintiffs, thereby, could place the courts were flooded with dozens exercise pressure on the media prior to the of civil lawsuits against the media, mainly judgment. newspapers (by the end of 2013, the number of such claims approached one hundred). The law enforcement activity of the And the vast majority of plaintiffs are Information Disputes Council may be representatives of political and business highlighted by its proposal to give a elites claiming maximum possible legal definition to the term «source of compensation. The family of the RA Second information», as the above-mentioned President Robert Kocharian alone filed four decisions of the Court of Cassation limits such claims against different newspapers. the range of sources to which the journalists The courts tend to satisfy such plaintiffs’ may refer. In fact, according to the Court claims in full. of Cassation, information sources can be categorized as improper. Meanwhile, In May 2011, the Information Disputes the Information Disputes Council says Council was created at the initiative of the that such an approach contradicts the Human Rights Defender of Armenia. The Recommendation No. R (2000) 7 of the Council’s expert opinions on defamation Committee of Ministers of the Council of lawsuits have gained importance in the law Europe «On the right of journalists not enforcement area, and under the auspices to disclose their sources of information,» of OSCE, the Council started to function according to which the term «source» means on a permanent basis. Armenia has seen «any person who provides information to significant improvements in the media legal a journalist». The Recommendation also framework thanks to the recommendations emphasize that journalists may obtain issued by Constitutional Court (of November information from different kinds of sources. 15th, 2011) on the enforcement of the relevant In this regard, the Information Disputes civil law, as well as due to the previous Council stressed the need to expand and decisions on defamation by the Court of clarify this term in national legislation Cassation (of April 27th, 2012). Yet, in early and law enforcement practice. Apart from 2012 one could witness a decreased number this, the application of Article 1087.1 of the of court decisions fulfilling those citizens Civil Code («Procedure and Conditions of going to court with the sole aim to punish Compensation of Damage to Honor, Dignity journalists, rather than to restore their and/or Business Reputation») revealed that reputation. The number of claims has fallen the courts, in various cases, interpreted dramatically only to increase the odds of differently the terms «statement of facts» solving information disputes out of court, and «value judgment». The Information in particular through the self-regulatory Disputes Council invited stakeholders to body — the Media Ethics Observatory. give a clear definition to the term «value judgment,» which is not referred to in the Nevertheless, in some cases, courts have above Article. become a tool to pressure the media. For example, some influential politicians and During 2013 the relatively new big businessmen filed lawsuits asking for phenomenon of civic activism appeared in maximum damage and in parallel filed Armenia. Activists protested against the

9 Armenia

Argishti Kivirian, coordinator of ARMENIA Today, after an incident with the police on August 24, 2013. public transport price hike, violations of against the journalist not only under Article building codes, and the country’s intention 316 («Violence against a representative of the to join the Customs Union instead of signing authorities»), but but also under Article 333 the Association Agreement with EU. In («False denunciation») of the Armenian this period, the country saw a number of Criminal Code. incidents when violence was used against activists, including journalists. In August On September 5th, two civic activists were 2013, the coordinator of ARMENIA Today assaulted by half a dozen men while coming news agency, Argishti Kivirian, who back home. The first is Suren Saghatelian, participated in civil actions, was twice Board member of Transparency International detained by the police. During his second Anti-Corruption Center (TIACC), and detention (on August 24th) he was beaten the second is Haykak Arshamian, also in a police car by law enforcement officers. a member of TIACC and project coordinator Argishti Kivirian was delivered to one of the at the Yerevan Press Club, both actively Yerevan police departments with abrasions involved in protests against RA President and bruises on his face, and then taken by Serzh Sargsyan, who expressed Armenia’s the ambulance to the hospital. The next intention to join the Customs Union. The day, upon the complaint issued by one of perpetrators, as in many other cases, have the officers escorting Kivirian to the police not been found, and, unfortunately, law station, the law enforcement body initiated enforcement bodies are usually inactive in a criminal case against the journalist for use solving such crimes. of violence against a public officer. Argishti Kivirian, in turn, filed a cross-complaint for The police quite often fail to follow the laws forcible detention. The Special Investigative and other internal regulations, while also Service, having investigated the incident — detained citizens or journalists. On July 15th, despite photo and video materials published 2013 the Administrative Court of Armenia in the media demonstrating signs of beating delivered an unprecedented judgment in on Argishti Kivirian — concluded the use of a litigation of nearly two years between violence by the police against the journalist the Board Chairman of the «Asparez» was not confirmed, and brought a charge Journalists’ Club Levon Barseghian and law

10 Armenia

enforcement bodies. On September 21st, 2011 encounters various obstacles from time to two organizers of a protest against foreign time: insufficient answers to the requested elements in the military parade on the 20th information; delayed answers; unreasonable anniversary of Armenia’s independence, fee for the information. A number of legal Levon Barseghian and sculptor Arno Kur proceedings, initiated in 2013, referred to (Sasha Galechian), were detained in the the violation of the Law «On Freedom of center of Yerevan. The detainees were taken Information» by state bodies and government to Kentron Police Department and released agencies. The respondents in these cases are, three hours later after the parade was over. among others, the National Assembly and The same evening, Levon Barseghian and the National Security Service of Armenia. Arno Kur issued a statement that their arrest was forcible and illegal, as well as that they Another serious problem in Armenia is were not allowed to call a lawyer. The authors the lack of politicians’ willingness to debate of the statement stressed that the police and have live discussions that might ensure had violated their constitutional rights to a versatile, competitive exchange of ideas freedom of movement, freedom of assembly on the country’s future development. and freedom of expression, and stated their intention to go to court. On December Censorship and self-censorship. 9th, 2011 the claim of Levon Barseghian vs Censorship is prohibited by the Constitution Kentron Police Department of Yerevan was of Armenia, but there is evidence of filed with the Administrative Court. hidden censorship. Implicit censorship may be evident in abuses committed by On July 15th, 2013 the Administrative Court the regulatory and supervisory bodies. upheld Levon Barseghian’s claim admitting For example, the National Commission on that «his right to freedom of expression, Television and Radio had refused to license freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, «A1+» TV channel during 2002–2010. freedom of movement, personal liberties and security were violated» by law enforcement There are also self-censorship and bodies. The Court also qualified the actions internal censorship cases in Armenia. Thus, of Kentron Police Department as unlawful according to journalists who were involved and ordered to reimburse the plaintiff in a survey by the Committee to Protect the state fee for appeal to the court. This Freedom of Expression in 2010, the majority judgment was not appealed by the police of media outlets have certain boundaries and entered into force. Levon Barseghian between «yes» or «no» content, which are says it was the video footage of the incident most evident in television. captured by the Armenian Service of Radio Liberty and Epress.am that become decisive State monopoly. The political situation evidence in the case. in Armenia should be viewed through the prism of the national elections of 2012– As for the present moment, there is only 2013. On the eve of the 2012 parliamentary one judgment condemning unlawful police elections (voting was held on May 6th), actions. Meanwhile, journalists involved certain events took place to ease political in protests or covering them continue to be tension in the country and to lay the ground detained. for improvements. In particular, the leadership of the country released political Access to information. In general, the prisoners and activists who had been kept in current Law «On Freedom of Information» custody since post-election clashes of 2008, safeguards the right of journalists to obtain and by mid-2011 largely restored the freedom information. However, in reality, the media of assembly, which had been abridged by

11 Armenia

dramatic economic gap between the capital and the regions. High unemployment leads to significant migration, especially from the regions of the country.

Broadcasting

Despite a decline of the political importance of the television in recent years (due to the increased role of the internet), updating the broadcasting laws remains a priority of The civil movement «I Will Only Pay 100 Dram» the media community. To ensure effective development of the television in the digital the Armenian authorities since 2003–2004. era the country needs to establish clear-cut It should be noted that the improvement procedures and create a competent strategy. of the political situation, as well as some Although the concept of digitization has positive changes in elections of 2012–2013 been discussed by the Armenian society favored the launch of the EU’s programme since 2006, no one saw a serious document Eastern Partnership and other initiatives of to: first, rationale the standards; second, European institutions in Armenia. provide cost estimates and solutions for creation of the national digital broadcast Despite some progress noted by network; third, provide prognosis of the international observers, 2012–2013 elections long-term expenditures of the broadcasters; exposed a number of chronic problems and fourth, offer a model for a social package. in Armenia. These are as follows: direct links between government and businesses, In general, during 2012–2013 elections all monopolized economy preventing the TV channels provided both the government formation of the middle class and free and the opposition with equal access to manifestation of political preferences. And airtime, and this had been well regarded no precedents of power change through by the international observers. However, elections, depriving real opposition of some TV channels, including the public resources, rejecting the tradition of political broadcaster, did not always adequately competition are just the consequences of the cover certain events. For example, the above-mentioned problems. First Channel of the Public Television of Armenia, «ArmNews» and «Shant», sparked Economic environment. The economy in controversy by ignoring the protest against Armenia still feels the effects of the recession the public transport price hike. On July which started with the global crisis of 2008– 31st, 2013 members of the civil movement «I 2009. Although the situation has stabilized Will Only Pay 100 Dram», while protesting in Armenian economy, in general, it may against the bus fare hike, hindered the work be described as prone to stagnation. The of the abovementioned channels. Later, the GDP growth in 2013 was 3.2%, according movement issued a statement explaining to the World Bank, largely due to the sale their acts as a spontaneous boycott against of raw materials which caused disastrous individual journalists and broadcasters who consequences to the country’s ecology. The arrived at the scene as late as on the tenth level of poverty is rather high — about 34% of day of protests, and even then only because the population. Another serious problem is a it was attended by Vazgen Manukian, the

12 Armenia

Chairman of the Public Council at the RA Certainly, a positive trend is a further President. decline in the number of defamation lawsuits, as well as more court decisions in Meanwhile, the journalistic community favor of the media. initiated discussions to create an alternative satellite public TV in Armenia. The ruling of the Armenian Court of Cassation on the dispute between On October 10th, 2013 the Concept of Margarita Khachatrian, Chairwoman of true public broadcaster was presented at «Zinvor» (Soldier) Association of NGOs, and a gathering of about sixty members of the «Hraparak» daily founder deserves particular media, journalists’ organizations and attention. Margarita Khachatrian had media experts. The Concept aims to create contested a piece about her visit to one of a «satellite non-profit public-by-nature TV the military units. The piece was published company independent from political forces in «Hraparak» on April 21st, 2011. The head and the government». of «Zinvor» demanded refutation, damage for libel and insult in the amount of two million AMD (about 3600 EUR) and court costs. Later on, Margarita Khachatrian Internet dropped the financial claims towards «Hraparak» founder, only demanding and New Media refutation. On July 30th, 2012, court of general jurisdiction dismissed the lawsuit. The increased popularity and availability Margarita Khachatrian appealed this of the internet led to a boom of news websites. ruling. On November 23rd, 2012, the Civil By the end of 2013, according to www.circle. Court of Appeals annulled the ruling of am, 232 online resources were registered court of general jurisdiction, ordered as «news and information websites», «Hraparak» to publish a refutation, and which is quite a lot for a small country like made its founder to pay the court costs for Armenia. However, some websites provide Margarita Khachatrian in the amount of no information about themselves at all — no 14,000 AMD (about 25 EUR). On December data about founders, address or telephone 21st, 2012, the founder of Hraparak contested number, having unidentified authors or the ruling of the second court at the Court of information sources. Cassation. On July 4, the Court of Cassation decided against the ruling of the Civil Armenia saw just two cases of prosecution Court of Appeals, thus withholding the for social media/blogging activities, and July 30, 2012 decision of the court of general in one of them the plaintiff subsequently jurisdiction, which had dismissed the suit withdrew the claim. In 2013, no cases of in the first place. prosecution for social media/blogging activities were recorded in the country. The dismissal of two defamation lawsuits of businessman Khachik Khachatrian against «Zhoghovurd» newspaper is also Conclusions noteworthy. On October 14th, the court of general jurisdiction rejected the claim of the businessman and owner of «X-Group» In general, freedom of speech in Armenia holding Khachik Khachatrian, as well saw no significant changes in 2013. The as the claim of his Yerevan Poultry firm media have not seen any particular against the founder of «Zhoghovurd» achievements or losses. and the newspaper’s correspondent Sona

13 Armenia

Grigorian. The plaintiffs contested the mentioned. A negative aspect was also article «Famous Oligarch Fined for Selling the passivity of investigative bodies to Expired Eggs» («Zhoghovurd», December detect the perpetrators of violence against 11th, 2012) demanding a refutation and journalists. Furthermore, in some cases, compensation of damage caused by libel the investigators took illegal actions and insult equal to three million AMD against media professionals such as (approx.5,400 EUR). The lawsuit was attempts to make them disclose sources rejected on the grounds that libel and insult and tighten the accusation. were not proven in the course of trial. In order to achieve significant On December 13th, the same court issued improvements in the freedom of expression a ruling on another lawsuit of Khachik in Armenia, and to solve long-term problems Khachatrian against «Zhoghovurd» daily in this area experts suggest the following and correspondent Sona Grigorian. The actions to be taken: matter of the dispute was the article titled ««Zhoghovurd» Daily Demands Public –– abandonment of any type of control Apology from Khachik Khachatrian» (except for legal regulation) over the («Zhoghovurd», December 22nd, 2012). The media and journalists, not only on businessman demanded the respondents paper but also in practice; to refute the information, which he claimed discredited his honor, dignity and –– elimination of oligarchy in the business reputation, as well as to pay him economy, changes in GDP structure; compensation equal to 3.2 million AMD (approx 5,760 EUR) of which three million –– evolutionary reduction of professional AMD for damage caused by libel and insult, media in the country, for example, and 200,000 AMD for attorney’s fees. The through the creation of networks and court rejected this lawsuit as lacking holdings. Transparency in media grounds. ownership is also important. Today this requirement is enshrined in the The positive change in the legislation law, but it is a pure formality applied to was amending the Law «On Copyright and TV broadcasters only; Related Rights» (see above), to establish the terms of copying the content of print/online –– having a more efficient and media, in full or in part, by other print/ independent public regulator, the online media. National Commission on Television and Radio, so as to ensure an open As a long-term achievement we would and fair licensing; provide more note the above-mentioned decision of frequencies to broadcasters after full the Constitutional Court of Armenia of digitalization of TV; exercise control November 5th, 2013, which proposes to over the fulfillment of the license systemize all aspects of moral damages. and antitrust requirements by the broadcasters; As far as negative trends go, the treatment of journalists by police during –– having a truly independent Public civil protests (detention of journalists and Television station, which today does the use of violence against them) can be not meet the needs of most citizens.

14 AZERBAIJAN

Policy

Azerbaijan’s Constitution provides basic fails to start broadcasting within six principles for the media, safeguards the months after being licensed; supports public freedom of speech and thought, and the instigations for violent overthrow of the right to free exchange of information in the government, promotes statements against country. Complementary to the Constitution, the integrity and security of the country, the mass media is governed by laws on incites national, racial and religious hatred, Television and Radio Broadcasting, on Public supports riots and acts of terrorism. Broadcasting, on Mass Media, on Access to Information, and by a number of other According to the Law on Public regulations. Most of these laws, before being Broadcasting, the Public Broadcasting presented to the Parliament of Azerbaijan, Company (ITV) enjoys the status of an had been examined by the relevant European independent legal entity. The public institutions to make sure they were in line broadcaster is provided with perpetual with the applicable international standards. license on a tax-free basis. It is funded from However, the amendments introduced to the state budget, and may also have other these laws within the past five years aroused sources of funding such as subscription serious criticism from local experts and fees, sponsorship, donations, advertising international organizations. revenue and income from selling its own products. Previously, ITV was scheduledto The law on Television and Radio switch to a self-funding system after 2011, Broadcasting states that broadcasters based on subscription fees, but in late 2009, shall operate on the basis of creative and this provision was amended to make the professional independence. The broadcasting public broadcaster financially dependent is licensed by the National Council for on the state budget and, therefore, on the Television and Radio (NCTR) and the license parliament and government. is granted for a six year period. In case of violation of the license terms or other legal The Law on Mass Media guarantees requirements, the court may suspend the media freedom and prohibits government license for a period of up to seven days. The censorship. The freedom of the media license may also be revoked by the court if may only be restricted in case of public the broadcasting company submits false emergency. In all other cases, obstruction information to obtain the right to broadcast; of media activity is prohibited except for the

15 Azerbaijan

cases when there is a relevant decision of the The Law on Access to Information ensures court. According to Azerbaijan’s legislation, that everyone has the right to obtain all violations of freedom of information information from any public authority; are prohibited. The term «abuse» indicates municipality; individual or legal entity «the use of mass media with the aim to which is fully or partially owned by the state disclose state secrets; to violently overthrow or established in partnership with the state the constitutional order or infringe the and performs public functions; as well as any integrity of the state; to propagate war, legal entities which enjoy dominant position violence and atrocity, ethnic, racial and in the market of commodities and services social hostility or intolerance; to make use or enjoy natural monopoly. According to the of a «trusted source» to spread rumors, lies law, the response to a request for information or news humiliating the honor and dignity must be given within seven days, and of a person, as well as pornographic and in urgent cases, within 24 hours. Any slanderous materials; or to commit other government agency may refuse to respond illegal acts». The activity of any media only if: it does not possess the requested outlet may be temporarily suspended or information; the requested information is terminated by the court if a serious offense classified under the law; it is impossible to is found. In addition, the law establishes identify the subject-matter of the request; journalists` responsibility for the abuse the requester is not authorized to ask of media or of their own journalistic for information or has failed to identify rights. Specifically, the law provides that himself. The law highlights the information any media representative or editor’s office may be categorized as «classified» and which distributes or discloses restricted «unclassified». Classified information may information, or publishes information be of two types: state secret (Top Secret and without referencing to its original source Secret) and confidential (private information (except under the circumstances permitted for official, professional, commercial, by law), or breached the privacy of citizens, judicial or investigative use only). Since or continues to produce and distribute media June 2012, information about the founders products in violation of the court decision, (incorporators) of legal entities and their shall bear civil, administrative, criminal share in the authorized capital is considered and other responsibility. The last restrictive «commercial secret» that greatly complicates legislation on the media was introduced in journalists’ investigations into corruption 2010 to establish that: «Except for criminal cases. investigation purposes, any surveillance of a person, taking his/her video or photography, The law of Azerbaijan provides that law recording his/her voice without this person’s enforcement in the media field is monitored consent or against his/her will by media or by the Information Commissioner. However, any other person... shall constitute grounds this legal requirement has not been put for prosecution of the perpetrator thereof in into practice. And it was only in June 2011 the manner as prescribed by the law». that the Parliament amended the relevant legislation to abandon the institution of the Azerbaijan has no specific regulation Information Commissioner and reassign governing the activities of online media. his responsibilities to the Human Rights However, the article «General» of the Ombudsman. However, the Ombudsman Law on Mass Media states the internet is has not yet started to fulfill these considered a type of media. Therefore, all responsibilities. legislation establishing the rights and liabilities of the media shall be applied to According to the Criminal Code of the internet. Azerbaijan, defamation in the media is a

16 Azerbaijan

criminally punishable offense. On May 14th, implementation of this law. That’s what 2013 the Criminal Code was amended to the difference in our approaches is». extend the criminal liability for defamation to online resources. This provoked sharp International organizations continue to criticism from the civil society in Azerbaijan insist on improving media law. At the press and international organizations demanding briefing after the meeting of the Council to decriminalize defamation. A week on Cooperation between Azerbaijan and later, on May 22nd, 2013, the head of the the EU (December 9th, 2013, Brussels) the political department of the Presidential EU Commissioner for Enlargement and Administration, Ali Hasanov, said the European Neighborhood Policy Štefan Füle government had prepared a separate draft said «…the essential element of our relations law on protection against defamation is respect for fundamental freedoms. We call and sent it to the experts of the Venice on Azerbaijan to respect its international Commission of the Council of Europe. On commitments in this regard. There is still August 31st, the Parliament promised to adopt a lot to be done in areas such as freedom of this law before the end of 2013; such promise the media, freedom of assembly, freedom of has been awaited by the civil society and association…» On the same day, the head of international organizations for four years. the OSCE Office in Baku Koray Targay said «We still expect Azerbaijan to adopt the law Nevertheless, on October 25th, legislators on defamation and we continue to cooperate reported that the draft law on defamation with the country in preparation of this law would not be debated during the …As far as the freedom of information is following Parliament session, as «there is concerned, there are still many things to a difference in opinions between the Venice be done... Our goal is to bring Azerbaijan’s Commission and the Azerbaijani experts legislation in line with the international which delays the adoption of the law». standards». The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe concluded that the draft law «is Azerbaijani authorities immediately not in line with the relevant principles responded to these appeals. On December of the European Court of Human Rights, 11th, the first deputy chairman of the Milli conflicts with case law and the country’s Majlis Ziyafet Askerov said the Parliament commitments in this area». «The document was going to consider a separate law on was drafted in complete isolation from protection of the honor and dignity of the the local legislation and is not intended President of Azerbaijan in the near future. to decriminalize defamation,» the press He emphasized that the law was drafted release of the Venice Commission stated. under his personal supervision and added On November 5th, Ali Hasanov commented «The Criminal Code in force has a special on the conclusion of the Commission to provision that protects the honor and stress once again that decriminalization of dignity of the President and it is effectively defamation is regarded by the government applied. This law, however, is of particular as an untimely decision: «Some experts importance for us, as it aims to protect the of the Venice Commission regarded this head of the state from insults of the media». document as a comprehensive law aimed to solve all existing problems. But the idea of the Law on Defamation is slightly different. Its enforcement may take a long Practice time. The improvement of journalists’ professionalism takes time as well. And The previous Chapter looked into the main we need society to be prepared for the shortcomings of Azerbaijan’s legislation

17 Azerbaijan

in the field of freedom of expression and the media. The research conducted within this project from March to December 2013 revealed some serious problems with law enforcement as well. There were cases of journalists not allowed access to official information, media workers physically intimidated, reporters assaulted and blackmailed. Throughout 2013, Azerbaijan has seen many arrests of journalists, youth activists and representatives of online media. Even though the charges against journalists and bloggers were not directly associated with their professional Policeman beats Rasim Aliyev, a representative of the activity, many people believe that it is the Institute for Liberty and Security of Reporters, because he dared to cover policeman’s dispute with protesters on government which is behind all of this. Fountain Square. June 4, 2013. Over a hundred Azerbaijani NGOs, in a letter to the Vilnius summit of the Council of Europe, stated that the government was disclosed, which threatens the freedom of trying to intimidate critical journalists and expression and aims to intimidate critical to establish self-censorship in the media. elements of society.

Physical assaults, threats, arrests and The country could also see many cases of intimidation of journalists. In July — assaults and arrests of journalists while December 2013, one could see a reduced carrying out their duties. number of physical assaults on journalists, threats against media workers, or their Some journalists were threatened, illegal arrests. However, the government still psychologically intimidated and called in for has not taken enough steps to investigate police questioning. There were cases of spying the cases and to punish the perpetrators. on journalists and tapping into their phone That is why many people are almost sure the conversations. In April, ANS reporters, who government itself is involved in these cases, were videotaping a protest of rayon residents, especially because some public officials quite were attacked by an official of one of Baku’s often find themselves in such conflicts. executive administrations. Ministry of Transport inspectors have beaten two On June 24th, 2013, the family of Elmar correspondents of Azadliq newspaper who Huseynov, chief editor of Monitor magazine, were trying to inquire about the ill-treatment who was murdered eight years ago, once of taxi drivers by the agency representatives. again accused the investigation of passivity. In June, Baku police violently attacked the On November 19th, two years after the murder workers of the Institute of Liberty and Safety of prominent journalist Rafiq Tagi, the of Journalists and ANS channel crew who Media Rights Protection Institute (the MRPI) covered a rally in support of mass protests issued a statement on this occasion. The in Turkey. Journalists have been through MRPI expressed its indignation that the difficult days before and after the presidential investigation was conducted formally elections. On October 5th, unknown and the crime had remained unsolved. assailants beat more than 10 journalists The statement criticizes Azerbaijani at a meeting of the opposition candidate authorities because none of the crimes from National Council of Democratic Forces against journalists in the country have been with his voters in Sabirabad. Many people

18 Azerbaijan

were injured, and a correspondent of Radio Azadliq had his camera broken. On October 12th, the police attacked journalists after the opposition rally. A journalist from Naftaichi. az website suffered serious injuries and was hospitalized to have his face stitched.

Only one of all of these cases was punished: a policeman who attacked an ANS TV journalist at the Turkish Embassy was brought to administrative responsibility.

Parviz Gashimly, chief editor at Moderator.az and journalist Striking evidence of intimidation and at «Bizim Yol» newspaper, arrested by the Ministry of psychological pressure on journalists may National Security, was taken to and from a court hearing in handcuffs and a black bag on his head. Court of Appeals, be visible in the denigration campaign Nov. 28, 2013 held by government and pro-government media in July-August 2013 against Azadliq of countries where journalists were reporter Khadija Ismayilova, who published imprisoned. Azerbaijan was in the top ten. revelatory articles about corruption in the At the end of 2013, nine journalists and three highest echelons of power. A video showing bloggers were being kept in the country’s the reporter in an intimate situation was prisons. Among them are the journalist posted on YouTube, after being filmed with Tofiq Yaqublu from Yeni Müsavat newspaper, a hidden camera in her apartment. The blogger İlkin Rustamzade, the chief editor of person who put the camera in her apartment Moderator.az website Parviz Gashimly and remains unknown, so the journalist was Facebook activist Abdul Abilov, now pending forced to conduct her own investigation the final judgment. to clarify allegations of public authorities’ involvement in the «operation». Another Nota Bene chief editor, who was arrested reporter of Azerbaijani Radio Azadliq on July 31st, 2013, has been sentenced to four (Nakhchivan) Yafez Akremoglu was years in prison for hooliganism. Blogger blackmailed. According to the journalist, Rashad Ramazanov, who was arrested on he was threatened and asked to stop writing May 9th, 2013 right after posting extremely critical articles from the Autonomous harsh statements against the government Republic. on social media, was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment for illegal possession Prosecutions of journalists. In and distribution of drugs. Azerbaijan, courts are used as an instrument of pressure against journalists In 2013, the trials against the chief editor and the media. In many cases, these cases of Khural daily Avaz Zeynally and the chief are initiated by the government or big editor of Tolyshi Sado Hilal Mamedov, businesses. A selective approach according who were arrested during 2011–2012, were to individual media outlets when making completed. The former was sentenced judgments is also common in the country. to 12 years’ imprisonment on charges However, it should be noted that there were of extortion and Hilal Mamedov was no cases of confidentiality infringement by sentenced to five years for treason, drug the courts of Azerbaijan. trafficking and inciting ethnic hatred.

On December 18th, 2013, the Committee Defamation lawsuits initiated mainly by to Protect Journalists published a list officials and big businesses often end with

19 Azerbaijan

heavy fines for newspapers and journalists, some MPs voting with their colleagues as compensation for moral damages. It E-cards. The Parliament’s investigation is the opposition media which usually revealed that the video was made with a appears before the court. For example, smartphone by one of the journalists. a fine of 30,000 EUR was imposed on Azadliq newspaper in 2013, following a defamation In 2013, there have been frequent cases lawsuit filed by Baku Metro Head Tagi of foreign journalists not allowed into Ahmadov. Another 32,000 EURfine is Azerbaijan or expulsed from the country. owed by the newspaper to the head of Bina In March, American journalist David Farley Shopping Center Kabira Mammadova, published an article in The New York Times for insulting her honor and dignity. writing that he, as a foreign journalist, Unsurprisingly, Azadliq was unable to pay encountered big problems with getting the fine at once, so, the court freezed the a visa to visit the capital of Azerbaijan. In newspaper’s bank account, which caused April, the Russian Embassy in Azerbaijan the publication to suspend its activity. The sent a protest note to the Foreign Ministry newspaper has managed to recover due of Azerbaijan with regard to an incident to the support (including financial aid) of with a Russian journalist — editor-in-chief international organizations. of Dagestan weekly NastoyascheeVremya (Real Time). The journalist was arrested at Access to information. Both media and Baku International Airport and deported journalists have faced some difficulties in from the country. In October, some German accessing official information. Even though media outlets claimed their correspondents a few government agencies, as a rule, were denied visas to visit Baku and cover the provide complete and timely responses to presidential election. the requests for information, the majority of public institutions ignore most of the It is noteworthy that, during the journalists’ requests. presidential election, some government agencies, including the Central Electoral The problems with access to official Commission and political parties were open information are not limited to unlawful to cooperate with local media. The ruling denials of requests by executive authorities. party, while on TV debate, talked about Journalists’ right to access information is the need to expand access to information violated not only by courts, but also by the and promised to establish stiff penalties legislator itself. Thus, in 2013, the country for those who violate the relevant laws. saw six cases when journalists were not The Ombudsman of Azerbaijan on Human allowed to witness trial hearings despite Rights Elmira Süleymanova, for the first that all of them were open to public. On time ever, openly demanded the Cabinet of November 5th, 2013, for example, Baku Ministers to accelerate the creation of an journalists were not allowed access to the appeal mechanism to consider the cases of preliminary hearing on Ismayilli events by unlawful denials of information requests. the judge of Sheki District Court. Moreover, Elmira Süleymanova stressed that for three the judge ruled to seize the video camera years she has been asking the government to given to lawyers by the reporters outside the provide her with necessary funding and staff courtroom. At the end of the last year, the to be able to fulfill her responsibilities as the Parliament’s press service announced that Commissioner for the Media. henceforth journalists will not be allowed with any recorders into the session hall, Censorship and self-censorship. including smartphones. A few days earlier, a Censorship in Azerbaijan was officially video appeared online, which clearly shows abolished in 1998 and the country has

20 Azerbaijan

no public authorities responsible for (unreasonably high fines). Administrative censorship. In 2013, the country (except for resources are often used for this purpose the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic) saw either. The atmosphere of fear among no bans on publications, refusals to print journalists is created through frequent or distribute media for ideological reasons, threats, calls for questioning to the police, nor did it see any circulations shut down. wiretapping and seizure of computers from On November 22nd, 2013, Yeni Müsavat editor’s offices. For example, on December said its newspapers sent to Nakhchivan 4th, 2013, a correspondent from Azadliq were seized, not delivered to subscribers was given a warning by the police about and banned from being sold in kiosks, as potentially being held responsible for his directed by the Chairman of the Supreme critical articles. In this context, the Media Council of the Autonomous Republic. Rights Protection Institute emphasized that some social media activists have repeatedly Certain topics such as criticism of the been subjected to this kind of threat by the president’s family and the army are taboo authorities. «The authorities invest a lot of in government, pro-government media effort to tighten their control over internet and on public TV and radio. During the users, being unable to restrict their access election campaign, the Central Election to social media,» the Institute stated. Commission (CEC) tried to ban some topics On September 17th, the National Security for foreign radio stations. In particular, the Ministry confiscated the computers of Commission warned the Azerbaijani office Moderator.az despite that the crime the of Radio Azadliq, the Azerbaijani office of website director was accused of had nothing Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFERL) to do with his professional activity. On not to release a series of interviews with November 1st, the Ministry of Taxes seized candidates for the presidency, as the Radio the manuscripts and computers of Qanun was not duly registered with the CEC. The publishing house for violating tax law (as warning was not been obeyed: referring officially stated). to the Electoral Code of Azerbaijan and international standards Azadliq Radio State monopoly and economic rejected the CEC’s requirement. environment. The government uses different methods to control most of the media and One of the most negative factors major publishing capacities. Even though restricting freedom of media is excessive the country had seen no state monopoly in self-censorship in the majority of print distribution before 2013, the so-called Azerbaijani media. Proof of this negative «self-sufficient» Gasid Company, which is trend can be seen in the refusal of all majority-owned by the state, dominated public and private TV channels, without the market. However, by the end of the last exception, to cover the election campaign. year, many private distributors were forced Experts can’t say if it was the free will of to suspend their activity, as a result of the TV channels’ leaderships to refuse authorities’ decisions. fulfilling their professional duties and to turn down 4 million EURincomes from The opposition in Azerbaijan has no access advertising. There are many factors which to government media. The ownership of contributed to the increased self-censorship mass media (owners, their share in the among journalists: political (harsh authorized capital, sources of income etc.) is penalties, including those for defamation, not transparent in the country, which makes as prescribed by the law), economic (risks it difficult to enforce antitrust laws, and to of losing advertisers or being excluded from balance the concentration of media among public financial support programs), judicial different political groups.

21 Azerbaijan

Third picket by Azadliq newspaper’s employees in front of Gasid Company, which is the largest one in the printed product dissemination. Company’s obligations to the state newspaper reached 55 thousand euros and media outlet facing the threat of bankruptcy demands its money thereof. July 20, 2013.

The current economic environment is for the dominance in print distribution. so that independent media is virtually Yet another economic crisis in the media unable to sustain itself without external was caused by the delay in payments by financial support. The advertising the government-owned company Gasid. market is controlled by the government, In that circumstance, the independent so the government agencies and public publications were on the brink of services advertise only in government bankruptcy as they depended on the and pro-government media and the big income from newspaper sales. By mid-year, business are forced to do the same. There Gasid’s debt before Azadliq had reached 56 is a selective approach concerning media million EUR. Later on, authorities began outlets in solving their financial problems to obstruct other forms of newspaper and creating favorable conditions for their distribution. On October 15th, they banned activities. The government uses public the sale of opposition publications in the support programs to control and subjugate subway. In mid-November, the sale of independent media. In addition, heavy print media in the subway was banned court fines pose serious economic threats altogether under the pretext of «cleaning to the media. up metro stations», which led to the closure of newspaper distributing companies. As In 2013, the major struggle between a result, newspaper circulation fell nearly government and independent press was by 20 percent. The biggest socio-political

22 Azerbaijan

newspapers Yeni Müsavat and Azadliq Low level of pluralism, a handful of were forced to suspend their activity and analytical programs, lack of relevant debates to seek support from the public. The money and biased coverage of political events are collected from a one-day subscription the distinctive features of Azerbaijani TV campaign and readers’ donations allowed today. In particular, it surfaces during major them to resume publishing two days later. political campaigns. Specifically, we can Another way of obstructing independent recall that during the presidential campaign publications is the authorities’ decision in Azerbaijan nine national and 14 regional to restrict street sale of newspapers. The TV channels dedicated zero airtime to the police detained «illegal» distributors, opposition candidate, except for his speech whilst the local authorities confiscated in the free political advertisements on public their newspaper stands and counters. TV as specified by law. There is also information that Baku mayor’s office is preparing a decree to ban street There is no private radio in the regions. sale of newspapers starting with 2014, Even though since 2002 the National as it «hinders municipal improvement Broadcasting Council has been obliged and sullies the face of the city». to annually release the list of available «If this happens — the Association of frequencies for broadcasting in Azerbaijan, Newspapers said — publications would the Council has never published this immediately lose another third of their information in the media. Experts believe circulation». that the suggested concept of transition to digital television is likely to create additional restrictions to the freedom of information, rather than improve it. The Broadcasting poor segment of the population, who cannot afford new TV sets is discouraged with the Although the telecommunication systems high price for decoders to be installed on have been rapidly developing in Azerbaijan older sets to receive digital signal. the major problem in this area is the high level of governmental control over all broadcasting channels. Internet The Public Television in Azerbaijan is a mere formality. Its programs are no and New Media different from the programs of commercial channels, with too much focus on ads. In Internet resources and online journalism April 2013, anew chairman was elected are progressing rapidly in the country. The for the Public Television of Azerbaijan. audience of online popular newspapers Several media organizations in the country and magazines is at least 7–10 times immediately claimed numerous violations bigger than that of their print versions. during the elections. According to the law, In 2013, dozens of new news websites, it is the independent Council on Public internet TV stations and radio appeared Broadcasting which is to conduct the in Azerbaijan. According to data provided elections of the ITV chairman, but, in by the Ministry of Communications and fact, the whole process was controlled by Information Technology, as of December the National Broadcasting Council. It was 2013, about 70% of the population uses the yet another example of how broadcasting internet, 50% of these are connected to regulatory bodies are used to strengthen broadband internet, and Facebook users political control over the media. exceed 1.25 million people.

23 Azerbaijan

The laws and regulations of the country Conclusions do not pose a serious threat to the freedom of internet. However, some government officials, MPs in particular, quite often Freedom of media and freedom of call to toughen the laws in this area expression in Azerbaijan encountered and to create a state agency to control additional problems in 2013. Unfortunately, the internet. In 2013, there were many the media legislation has «assumed» some cases of bloggers and critical internet new restrictions: the country found itself users who were harassed, punished among the countries with the greatest with administrative sanctions, and number of journalists in jail, the brutal even imprisoned. As we have mentioned interference of the authorities caused serious before, three famous bloggers were failures in the distribution of print media, arrested on charges of illegal possession which to brought independent newspapers of drugs and hooliganism last year. In on the brink of bankruptcy. August, the country had the first victim of new amendments to the Criminal Code In 2013, the major legislative initiatives introduced by the Parliament in May 2013, in this area focused on decriminalization which established criminal responsibility of defamation. Regrettably, Azerbaijani for online defamation. The court sentenced authorities ignored numerous requests from Astara resident Mikail Talybov to one year established international organizations to of community works and a fine of 20% of decriminalize defamation in the media; his salary for defamation of Access Bank furthermore, they extended this criminal on Facebook. However, on November 25th, provision to cover the internet. Apart from the Court of Appeal overturned this verdict this, at the end of the year, authorities and ordered a re-trial. announced their intention to bring before Parliament a separate law on protection There is no monopoly on internet services, of the honor and dignity of the President. but public companies dominate the market. Deterioration in the media legislation was There were several cases of blocked access reflected in experts' assessment in the last to websites and online media, though quarterly ENP East Media Freedom Index. no evidence to prove the government’s Azerbaijan retained its previous (4th) place involvement exists. Last year, due to long- in this rating, though the country's score term cyber-attacks on Azadliq newspaper dropped from 120 in the first half of 2013, to and Minval.az opposition website, the media 114 at the end of the year. outlets had to work intermittently and the latter was even forced to suspend its work for According to the same survey (first half), two days. In addition, Azadliq TV and radio when it came to law enforcement and broadcasts and Azerbaijan Saat TV program compliance with international standards had their satellite signals jammed from time in mass media, Azerbaijan got 2 points on a to time. In December 2013 only cyber-attacks 7-point rating scale. By the end of the year, were reported by popular media outlets such the rating slightly grew (3). This is due to as Mediaforum.az, Moderator.az, Gunxabar. the reduced number of physical attacks on az and Azadliq radio. journalists compared to the previous period (according to the MRPI, cases of physical High prices for internet services create pressure on journalists totaled 56 points serious obstacles for some segments of the in 2013, and 47 points in the first half of population to be connected to the internet. the year). However, all other media ratings However, prices tended that the prices tended remained unchanged. The key factors to decline in recent years. affecting the freedom of press in Azerbaijan,

24 Azerbaijan

according to the experts, are as follows: against citizens. The results of the said increased psychological pressure on mass- surveys are very similar to the findings of media and continued prosecution of critical our research: the protection of internet user journalists (frequent cases of imprisonment rights scored extremely low (2 points out of 30 and imposing heavy fines for defamation). in this category). There is increasingly significant evidence of excessive self-censorship among journalists It should be emphasized that in the and lack of transparency in the media. The existing conditions the Azerbaijani media low level of pluralism is caused by the lack are in sufficient to cover major political of access of opposition representatives to campaigns in the country according to the public media. The advertising market professional and international standards. is controlled and the system of print media In October 2013, Azerbaijan held its distribution is monopolized, which makes regular presidential elections. During independent media greatly dependent on the the campaign, media outlets have failed financial support of the Government or other to fulfill their duties and give members political sources. of society an impartial, unbiased and comprehensive coverage of the election The lack of political independence of the campaign and the elections themselves. country’s television and radio stations, This is partly due to certain limitations according to some experts, is the main specified in the Election Code. Thus, the obstacle on the road to the development state-controlled media and television of broadcast media and improvement of focused their attention on the candidate of its quality. All three ENP Media Freedom the ruling party, whilst minor opposition Indexes assessed the level of political publications and websites promoted independence of Azerbaijani broadcasters «their own candidate» and conditionally with 4 out of 30 points. «independent» media preferred to just «stay out of trouble.» Therefore, in 2013, Freedom House human rights we once again witnessed how politically organization, in its report for 2013, defined dependent the leading Azerbaijani media the internet in Azerbaijan as partly free. are and how they split into rival ideological According to Freedom House, the major camps, which bears evidence to the above setbacks of the internet in the country problems concerning the freedom of media. lay not in its technical capacities, but in Yet another example of this was awarding persecution of online journalists, including President Ilham Aliyev with a «Friend of arrests of web-activists, cyber-attacks Journalists» award by a group of editors at on critical websites, availability of users’ the end of 2013, while another other group correspondence to the special services — kept criticizing him for restricting media which is sometimes used to bring charges freedom in the country.

25 BELARUS

Policy

The Constitution of the Republic –– possibility of closing down any media of Belarus proclaims the freedom of outlet if the Ministry of Information expression, acquisition, accumulation files a relevant claim, regardless of the and dissemination of information, while severity of violations. also prohibiting censorship. However, legislative acts (primarily, the Law on Mass media outlets are registered by the Mass Media), related laws as well as the Ministry of Information of Belarus (this enforcement thereof severely restrict provision is not applicable for online media, these freedoms. Even though Belarus has yet). During 2010–2012 the Ministry has issued ratified the International Convention on 105 denials for registration of media outlets. Civil and Political Rights, the state does not In 2013, the situation had not improved. respect the ICCPR admissible restrictions After being registered, broadcast outlets on freedom of expression. Since the must obtain an additional authorization for Republic of Belarus is not a member of the broadcasting (since 2014 — a license). The Council of Europe, it does not recognize procedure of licensing is not transparent, any the jurisdiction of the European Court license or permission may easily be revoked. of Human Rights and is not guided by its In 2011, the Ministry of Information revoked best practices in the field of freedom of the broadcasting license of one of the most expression. popular FM-stations Autoradio.

The Law on Mass Media came into force five years ago to provide for:

–– licensing procedure;

–– use of accreditation to limit journalists’ access to information;

–– discrimination of freelance journa- lists; The FM-station Autoradio’s license was revoked and it stopped broadcasting on January 12, 2011. In the photo — Yuri Bazan, an editor-in-chief. Photo.ByMedia.net

26 Belarus

Therefore, there are no fully independent There is no law on access to information broadcasters in Belarus. Partially indepen- in the country. Instead of adopting dent broadcasters are the foreign European the forward-leading bill on access to Radio for Belarus, Radio Ratsiya, Radio government information, which had Liberty and Belsat TV channel, whose previously been posted on the website of broadcasts are prepared mainly by the Belarusian Parliament, authorities Belarusian journalists for Belarusians. amended the existing law on information, Out of the said media, only European Radio computerization and protection of for Belarus and Radio Liberty have a legal information in late 2013. status in the country. Journalists of Radio Ratsiya and Belsat are not accredited to The internet remains the least regulated work in Belarus. All foreign journalists, source of information in Belarus. However, including Belarusian nationals working there is a non-transparent procedure which for foreign media are required to obtain allows restricting access to any dissenting accreditation under Belarusian legislation. internet resource (website black-listing) for As a result, they are under constant public sector organizations (in a country pressure from the police, prosecutors and with dominant state-owned property), the KGB. educational and cultural institutions such as libraries, schools, universities, etc. The laws on state secrets, on civil Moreover, it is quite often that people who service, the criminal law, the law on post information about protests or criticize administrative offenses, and others create government officials online are brought to additional barriers when it comes to access justice. to information. At the end of 2013, the deputy Information The Law on State Secrets does not provide Minister said that they were drafting an exhaustive list of information which amendments to the Law on Mass Media in is restricted. More than 60 government order to expand its provisions (including agencies and organizations, including revocation of registration) to «the most the Ministry of Information, Ministry of popular and influential online resources». Culture, Ministry of Education, as well This statement caused a backlash among as six regional executive committees, journalists and the online community. Minsk City Executive Committee, five public corporations, Belcoopsouz, the International organizations and Commissioner for Religious and Ethnic institutions have repeatedly urged the Affairs, National Television and Radio Republic of Belarus to bring its media Company have the right to classify legislation in line with democratic information as state secret. standards. The legal acts adopted in Belarus in 2013 bear no evidence of The Criminal Code and the Code of democratic improvements in Belarusian Administrative Offences include 10 articles media, though. Quite the opposite: they referring to defamation, with seven of show the government’s desire to tighten them included in the Criminal Code. control over the freedom of expression to Articles 367 and 368 of the Criminal cover the internet and book-publishing Code provide for increased liability for sector (the new law on publishing in the defamation or insult against the president Republic of Belarus came into force in July of the Republic of Belarus. These articles 2013, imposing mandatory registration of are applied extensively in practice. book publishers, their headquarters and booksellers at the Information Ministry).

27 Belarus

Practice

The law enforcement practice in the media field remains extremely inefficient in safeguarding the freedom of expression in Belarus.

The freedom of speech is restricted by:

–– prosecution of journalists, bloggers, online activists and other media outlets;

–– detention of journalists by law enforcement agencies; The trial of Andrei Pachobut, Grodno, June 28, 2011. Photo. ByMedia.net –– restriction of journalists’ access to information and obstruction of their In just the last 10 years, at least nine professional activity; people have been convicted for defaming or insulting the president of Belarus. –– economic discrimination of indepen- dent media. Not only journalists are pressured in the country, but also editorial teams. The A high-profile case of the prosecution editor-in-chief of Arche Pachatak, Valeriy of Grodno journalist Andrei Pochobut, Bulgakov, was forced to leave the country Belarus correspondent for the Polish Gazeta following threats of criminal prosecution. Wyborcza (started in 2011 and lasted until He found shelter abroad after his magazine the autumn of 2013), is a good illustration of underwent an enhanced due diligence on the current state of freedom of expression in the part of financial authorities which Belarus. blocked the company’s accounts. At the same time, Bulgakov was accused of extremism After the presidential elections in 2010, by the public broadcaster. The government Andrei Pochobut was accused of slandering was sharply criticized by OSCE and other the president of Belarus, Alexander international organizations, and asked to Lukashenko, and sentenced to three years in dismiss the persecution of Arche Pachatak prison, with a suspension of the sentence for in April 2013. two years. One year later, in the summer of 2012, he was again charged with defamation However, in the same month, Belarusian of the president, for critical articles he posted courts found evidence of extremism in a online. The officials in Minsk, pressured by series of photos. At the request of Grodno the international community, were forced KGB office, the «Belarus — 2011 Press Photo» to drop the second criminal lawsuit against album was declared extremist by Oshmiany Pochobut «for lack of evidence» in March 2013. District Court. The album was released In the autumn of 2013, his 2011 conviction based on the results of the Belarusian was quashed. Even though the prosecution of Press Photographers Contest judged by the Pochobut was dismissed, we must note that International Expert Jury. The photos of all legal proceedings against the reporter the finalists were published in Belarusian were instituted without any reason and had periodicals and promoted by Associated Press a prominent political pretext. and Reuters news agencies.

28 Belarus

The «Belarus-2011 Press Photo» album: all soldiers are obliged to watch evening news in Belarus. At 9 pm all conscripts have to watch informational program «Panorama», broadcasted on the public TV channel. This element of the ideological education of soldiers used to be a norm in the Soviet Union and was saved by the Belarussian army, which considers itself as a successor of the Soviet Armed Forces’ traditions. Belarus, Minsk region, Borisov, 60th regiment of communication, August 6, 2010.

Oshmiany District Court found the According to the estimates of the photos extremist, and ordered that they Belarusian Association of Journalists, the be destroyed immediately. Following this country saw 45 arrests of journalists who decision, one of the leading private were fulfilling their professional duties. Belarusian publishing houses Logvіnau Four cases ended with administrative was deprived of its publishing license. The arrests lasting three to 15 days. All arrests publishing houses filed an appeal against and assaults on journalists in Belarus are this decision, which was dismissed by the approved by the government and carried out Supreme Economic Court in November 2013. by the security service and the police.

Another serious threat to Belarusian Silich’s arrest shows the government journalists is police arrests, including is determined to obstruct journalists’ those with the use of violence and based on access to important information by all false testimony of policemen. Throughout means. Accreditation of journalists may be 2013 the arrests were common not only regarded as a mechanism to restrict access during opposition rallies, but also when to information. Many public authorities journalists worked on politically neutral such as the presidential administration, subjects. Thus, journalist Alexander Silich parliament, government and even was detained in June 2013 while filming the Ministry of Sport have introduced for a material covering a mass pig-plague. mandatory accreditation for journalists. Non-accredited journalists have little to no

29 Belarus

access to information about government Administration or the Ministry of activities. Foreign media reporters Information. Self-censorship in private (including Belarusian citizens) must be media is exercised through economic accredited by the Ministry of Foreign pressure on the editorial board. Economic Affairs of Belarus not only to have access discrimination against independent media to government information, but also to be is a common practice in Belarus. The able to perform their journalistic activities government controls circulation of print in the country (notwithstanding that media through the state-owned enterprises Article 19 of the International Covenant Belposhta and Belsoyuzpechat, which on Civil and Political Rights, ratified dominate the newspaper (both subscription by the Republic of Belarus, provides and retail) distribution market. Access to freedom to everyone to seek, receive and the state circulation system is much more distribute information and ideas of all expensive for independent media outlets kinds, regardless of frontiers). Reporters than for government ones. Moreover, who cooperate with foreign media outlets Belposhta and Belsoyuzpechat quite without the MFA accreditation are traced often refuse to distribute independent by the security service, and then warned publications. About half of the independent by prosecutors of the impropriety of such socio-political print media (no more than actions and possible retaliations. thirty of them left in the country according to the Belarusian Association of Journalists) Nevertheless, it is quite frequent that faced this problem. even accredited journalists receive warnings from prosecutors. In May 2013, the Minsk Advertisers are advised not to place ads in Prosecutor’s Office issued an official independent media. State-owned enterprises warning to the accredited correspondent are unofficially banned to advertise in of the Belarusian office of Radio Liberty independent publications. In addition, Aleh Hruzdzilovich regarding «the the state-controlled media enjoy vast inadmissibility of discrediting the Republic administrative preferences and direct budget of Belarus» in his journalistic investigation. support. They are generously subsidized The reporter wrote about the security from the state budget on non-competitive measures in the Minsk subway after the basis. Some of them are exempted from VAT April 2011 explosion. Prosecutors accused the and income tax. In 2013 the state-controlled journalist of deliberately spreading biased media alone received government support information aimed at discrediting the amounting to about 60 million EUR. Republic of Belarus. In these circumstances, it is not surprising Such governmental control over the media that Sovetskaya Belorussiya (the Presidential makes journalists extremely careful while Administration newspaper) had a daily choosing and presenting their reports. circulation which exceeds the weekly total Independent media is forced to resort to of all independent political newspapers in self-censorship, keeping in mind killings Belarus. of the cameraman Dmitry Zavadsky and journalist Veronika Cherkasova — the true However, the opinion polls show that causes and perpetrators of which are still despite the fact that state-controlled media unknown. are much more accessible to the reader/ viewer/listener than independent ones Censorship in the state-controlled the latter enjoy a higher trust from the media is exercised through editors audience. who are appointed by the Presidential

30 Belarus

The strict governmental control over Broadcasting media registration makes this market virtually closed for new TV initiatives which For the reporting period, the largest public were not previously approved by the state’s newspaper in Belarus has printed a program ideological institutions. Mere declaration schedule for 54 channels legally broadcast of loyalty to the government is not enough in the country both via terrestrial and to get such approval. The issue of control cable networks. Belarus has the necessary over mass media in Belarus by public technical capacity to increase this number authorities and special services is much of channels. According to a governmental more complicated than it first seems. source, the country is going to switch to digital television by mid-2015. Suffice it to recall the way in which Belarus-Russia trade wars were covered Nowadays, digital signals cover 95.6 on public TV-any critical content against percent of the inhabited territory of the Belarusian authorities broadcast on country. However, the first multiplex Russian TV rebroadcasts was removed off comprises only eight broadcasts in total, the air immediately. Some newscasts in whilst the second and third promise to have Belarus were interrupted with 4–5 minute more channels. Unfortunately, there are no commercial breaks instead of showing the criteria for the accession of new channels critical content. in to the multiplex. Authorities only suggest that access to the second and third But there is more to come. The president multiplexes is likely to be subscription-based intends to introduce new licensing rules rather than free. for TV and radio broadcasters in 2014. This is evident from the Presidential Decree Will independent and foreign No. 456 (dated October 7th, 2013), which broadcasters with uncensored content be amends previously issued decrees on the allowed slots in the multiplexes? This is a media. From now on, only foreign TV and rhetorical question in a country with an radio rebroadcasts without alteration authoritarian regime and oligopoly of most or modification will not require any profitable businesses. licensing. However, even in this case, rebroadcasting companies will be required According to marketing sources, the size to obtain the official permission from of the TV advertising market in Belarus Belarusian authorities for foreign media was estimated at 36 million EUR in 2013 rebroadcasting. Those responsible for TV (about 100 times smaller than in Russia). and radio broadcasting will also have to take Former socialist European countries (such certifying exams in the manner established as the Czech Republic and Hungary) with by the Ministry of Information of Belarus. a comparable population have several times larger TV advertising markets than Belarus. Other TV and radio restrictions are The size of online advertising market, prohibition of broadcasting «against the according to the same source, amounted to interests of the Republic of Belarus,» as well about $10 million last year. as broadcasting «information banned or restricted by law». New TV channels encounter great diffi- culties in competing with existing public The incredible number of institutional channels and Belarusian regional «mutations» restrictions on information in Belarus of Russian TV channels, especially with such makes it possible for public authorities to a narrow advertising market. raise a claim against any broadcaster in the

31 Belarus

country — and consequently — to revoke political system and the governmental its broadcasting license. Of course, «in a policy’s direction. In mid-January 2014, manner prescribed by law». the president of Belarus highlighted the necessity to create «a party of power» in the Without fundamental changes to the country. This initiative is unlikely to coexist socio-political situation in the country, with an intention to liberalize the national the only alternative to Belarusian TV media system. To sum up: a more dynamic might be international channels with development of television in Belarus and more foreign sponsorship. The lack of free access free access of national and external actors to to terrestrial and cable airwaves in the the media market are possible only if large- country can be balanced only by satellite TV scale political and legal transformations or live streaming of such TV channels. Of in the government take place — rather, if course, live broadcasting may at any time the current form of government undergoes be shut down by authorities using fairly radical democratic changes. simple techniques. For instance, they may «black list» a broadcaster and all state- controlled internet service providers will be required to block the access to this channel Internet for all public organizations, educational and cultural institutions. Satellite TV is and New Media more difficult to block, though. According to the Ministry of However, any such TV project requires Communications of Belarus, the number of high investments if no local advertising internet subscribers in Belarus amounted is involved. This is best evidenced by a one to 8.4 million in 2013. However, according Belarusian-language satellite TV broadcaster to the independent gemius Audience, there uncontrolled by the authorities in Minsk — are 4.9 million internet users in Belarus, Belsat, which broadcasts from Warsaw via or 56% of the country’s population. The Astra 4A satellite. Around 90% of the annual difference in figures can be easily explained: budget of the company (about $5.5 million) the Ministry of Communications counts is covered by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the number of internet connections, i.e. of Poland and the rest — through other EU if one person is connected to the internet member states sponsorship. at home, but also at the office and on his/ her mobile phone, he/she is counted three The attitude of Belarusian authorities is times. that, within six years of broadcasting, Belsat was denied opening a local news office three At the same time, around 2.3 million times by the Belarusian Foreign Ministry, users (gemius Audience) visit news portals and almost all journalists and cameramen in Belarus. The rest of the users spend of the TV channel have received regular their time on social networks and browse warnings from prosecutors for cooperation the web for useful information. According with non-accredited foreign media. After to Google Trends, the most popular word the presidential elections, in December 2010, searches in Belarus are «Download» the informal Minsk headquarters of the TV (or «free download»), «Odnoklassniki,» channel was seized and destroyed by the KGB. «Games,» «VKontakte,» «Weather forecast,» «Translator,» «Movies» and «Pictures.» Today, it seems unreasonable to make Online media have become one of the any prognosis on media development in most popular news sources in the country, Belarus without considering the country’s second only to television.

32 Belarus

Independent websites are dominant agencies have one month to analyze and in the Belarusian online news segment respond to a media request — such a long and have a lot more unique visitors than time is completely unacceptable for online the governmental ones. However, the media. independent online media faces the challenge of traffic monetization. The Public authorities seek to complicate advertising market in Belarus, including as much as possible not only the work of in online media, is still a work in progress. independent media, but also of bloggers. Moreover, many advertisers and agencies In July 2013 last year, playwright Andrei try to avoid cooperation with independent Karelin was fined for 7 million rubles (about media fearing the reprimands from the 600 EUR) by Minsk Frunze District Court for government. leaving a comment on a Belarusian website. This happened after Karelin left two negative Nowadays, internet audiences are not comments against the Belarusian police ready to pay for online content as they have on TUT.BY portal and the police initiated access to a huge number of free sources. an administrative lawsuit against him for According to Yuri Zisser, the owner of the offending an official. On Augustth 26 , the country’s most visited web portal TUT.BY, playwright resigned from the Minsk New because of the lack of experience in the Drama Theatre where he led the Literature advertising market in Belarus, virtually all and Drama Department. According to him, online media needs subsidies and external he was forced to do so after his theater support. director was contacted by the General Directorate of Ideological Activity of the The low profitability of the independent Minsk City Executive Committee. online media leads to a human resources problem. The absolute majority of newsrooms On August 9th last year, the author are understaffed. Freelance journalism of ByNet movies «The Chronicles of the is considered a high-risk job in Belarus, Plant» and «The Chronicles of the District», with a lack of benefits package and heavy Ruslan Mirzoyev, was sentenced to overloads. The increasing information flow seven days in prison. The official cause makes editors from understaffed newsrooms of the arrest is use of cursing (under overwork greatly by doing the job for two or Article 17.1 of the Administrative Code of even three employees. As a consequence, they Belarus, «hooliganism») in his movie «The often suffer chronic fatigue and overstrain. Chronicles of the District» (about the ins and outs of his district, interviewing a drug Nevertheless, independent online media addict, a prostitute and other characters). offer plenty of quality content to make them Meanwhile, the state-controlled ONT TV much more popular with the audience than channel reported «the prosecutors make state-controlled online media. no secret that it wasn’t the cursing which become the main cause for punishment». Still, independent online media outlets One of the prosecutors explained that have great difficulties in getting access to Mirzoyev was accused for «misinforming official information. Some of them are not the public about the social problems in officially registered, which causes problems the country». Subsequently, the blogger when asking governmental agencies for was prosecuted for an offense in no way information, as well as when it comes to associated with the media, namely Article accreditation for public press conferences 415 of the Criminal Code «evasion from and other events. Furthermore, according punishment.» On December 13th, Mirzoyev to the Belarusian legislation, governmental was sentenced to one year in prison.

33 Belarus

On August 8th, it was reported that some On November 29th, a news agency journalist users of Pruzhany.net might be prosecuted (anonymous) paid a 20 million rubles (over for libel. The presiding judge of Pruzany 1,500 EUR) fine for insulting a judge online, region (Brest Voblast) Vladimir Savchuk as reported by Belarusian Komsomolskaya was displeased with comments to an article Pravda website. The journalist used indecent posted on a website, so he appealed to the words to comment on an article about a prosecutor’s office asking them to investigate court judgment, which served as reason the users’ activity online. Savchuk believes for a criminal case under Article 391 of the that some of the comments contained Criminal Code — «Insult against Judge or «slanderous accusations concerning a People’s Assessor». particularly serious crime» committed by one of the judges. The comments were posted on In addition to the pressure on bloggers Pruzhany.net to an article titled «Judgment and internet users, authorities are trying on the Death of a Teenager in Pruzany». to tighten internet regulation. In late Many commentators were outraged by the November 2013, deputy Information Minister decision of the court which acquitted the Dmitry Shedko suggested «to introduce accused. a number of amendments to the law on mass media to extend its provisions to the most Another criminal case associated with popular and influential online resources, to web posts may be heard in Svetlahorsk make them accountable before the law for (Gomel Voblast). One of local bloggers and the distribution of any information». A work public activist Gennadiy Zhulego posted a group comprising members of relevant video of the house of Svetlahorsk’s Executive agencies was created for this purpose. Committee chairman on social media. The chairman’s wife appealed to the police Such measures show that not only the demanding to bring Zhulego to justice. media, but also public authorities consider She believes the blogger trashed the honor the internet the most promising channel and dignity of her family with the video, for spreading objective information in and that the information in the clip has Belarus. Therefore, apart from online media libelous nature. On August 17th, police outlets, many independent newspapers, searched Zhulego’s apartment and seized radio and TV stations which broadcast his computer. Officers said the issue of the from abroad started to focus on their web blogger’s liability would be debated after platforms. examining the computer.

On November 20th, the apartment of the Conclusions editor-in-chief of Vrogacheve.ru (Rogachev, Gomel Voblast) news portal Denis Dashkevich was searched by Investigative Committee Belarus is still characterized by one of the agents who seized two computers and a most repressive media-landscapes in Europe, modem. Dashkevich said the search was being the most troubled state among the conducted as part of a criminal investigation Eastern Partnership countries as regards concerning the insult against a public of media freedom (the measurement was official. The criminal proceedings have carried out prior to events in Ukraine, late been initiated at the request of the deputy 2013 — early 2014, accompanied by massive chairman of the Korolchuk Executive violations of journalists' rights). This fact Committee. The publication of a piece about a is supported by ratings of the freedom of representative of the «local hierarchy» served expression and media, provided by various as grounds for the criminal proceedings. international organizations, as well as the

34 Belarus

Eastern Partnership Media Freedom Indexes, detaining journalists, preventing them arranged for within the framework of the from performing their professional duties «ENP East Media Freedom Watch» project and applying administrative measures (http://mediafreedomwatch.org/ru/about- (fines, arrests). project/). Having established tight control over Belarusian authorities maintain tight traditional media, the authorities are trying control over traditional media, using to spread it to Internet, remaining the undemocratic media-related legislation and Belarus’ least restricted segment of media even tighter practices of its enforcement. landscape, as well as to publishing and books As a consequence the television and radio distribution activities. broadcasting in the country is totally controlled by the state. To a certain extent The following changes of situation in the role of independent broadcasters is the media sphere of Belarus are currently played by external television and radio urgent: broadcasting companies. Nevertheless majority of them do not have a legal status –– bring Belarusian legislation related within the territory of Belarus, while to expression of opinion and practices Belarusian journalists cooperating with of its enforcement in compliance with such TV and radio broadcasting companies Constitution and the international are subject to increasing pressure from legal obligations of the Republic of prosecutors’ and law enforcement agencies. Belarus; Few independent printed media suffer from legal and economic discrimination. –– eliminate improvised prohibition At the same time state-run media get non- of spreading independent media by competitive financing from republican and retail and subscription by state-run local budgets and enjoy administrative enterprises-monopolists, as well as preferences. weed out other forms of economic and legal discrimination of independent Articles of the Criminal Code on mass media; defamation and insult, anti-extremist legislation and other legislative acts are –– terminate unjustified detentions of used to restrict freedom of expression. journalists and interference with their There are common cases of militia’s professional duties.

35 GEORGIA

Policy

Georgia has all the necessary constitutional composition, to increase transparency of and legislative guarantees for the freedom of broadcasters budgeting, to introduce the speech and the media. There are no laws in principles of «must carry/must offer» (cable conflict with the basic principles of freedom operators are obligated to transmit the of the media. signal of all licensed broadcasters) and to permit photo, video and audio recording in The activity of television and radio is courtrooms. It also regulates the status of regulated by the National Communications the state television Adjara TV, which became Commission, which is, in turn, guided a public broadcaster. In July — August 2013, by the laws on broadcasting, on electronic the Georgian government adopted the communications, on licenses and permits, regulation to ensure the implementation on independent national regulatory of the Open Government Plan. The Labour authorities, on advertising, on consumer Code of Georgia was amended as well rights protection, on protection of minors to improve the working conditions of from harmful exposure, on control of employees. The new legislation introduced business activity, on copyright and related harsher qualification requirements for the rights, on occupied territories, on control members of the National Communications of industrial activity, as well as the Labour Commission. Code, the Code of Conduct for Broadcasters and the General Administrative Code. As far as reedom of expression is concerned, the Georgian legislation complies with the Press activity is governed by the Civil Code, the relevant international standards, but there Administrative Code and the Civil Procedure is some room for improvement. Code, as well as the laws on advertising, on protection of consumer rights, on protection Defamation is not a criminal offence of copyright and related rights. in Georgia, though some experts suggest introducing reasonable fines that could be There are no laws to govern online media imposed on the media. in Georgia. Executive bodies have not issued any In 2013, the law on broadcasting was decrees restricting the freedom of the media amended to regulate the Board of Trustees’ and the freedom of access to information,

36 Georgia

although sometimes officials called to fines, arrests, etc. have not been common in impose such restrictions. Georgia, at least not in the past two years.

The media legislation has improved Access to information. Georgian media considerably since the 2012 parliamentary outlets rarely have difficulties in accessing elections. Concerns rose over the bill to prohibit official information. However, there is infringement of religious feelings, which was a selective approach to providing public submitted to Parliament in the fall of 2013. information to the media. It is thought Fortunately, the bill was blocked by MPs. that it is the fault of the press services of government bodies — some of them provide It should be noted that in September information in due manner, some do not 2013 the Ministry of Justice of Georgia, in respond to the requests at all, or respond cooperation with the civil society, developed untimely and incompletely. Access to a set of proposals to improve legislation on the information is also restricted through the freedom of information. Experts believe there mechanism of accreditation. are no problems with the legislation in the area, but the poor law enforcement system. Censorship and self-censorship. Censorship is quite uncommon in Georgian media. Moderators sometimes remove critical comments, questions etc. from Practice official Facebook pages. There were rare cases of burning erotic literature at the insistence Many experts share the view that the of the clergy and other religious associations. freedom of the media in Georgia has No cases of confiscation of media circulation improved significantly during 2013. For have been recorded. example, apart from the improvements in the legislation the advertising market However, self-censorship is widely spread became freer, and one of the leading private in almost all types of media. Certain experts Georgian broadcasters Imedi was returned to claim there are also taboo topics for the media. its rightful owners. The government became more media-friendly and its pressure on A lack of investigative journalism remains the media lessened. There are powerful problematic. In most cases, journalists independent media outlets in the country, publish generally known and publicly which are free from government control and available information rather than their own perceived as opposition channels. investigative materials.

Physical assaults, threats, arrests and State monopoly. Most media experts intimidation of journalists. No journalists admit there is some state monopoly in the were exposed to physical attacks, arrests media. Georgia has private monopolies or threatening in connection to their on publishing capacities and print press professional activities in 2013. In May 2013, distribution. The country has abandoned its a video recording was released to discredit antitrust service since 2005. The government a popular blogger. As a consequence, the has determined the strategy of antitrust Deputy Minister of Interior was dismissed, regulation and the Ministry of Economy was but no real investigation or punishment tasked to prepare the relevant legislation. followed the incident. Georgian opposition enjoys free access to Prosecutions of journalists. Forms of the Georgian Public Broadcaster. However, pressure on the media such as legal prosecution, transparency of media ownership is assessed

37 Georgia

to be relatively low. In most cases, society to research by the National Democratic knows only the owner of a media, but the Institute (NDI), TV is preferred by 93% of citizens. sources of investment remain obscure. Georgian Public Broadcaster. The Economic environment. Fines imposed Georgian Public Broadcaster (GPB) was on media outlets by the Georgian regulators established in 2005. Some media experts or courts were adequate in nature and did believe that the GPB does not meet all relevant not pose any threat to media activities. requirements or exists just formally.

Politics no longer plays a significant role In May 2013, Parliament adopted the law in advertising money distribution, but the on broadcasting, which was considered advertising market is still not completely free extremely important for the independence and very small. The authorities place their ads of the public broadcaster. It changed the mainly in pro-government media. The single procedure for appointing the Board of Trustees state media support program (the president’s and improved financial transparency of the program to support non-governmental company. In addition, the law creates the sector and the media) is sometimes used Adjara Public Broadcaster and introduces the for the purpose of protectionism. In the principle of «must carry». past, according to certain experts, financial amnesty (i.e. debt relief) was granted to Changes in the GPB’s Board of Trustees broadcasters that were allowed by authorities were planned to be implemented in 2014. to accumulate debts. The last amnesty was However, despite the fact that the new law granted in October 2012. became effective, the parliamentary majority failed to present its nominees, disrupting Most Georgian media experts claim the the creation of the Board of Trustees. In existence of a selective approach to the December 2013, the members of the Board’s media. In 2013, the media community saw contest committee stated that political forces no cases of pressure on media owners from are artificially delaying the process to retain authorities to force them to quit their rights control over GPB. As of January 2014, only to or to transfer their property to other people. four out of nine candidates were approved Nevertheless, there were cases of verbal for the Board of Trustees. The Speaker of pressure from the new authorities on Rustavi-2 the Parliament, Davit Usupashvili, stated TV and from former authorities on TV 3. those authorized to nominate members of the Board had not violated the law, and The rights of journalists. The new Labour Code candidates continued to be selected. improved the status of journalists to some extent, but many still sign onerous contracts At the present moment, the company is and their labor rights remain unprotected. run by the former Board of Trustees. As a Concerns rose over the dismissal of 34 result, the uncertainties arisen in spring 2013 journalists from Adjara TV in April 2013, 50 continued. At that time, the Board illegally journalists from TV GDS in December 2013, fired the GPB’s CEO Giorgi Baratashvili, who and similar cases. was reinstated in his position after winning the lawsuit, but was dismissed again in August last year. The broadcaster has a Broadcasting multimillion-dollar debt. The acting Director General of the Public Television remains the main source of Broadcaster, Tamaz Tkemaladze, refused to information for Georgian citizens. According resume talk-shows hosted by two prominent

38 Georgia

Giorgi Baratashvili, former Director General of the Public Broadcaster of Georgia journalists (due to their biased position, as he explained) without offering any alternative for the election campaign, after the start of Tamaz Tkemaladze, acting Director General of the Public the new season, in September 2013. Broadcaster of Georgia

Meanwhile the Supreme Council of the By law, all viewers’ complaints against Autonomous Republic of Adjara decided to commercial broadcasters should be settled nominate for the Board of Trustees of Adjara through this mechanism. Most broadcasters GPB candidates representing the ruling are reluctant to consider the complaints, majority (Georgian Dream — Adjara). The and even when they accept the claims for decision was appealed by some members consideration they rarely satisfy them. of the Supreme Council of Adjara A.R. and the Georgian Parliament representatives of Digital broadcasting. Georgia plans to the ruling party Georgian Dream, as well as switch to digital broadcasting after 2015. by certain NGOs. The OSCE Representative A special organization was created for this for the Freedom of the Media Dunja purpose, composed of the government Mijatović also expressed concern about this officials, media experts and NGOs. situation. The concept of digital television was made Commercial television. In 2013, public at the beginning of 2014 and was commercial TV in Georgia remained highly appreciated by experts. The state as polarized as it was before the 2012 budget for 2014 allocates more than 8 million parliamentary elections. However, the Euros to finance the transition to digital pluralism of opinions on TV cannot be taken broadcasting. for granted. The most popular channel, Rustavi-2, is still controlled by the opposition United National Movement. Channel 9, owned by the family of the former Prime Internet Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili, was shut down by the owner before the presidential election and New Media in 2013. On the one hand, this was perceived as a positive step, but on the other hand a few According to the survey of the National hundred media employees lost their jobs. Democratic Institute for September 2013, every fifth (20%) Georgian uses internet for The improvement of broadcasting self- getting information. Almost 80% of them get regulation remains a topical issue nowadays. the news through Facebook.

39 Georgia

In general, experts believe that there are no has adopted regulations to ensure the legal restrictions to the freedom of the internet implementation of the Open Government in the country. In addition, there is no state Plan. The research of the Institute for Develop- monopoly on internet services and no cases of ment of Freedom of Information (IDFI) of arrests, assaults, punishments or harassment September 2013 confirmed improvements of bloggers and active users were recorded. when it comes to access to public information. Rare cases involved network access problems. The Georgian Ministry of Justice, in coopera- However, prices for internet services are tion with the civil sector, has developed quite high and represent a serious obstacle proposals to improve legislation on the for some segments of the population who freedom of information. want access to the network, especially in rural areas. However, a selective approach to journalists’ access to the public information exists in the country. Some news services Conclusions provide the information untimely or incompletely. The accreditation mechanism is sometimes used to restrict the access to Georgia has made substantial progress information. in media freedom during March-December 2013, although there were some negative There have been no cases of journalists aspects as well. called in for questioning to the police recently. Self-censorship is quite common in The Parliament of Georgia has made some all types of media. There are still taboo topics positive steps to ensure the highest standards for the media as well. of the freedom of the media: the law on broad- casting was amended to regulate the GPB’s Board We should also mention certain positive of Trustees composition, increase the financial changes which took place in April — transparency of broadcasters, and deter- December 2013. In particular, Parliament mine the status of Adjara TV, transforming it introduced the principles of «must carry/ into a public broadcaster. The opposition has must offer,» renewed the permission to audio free access to the public broadcaster. At the and video recording in courtrooms. Ex-Prime same time, many experts stressed the need Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili shut down his to reform the public broadcaster, which does Channel 9 before the presidential election. not meet all relevant requirements. Despite the fact that that the new legislation on the Media experts highly appreciated the GPB’s Board of Trustees came into effect, the increased transparency of media ownership. parliamentary majority has not proposed its However, they note that, as a rule, only the candidates yet, which disrupts the approval owners are known to society, whilst the of the Board. Adjara public broadcaster investors remain in the shadows. Although encountered the same problems: in October the government has developed a strategy for 2013 the Supreme Council of the Autonomous antitrust regulation, Georgia still has no Republic of Adjara approved the Board of antitrust service in place. Trustees composed of the candidates from the ruling majority, drawing criticism from An agency was established to handle the civil society, the opposition and even some switchover to digital broadcasting and the representatives of the parliamentary majority. state budget for 2014 allocates 8.33 million Euros for this purpose. In early 2014, the Media access to official information in Concept of the Digital Broadcasting was Georgia is quite good. The Government released to public.

40 MOLDOVA

Policy

Moldova has all the necessary access to information of public interest. constitutional and legislative instruments Besides, the legal restrictions of the access to safeguard the freedom of speech and to information need to be defined and the freedom of the mass media, and it has explained in a thorough manner, while no legislation unreasonably restricting the some excessive and unjustified data privacy media. The Law on Freedom of Expression provisions in laws and regulations (for adopted in 2010 provides additional example, «trade secrets» or «tax secrets») safeguards thereof to change the defamation should be eliminated. procedure and to set forth that a person who considers himself/herself defamed may file Moldova decriminalized defamation a preliminary claim to the defamer and/or back in 2004, and now defamation claims the disseminating legal entity requesting are examined under Article 16 of the Civil refutation of the defamatory statement, Code (on protection of honor, dignity and right to reply, payment of damages, and so business reputation), which provides, on. Nevertheless, most experts believe that among other, that the compensation of the legal framework governing the mass moral damages should be reasonable and media still requires further amendment should be determined by the court with and more precise wordings to avoid due consideration of certain circumstances, ambiguous interpretation and to ensure such as the nature of the information, its adequate application of laws. At the same social impact, proportionality of the claimed time, the legislation on broadcasting still damage and the extent of harm to the needs harmonization with the European reputation, as well as the publication of a standards. refutation before the court decision is issued. Some experts believe that the lack of specific When the Law on Access to Information limits for «reasonable compensation» may was adopted in 2000 it was considered one lead to abuses against mass media and could of the most forward-looking acts in this discourage open debates on topics of public area in the Eastern Europe, and it still interest. complies with the relevant international standards. However, almost 14 years In March 2013, the Criminal Code was later, it requires amendments aiming at amended with two articles on deliberate increasing and improving journalists’ obstruction of media activities or intimidation

41 Moldova

for criticizing, and censorship, according to which such acts are now punishable by fines, with or without deprivation of the right to hold a public office for a period of 2 to 5 years. Respectively, the use of physical violence or threat to use violence, as well as damage of equipment or recordings are subject to criminal prosecution, while senior managers of public media cannot unreasonably distort any journalistic contents or restrict the spread of information.

Print media does not require licensing In early April 2013 Mihai Ghimpu, head of the Liberal Party, under the Moldovan legislation, and accused the local broadcaster ProTV Chisinau of defamation and threatened it (“turn you into dust”) after the TV station any duly registered legal entity having aired a report featuring a claim made by the Association to publishing as part of its business activities Prevent Corruption on Liberal Party’s alleged corruption. (either sole or primary) is allowed to publish newspapers and magazines. In 2013, the Law on Privatization of Public Periodicals was enacted to introduce mandatory registration Practice of public periodicals by the Ministry of Justice. Internet TV is not and has never Moldova has not seen any cases of been subject to state licensing before, whilst journalists’ murders in connection with TV stations rebroadcasting through cable their professional activities yet. Moreover, must have an agreement with the producer after the early parliamentary elections of programs to be rebroadcast and must in July 2009, there were no known obtain a license for rebroadcasting issued cases of kidnappings, assaults, arrests, by the national regulator (Broadcasting surveillance, wiretapping or apprehension Coordinating Council, BCC) on a non- of journalists while in their official duties. competitive basis. Thus, these forms of pressure ceased to be factors restricting the freedom of the media Throughout 2013, the executive bodies in our country. At the same time, in 2013 have not issued any decrees restricting the we could see several attempts to pressure freedom of media and the freedom of access to and intimidate journalists from politicians information; however, some officials spoke and other public officials. At the beginning in favor of re-criminalizing defamation in of the year, a young businessman was media. Such proposals were put forward accidentally shot while on hunting in by the leader of the Liberal Party Mihai Padurea Domneasca natural reserve in Ghimpu in April, and the President of the company with the Prosecutor General Supreme Court of Justice Mihai Poalelungi Valeriu Zubco and other prosecutors, judges in September. and governmental officials. The young man's subsequent death raised political Both cases received immediate response tensions in the society, and some politicians from the civil society and some public unsatisfied with the media coverage of the figures, strongly condemning the proposals accident started intimidating journalists. and urging to abandon them. Subsequently, Specifically, the Chairman of the Liberal the authors of the proposals stated they did Party (PL), former Speaker of Parliament not intend to initiate these changes, and and former Acting President of Moldova that their statements were misconstrued. Mihai Ghimpu threatened to close Jurnal

42 Moldova

“I will personally make sure that you don’t work in the local media anymore!» In November Communist MP Iurie Muntean threatened a reporter of Publika TV with ban from the profession. The MP motivated his behavior with Publika TV’s broadcasting of defamatory information on him and called the TV station «a media brothel».

TV channel, accused Adevarul Moldova sessions, and threatened to «make sure that journalists of corruption, and intimidated she’d never be in the mass media again.» journalists from PRO TV Chisinau channel. The recurrent assaults on the press by This incident had a great resonance in civil PL leader urged media NGOs to issue a society and was regarded as intimidation statement on the impropriety of such for criticism and deliberate obstruction of conduct in a democratic society demanding journalistic activity, and also a violation to publicly apologize for the assaults on the of the right to freedom of expression and of mass media and to refrain from accusatory media freedom. The TV channel replied by rhetoric against journalists in future. filing a complaint to the Public Prosecutor’s Earlier, other government and opposition Office and declaring a temporary moratorium public officials have made similar attempts on coverage of the Communist Party. to pressure and intimidate journalists, including the Chairman of the Democratic Some journalists complained of unjustified Party, former Speaker of Parliament and summoning by law enforcement agencies, former Acting President Marian Lupu, including the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Chairman of the Communist Party the National Anti-Corruption Center (cases and former President of Moldova Vladimir of Ziarul de Garda newspaper1 and Deschide. Voronin and other public figures. 1 In April 2013 the Prosecutor’s Office of Chisinau asked one of the journalists of Ziarul de Garda investigating illegal On 21 November 2013, during the Moldovan trade of ammunitions from the depot of the National Army Parliament session, the Communist MP to disclose the sources of information. Later, in August 2013 Iurie Muntean expressed his discontent the newspaper published a statement on National Anti- Corruption Center's request to disclose information on the with the way a journalist from Publika TV reporting team covering an investigation of corruption at the channel reported on his behavior during the forestry authority, as well as hand over the unedited footage of the interview.

43 Moldova

md Internent portal) claiming they feel to disclose a source in a civil case or in a psychological pressured because of that. In case of contravention. At the same time, turn, the public authorities assured that the prosecutors and courts may oblige the media callings were a part of enquiries initiated to disclose their source of information in after publication of articles about alleged criminal proceedings provided that the wrongdoings. The National Anti-Corruption following conditions are met cumulatively: Center and some district prosecutor’s offices a) in case of particularly serious or complained about the reluctance of the mass extremely serious crime; b) disclosure of media to cooperate in order to expose and the source of information is absolutely punish those involved in the alleged acts of essential for the criminal prosecution; corruption referred to by the media. c) all other attempts to trace the source of information were unsuccessful. This Prosecution of editors and journalists provision protects journalists and mass in connection with their professional media from coercion to reveal confidential activities, in particular because of revelatory sources, whilst lawyers often invoke this articles or investigative journalism, are article in the cases when journalists are relatively common in Moldova. Thus, over forced to reveal their sources. the past few years the mass media faced a number of civil cases on defamation where Even though access to information has the plaintiffs claimed huge compensations improved slightly in recent years, the media of «moral damage.» In some cases, these and journalists still face difficulties in expressly unreasonable and unjustified getting access to official information and amounts were even approved by courts, other information of public interest. The though afterwards reversed or significantly State Registration Chamber and Cadastral reduced by the Court of Appeals or the Office databases are not publicly available Supreme Court of Justice. An example is and are not always free, and editors have Ziarul de Garda newspaper, which was to spend plenty of money to obtain the obliged by the court to pay EUR 30 thousand necessary information, for instance in fine for an allegedly defamatory material journalistic investigations of complex about two prosecutors arrested earlier money laundering schemes. Press services for bribery (later on, the Chisinau Court of official bodies have become more of Appeals quashed that verdict). After professional in recent days, but it is still Adevarul Moldova newspaper had published frequent that journalists cannot get full its investigation on some bank loans and prompt responses to their requests. granted to the Chairman of the Chisinau Court of Appeals Ion Plesca on unreasonably Except for the Transnistrian region, favorable terms, the newspaper faced two after 2009 no foreign journalists were simultaneous claims from the privately- denied entry to Moldova, nor were expelled owned banks Moldindconbank and from the country, while the accreditation Victoriabank, each demanding EUR 12 000 mechanism was never used to restrict compensation. In early 2014, the Balti Court access to information. However, the newly of Appeals dismissed one claim, while the elected members of the Gagauz National other case is still under consideration. Assembly (Gagauzia is an autonomous region in the South of Moldova) introduced According to the Law on Freedom of new rules for media accreditation at the end Expression (Article 13), mass media have of 2012, according to which Internet portals the right to keep secret their sources of must submit a copy of their license to get information or whatever facts that may lead accreditation. However, as the Moldovan to disclosure of sources, and is not bound legislation has no provisions on Internet

44 Moldova

In August the newspaper Ziarul National published an article titled «Plahotniuc’s empire» tracking the schemes connecting a number of offshore companies and businesses owned by politician and businessman Vladimir Plahotniuc. Some of the media institutions mentionedby journalists were the TV stations Prime TV, 2 Plus and Canal 3, as well as the advertising agency Casa Media Plus. media licensing, the newly adopted rules fictitious pretext. The highly competitive may be perceived as an attempt to limit media market is greatly influenced by free access of some journalists to the local politicians who own some of the private Assembly sessions. Despite the requests media. Experts argue that self-censorship of national and regional NGOs to exclude is common enough in the media where this provision from the draft Rules of journalists are paid big salaries in exchange Accreditation of Mass Media, the Rules for loyalty to the political party of their were adopted unchanged. owner, as well as to the owner’s business interests. It also contributes to manipulation In recent years Moldova has seen no of the public opinion through media during documented facts of «external» censorship, political crises. The opposition has free access such as ban on publication, refusal to print or to public media, despite opposition parties’ distribute a publication; nevertheless many occasional claims to the contrary. When journalists and experts admit that some analyzed, most of those allegations tend «internal» censorship may exist, i.e. removal to be insubstantial, as the opposition uses of objectionable articles or TV shows from them to increase its electorate (see Section broadcasting by senior editors under real or 3.Broadcasting).

45 Moldova

Moldovan legislation does not provide any TV channels requiring high expenditures, essential safeguards for the transparency of are artificially supported by their owners media ownership. Therefore, the identity in order to be used for political purposes of most owners of TV channels and the or to put pressure on the government and/ structure of ownership remain obscure, or business competitors. Besides, there or the society is given a dummy owner. are no sufficient measures against market Quite often the final beneficiary of a media concentration, which is a growing threat institution can be guessed by the so-called to media pluralism in Moldova. «editorial policy.» Current legislation on media ownership uses the term «founder» There is no state monopoly on printing instead of «owner» and, usually even if the facilities and distribution of printed name of legal person is known, it is highly materials in Moldova, though publishers unlikely that it will point to the real owner are unhappy to distribute newspapers of the media, which may (and does) lead to and magazines through the state-owned market monopoly and unfair competition. enterprise Posta Moldovei (the only press Under internal and external pressure the distributor outside the capital and big cities) government agreed to initiate relevant and the formely state-owned and presently amendments to the legislation. Thus, in private enterprise Moldpresa. Over the June 2013 a group of MPs from the ruling past two years, publishers have repeatedly coalition’s Liberal Democrat Party (PLDM) complained of the market power abuses by registered a draft law aimed at increasing these enterprises, as well as of unfair pricing media ownership transparency. The draft and distribution contracts, but the issue still law amending the Broadcasting Code (BC) remains unsolved. was previously developed by civil society organizations and provided for mandatory Some media market players have also declaration of owners of TV channels expressed their discontent with advertising and radio stations and indication of the distribution. Thus, for the past four years, ultimate beneficiary, i.e. the natural person many publishers and broadcasters have who benefits from business activity of the complained about the unfair and unjustified media. The draft law was presented to the distribution of advertising and implicitly public for preliminary examination, but cash flow on the media market. was not brought up for discussion in 2013. The media community and independent Specifically, a number of journalists and media experts explained this by the fact media experts reported the existence of a that the largest television channels in the cartel agreement between some advertising country are owned by influential members agencies and the only people-meter rating of the parliament. agency TV MR MLD, licensed by AGB Nielsen Media Research and allegedly tied Nevertheless, experts believe that in the with a certain media group (consisting of context of the EU Association Agreement TV channels Prime, Publika, 2Plus, Canal efforts it is likely that the draft law will 3, MuzTV and radio stations Publika FM, be resumed in 2014. Another hindrance to Maestro FM, Muz FM) purportedly owned transparency lies in the frequently obscure by the businessman Vladimir Plahotniuc, income sources of mass media. Analysts Vice Chairman of the Democratic Party. believe that the small size of the Moldovan In this respect, the government has even advertising market and, correspondingly, pledged to adopt a new law on advertising, the insufficient revenues from advertising however without any effective progress, cannot ensure the sustainability of media even as the competition on the market is outlets, therefore many of them, especially not fair.

46 Moldova

European experts both broadcasters have Broadcasting developed and adopted corporate strategies for several years ahead with the ultimate Moldova has about a hundred national, goal to create public service broadcasters regional and local broadcasters. Most TV according to all international standards. channels and a half of the radio stations, besides their own content, rebroadcast The Electronic Press Association (APEL) foreign channels, primarily from Russia is a media NGO that has been monitoring and Romania. The existing regulation reforms on Teleradio-Moldova for the last stipulates that every TV broadcaster must three years. Its experts have concluded that include at least 30% of its own media product after eight years of Communist ruling the in the broadcast content. major achievement of the national public broadcaster consisted in a content that The majority of broadcasters provide redeemed its public character and that the generalist content, but there are some niche programs, including newscasts, refocused stations: one news TV, one kids TV, a few on the citizen rather than the government. music channels, as well as several radio stations targeted for women, or with sports The external monitoring of Teleradio- and religious content. Moldova during the election campaigns of 2010 (early parliamentary elections) and 2011 In general, broadcasters comply with (local elections) has confirmed the above- journalistic standards, as proven by the mentioned findings. continuous monitoring conducted by the Broadcasting Coordinating Council (BCC) It is worth noting that by the end of the 2013 during the past four years. However, there are spring-summer Parliamentary session the some exceptions. For instance, in December, opposition Party of Communists pledged to the BCC issued a public warning to Accent undertake a «Velvet Revolution» in autumn. TV for biased coverage and lack of pluralism. In late September 2013, as part of this Accent TV started broadcasting in summer «Revolution», a number of PCRM members, and is the only channel in the country including prominent ones, picketed the having an MP from the Party of Communists national public television alleging that the (PCRM) as an author and host of the TV opposition’s access to airtime is restricted, show «The Third Microphone» (Communists without proving their allegations though. use the third microphone for speeches in Conversely, the television has proved they Parliament). Accent TV is a «successor» of the repeatedly invited Communists to participate pro-Communist channel NIT that was closed in TV shows, but the latter repeatedly turned by the BCC in 2012 on grounds of violation of down the invitations. Many analysts and the principle of pluralism. representatives of the media community assessed the behavior of PCRM as a political There is an Association of Regional PR trick. Another remarkable fact is that Televisions — as of September last year it on December 11, during the parliamentary produces joint daily live broadcasts, including procedure of vote of no confidence to the two 30-minute long local newscasts in Government (the third one in 2013) initiated Romanian and Russian languages. by the Communist Party the Prime Minister openly invited the PCRM leader to a public Moldova also has one national public debate of the country’s foreign policy on television station (Teleradio-Moldova) the public television. Subsequently, the and one regional public television station public TV hastened to officially invite both (Teleradio-Gagauzia). With support from politicians to a weekly talk show, although

47 Moldova

the talk show was later called off because legislation it must be an independent body; of the Communist leader’s refusal to come. however its members are still appointed by Media experts stressed that the invitation political criteria. Media experts note that to such TV shows should originate from the this leads to tense relationship between the broadcaster itself rather than the Prime Supervisory Board and the management of Minister, regardless of his/her political the broadcaster. The mandates of six out views. Subsequently, this instance of of nine members of the Supervisory Board behaviour of the public TV was interpreted expired in early December 2013 — twice as a sign of an insufficiently independent the usual number of vacancies, as the institution and was deemed as inadequate Parliament had failed to approve three new for a public broadcaster that has exclusive members in due time, thus breaching the rights to determine its own editorial policy. principle of cyclic rotation of one third of the Board members. In December last year, the APEL also emphasized the slow pace of BCC selected 12 candidates for the six vacant reforms, despite the more or less obvious seats (as provided by law) and submitted successes in the implementation of the them for consideration to the parliamentary reform strategy. While the insufficient commission for media. Among those budget is one of the causes (for example, the candidates many are representatives of the budget for 2014 was reduced by 12 million lei, parties in power and the media community equivalent to EUR650,000 comparing to the fears that the Parliament is very likely to budget for 2013), poor management of the take another politically motivated decision company is also in question. when appointing the new members of the Board. The lack of funds threatens to affect the transition of the public company to digital As far as the second public broadcaster is broadcasting, which is scheduled for 2015. concerned, the regional company Teleradio- Some independent analysts tend to believe Gagauzia has undergone minimal changes that the budget deficit is kept artificially high for the better. The pro-democratic change in to make Teleradio-Moldova less competitive power has not resulted in vivid improvements than other channels, which are owned in the region since 2010. It took very long for by influential politicians from the ruling local authorities to appoint the members of coalition. These opinions are supported by the Supervisory Board of the regional public some indirect arguments, such as the fact broadcaster, which shortly thereafter became that in November 2013, unexpectedly, the nonfunctional. The regional government Democratic Party from the ruling coalition retains enough leverage over the local media, announced they intended to request including Teleradio-Gagauzia, as evidenced additional funds for the public broadcaster by the behavior of the public broadcaster and to resume its international broadcasting. other 3 private TV channels operating in the autonomy during the elections of the local In the reporting period, albeit with parliament in 2012. The region has seen a certain delay, Teleradio-Moldova started strong confrontation between the executive to implement the new pay system aimed and legislative authorities that split the at increasing the output of high-quality regional media respectively. Private media media products. The previous pay system of enjoy a higher degree of independence, but the company focused on the quantity rather remain very vulnerable due to the lack of than the quality of their services. funds.

Teleradio-Moldova is supervised by the The corporate strategy of Teleradio- Supervisory Board. According to the national Gagauzia envisages transition to a funding

48 Moldova

system based on a fixed percentage from only foreign channels containing no the annual budget of the region. But as advertising in their program services. the autonomy has shown little progress in reforms, the strategy remains mostly The Law protecting children from harmful on paper. In the autumn of 2013, new information entered into force almost members were appointed to the local simultaneously with the above-mentioned Supervisory Board that was to elect the amendments. The new law imposed new management of the regional public additional restrictions on televisions for broadcaster. Two out of the three new images containing violence, drugs, alcohol managers are prominent party activists and tobacco on screen, as well as fear- (the Director of the TV station is former inducing scenes that promote aggressive chair of the local parliament). Therefore, behavior, sexual harassment and so on. the majority of journalists feel skeptical The public opinion and journalists shared about progress of the regional public their consent on the existing necessity of television on a short term. «purifying» television.

In November 2013, the Media Program of During the reporting period, only news the Soros Foundation-Moldova started the channel Publika TV has undergone noticeable first study of «external» media pluralism. changes. In October, the channel changed its The research, which is to be completed administration and undertook a process of early in 2014, will determine the level of rebranding by closing seven opinion shows. pluralism in Moldova’s two most popular Later on, the press reported that many types of media — television and online authors of the closed programs intended news portals. Both media will be assessed to continue their activity on Prime TV and according to several criteria including type Canal 3, which are also said to be owned of ownership, identity of owners, coverage, by politician and businessman Vladimir target audience, editorial policy and so Plahotniuk. The changes in Publika TV’s on. It is expected that the investigation program schedule coincided with other staff will encounter some difficulties when changes between this channel and Prime identifying the owners of televisions, as the TV. Also, in November 2013, a journalist current law requires broadcasters to declare from Publika TV was publicly offended in the only their founders (see Section 2.Practice). Parliament by one of the leading members The other draft law (registered by Liberal of the Party of Communists (see Section Democrats) that was to make it compulsory 2. Practice). Consequently, media NGOs for TV channels to show the duration of strongly condemned the MP’s behavior, commercials or teleshopping blocks was while the TV channel itself refused to cover also stalled in the Parliament, same as the PCRM’s activities in news reports until they draft Law increasing transparency of media receive public apologies. To the date, PCRM ownership. have not yet apologized.

On July 1, 2013, the amendments to the Broadcasting Code prohibiting cable operators to broadcast advertising on Internet rebroadcast channels came into effect. Moreover, operators are required to «close» and New Media the existing advertising and teleshopping on rebroadcast channels. Thus, cable Internet journalism is relatively recent operators that relay TV broadcasts on on the Moldovan media market (having telecommunications networks may include appeared after the year 2000), but quickly

49 Moldova

progressed to compete with conventional for civic participation through social media. The Internet first entered the list networks, which enabled people to come of most used sources of information in together at the time and thus to cause the 2009, ranking 4th after television, radio and change of the government. newspapers. Later, all the opinion polls, which are held at least twice a year, have Presently, there are no laws restricting shown that the Internet became one of the freedom of the Internet, nor any specific most frequently used information sources regulators of the Internet in the country. and is now second only to television. Thus, The only legally regulated areas are the Internet has first outrun newspapers, e-commerce, copyright, and a few others. and then radio. Presently, the country has a well-developed network infrastructure with Neither the regulatory, nor the self the majority of users accessing the Internet regulatory framework on media contains via broadband connection (with an average clear definition of the notion of «online data transfer rate of up to 31 Mbps). This journalism.» The social and professional explains Moldova’s ranking 17th in the Net status of bloggers is also not clearly defined Index world rankings2. The country has a free yet, even though they have long become market of Internet services with reasonable an influential power in the country. In prices compared to European average. 2013, at least three bloggers publicly stated that they had received anonymous threats Most media have their own websites. In related to their blogging activities. the past few years online-only news portals have emerged, succeeding in winning a Increasingly often mass media relies on rather high number of visitors in a relatively posts and opinions published by bloggers, short time. Over time, Internet media outlets while over time, some government officials started hiring professional journalists in and political leaders (including party leaders) their editorial staffs. Today, an important have also started blogging. At the same share of the media product offered by these time, in the course of a yet insufficiently Internet outlets consists of their own content, studied trend, some popular bloggers got to which is very often fully or partially replicated promote more or less openly the interests of by other websites and news aggregators certain political or economic entities. Many in violation of any copyright or ethics of experts agree that despite the existing bias journalism. The content itself became more of bloggers, this phenomenon is indicative diverse, while information is offered in text, of the politicians’ acknowledgement of the photo, audio, and video formats, frequently growing influence thereof. completed with infographics. Some portals provide live streaming of important events, The year 2013 saw two specific while some produce their own shows. In developments on the online market. In late July, a new project Angry Business TV was August, the first news portal Unimedia.md launched, providing online interviews on and women’s online magazine Pentruea. doing business in the country. md signed a merger agreement. Thus, the news web-site with an audience of over Numerous bloggers appeared in Moldova, 350 thousand unique monthly visitors especially after 2009, partly driven by the implemented a distinct module to host increasing influence of the virtual space the latest articles of the partner website. and in particular by the new possibilities of The two outlets also developed a common sharing information and the opportunities advertising strategy. Another event worth mentioning is the Government’s first online 2 For details, see http://www.netindex.com/download/2,82/ monthly magazine launched by authorities Republic-of%20Moldova/

50 Moldova at the end of November, on the day of the EU Conclusions summit in Vilnius.

The audit of online audience of Moldovan The mass media legal framework in website is carried out by the Bureau of Moldova encompasses most necessary Audit of Circulations and Internet (BATI) safeguards of the freedom of speech in cooperation with the Moldovan office and the freedom of the press, but its of Gemius. According to BATI/Gemius enforcement and improvement have been estimation for September 2013, the number often obstructed by certain subjective of unique visitors of the top seven news factors of political origin. The existing portals varies from 533.502 (Protv.md) to situation suggests that reforms in the 103.653 (Kommersant.md). media are relatively fragile in Moldova. The country needs to consolidate the achieved In early October 2013, one of the initiatives results and to carry on sustainable reforms of the Prosecutor General’s Office aiming to meet European standards. at compelling Internet providers to block user access to certain websites stirred During the reporting period, Moldova up the country’s online community. The has seen no fundamental changes in the Prosecutor’s Office argued that the initiative state of media freedom. The government was aimed at combating the increasing remained more or less neutral to the number of cyber crimes, but failed to provide media and refrained from interfering specific criteria for the websites subject to openly in their activities; nor did they help being blocked. The initiative caused negative media (through legal reforms or economic response of national providers, mobile policies). The single most important draft Internet operators, news portals, as well law on transparency of media ownership is as other media, which required removing still at the stage of a legislative initiative. the Prosecutor General’s initiative from The Program of Transition to Digital government’s agenda. The initiative was Television was not adopted in 2013 either. withdrawn shortly thereafter, while the The national public broadcaster has Cabinet of Ministers assured the interested adhered to its formal editorial policy, but parties that they would reexamine the needs to speed up the reforms. initiative only after extensive consultation with the civil society have taken place. Online journalism has been developing However, experts have little doubts about dynamically throughout 2013 thanks to the government’s interest in regulating the the existing freedom of Internet. The only Internet again, and therefore suggest that attempt of the government to regulate the self-regulatory instruments and bodies Internet has received adequate response, but should be created, such as communities of for the Internet to retain its freedom the Web Internet service providers, users or bloggers; community should take active steps to create charters; councils; ombudsmen and so forth. its own self-regulatory bodies.

51 UKRAINE

Policy

The right to freedom of thought and speech, compliance with the Convention and the to freely express views and beliefs, as well practices of the Court. This law thereby as the right to freely collect, store, use, and strengthens the Constitutional guarantees disseminate information by oral, written, or for freedom of expression, allowing direct any other means at one’s own discretion are application of both the European Convention enshrined in Article 34 of the Constitution for Protection of Human Rights and of Ukraine. These rights may be restricted by Fundamental Freedoms and the European law in order to achieve a legitimate purpose Court practices. clearly defined by such laws. In general, this constitutional guarantee complies with The basic laws governing the freedom European standards. However, a democratic of speech and media in Ukraine are: society does not restrict in any way the on information, on access to public freedom of expression, not even depending information, on television and radio, on the on necessity. Apart from this, Article 15 national broadcasting council of Ukraine, of the Constitution prohibits censorship on telecommunications, on print media in in Ukraine, and Article 50 guarantees the Ukraine, on information agencies, on state right to free access and dissemination of support for mass media and social protection information about the environment, the of journalists, on media coverage of the quality of foods and consumer goods. activities of public administration and local self-governance bodies, on publishing, on Ukraine ratified the European Convention advertising and others. Apart from this, for the Protection of Human Rights and some aspects of the media and journalism Fundamental Freedoms and adopted a are regulated by the Civil Code of Ukraine, special law on implementation of the the Commercial Code of Ukraine, the Code of decisions and best practices of the European Administrative Offences, the Criminal Code, Court of Human Rights. The law stipulates and laws on copyright and related rights, on that courts must apply the Convention and protection of personal data, electoral laws, etc. the best practices of the European Court as a source of law. In addition, the ministries It should be noted that the new Law on and other central executive authorities are Information and the Law on Access to Public obligated to systematically monitor the Information incorporate the best European administrative practices to ensure their standards in the area.

52 Ukraine

At the same time, the provisions of said monopoly in the media, and gives no grounds laws are not sufficiently harmonized with to develop healthy competition between the Law on Protection of Personal Data. That media outlets. Accordingly, this law cannot is why journalists’ access to information be regarded as meeting European standards. about MPs and other public officials, as well as about their family incomes and expenses, In 2013 there were many legislative is often restricted. initiatives registered in the Parliament of Ukraine, some of them aimed to contribute Since 2001, Ukraine has decriminalized to the freedom of speech, others — to severely libel and insult, despite the fact that in 2013 restrict the freedom of expression, especially certain pro-government politicians urged to on the internet. re-introduce these offenses in the legislation. Defamation claims are examined under civil To summarize, we may say that, although proceedings in Ukraine. The compensation Ukraine has the necessary safeguards in defamation lawsuits is established at the for the right to freedom of expression, court’s sole discretion. the mechanism of their implementation prescribed by the laws and regulations is Print media in Ukraine is not subject to not in full compliance with international licensing, but it is subject to mandatory standards. In addition, 2013 had seen some registration in order to publish and distribute negative tendencies to restrict freedom of newspapers and magazines. This procedure speech. does not fully comply with European standards, but poses no serious obstacles to freedom of speech in Ukraine. Practice Any broadcasting in Ukraine, including cable, is subject to licensing. However, Ukrainian authorities — which faced paragraph 7, Article 23 of the law on economic and political crisis in 2013, caused television and radio provides that cable by their inconsistent European integration broadcasting license is issued on a non- policy, and subsequently followed by mass competition basis. No license is required for public discontent in 2013 — proved their internet broadcasting under the legislation intolerance to the media and its critical of Ukraine. Moreover, in 2013 the Verkhovna content. This entailed their understanding of Rada registered bill no. 2575a to prohibit the consistent media campaign publicizing licensing of internet services. the benefits of European integration as one of the main causes of the mass protests against The Law on Protection of Personal Data was the government’s decision to postpone amended in 2013 to align it with European signing the EU Association Agreement, standards, but failed to be harmonized with which in turn has led to the Euromaidan. the Law on Access to Public Information. In addition, Parliament adopted amendments Ukraine’s media legislation is one of to certain laws on transparency of media the most advanced in the former Soviet ownership. Unfortunately, we must admit countries in terms of quantity and quality. that this law could not solve the problem of However, the legal framework is not lack of transparency in media ownership in enforced to its full extent. While one of Ukraine. The bill does not make it possible to Ukraine’s international commitments is to trace the chain of people controlling a media ensure opinion pluralism, political leaders outlet and to find the real owner. It does not perceive independent media and critical provide effective mechanisms to eradicate journalism as a potential threat.

53 Ukraine

Ukraine’s signing of the EU Association founders or owners of broadcasters, which Agreement implied that in 2013, is contrary to the norm in most European Ukraine was expected to adopt three countries that have no restrictions on non- important laws concerning mass media. residents’ share in the authorized capital Specifically, these were the laws on of a media outlet. Ukraine, as a member media ownership transparency, on of WTO, should remove any restrictions on privatization/«destatization» of state-owned foreign investments in order to liberalize print media and on public broadcasting. In the market and create a competitive addition, Ukraine is one of the few countries environment. in Europe that has no public broadcaster, while allowing for state and community There were multiple attempts to obstruct media ownership. Overall, the latter form of the professional activity of journalists in print media represents about 20 percent of all 2013, with pro-government politicians periodicals in Ukraine. trying to revise the law on access to public information, and continuing to promote The only legislative progress was achieved the re-criminalization of defamation. in the area of media ownership due to the law Thus, the draft law no. 3301 was registered no 409-VII amending a number of laws with in Parliament, amending the law on a view to improve the transparency of media access to public information with a view ownership, providing media consumers to narrow the scope of citizens’ right to with access to information that would request information: the draft law prohibits enable them to form objective opinions on officials to communicate with citizens the media content consumed. without prior request for information, denies the applicants the right to make Thus, the law provides that the application photos, photocopies and digital copies for state registration of print media should of the requested public documents. The contain specific information about the draft law also allows officials to ignore the individual or legal entity that sponsored requests for information not accompanied the founder/co-founders, or the owner/co- by the author’s name, postal address and owners of a print media, as well as the legal signature. In particular, under the draft entity through which founders or owners/co- law any information on an individual owners exercises their control over the media would be regarded as confidential, and may outlet. Under the law, «control» means be disclosed only with the consent, as well direct or intermediated ownership of shares as in the manner and on conditions agreed (stocks) accounting for 50 percent or more of upon by the individual, or otherwise if the votes in the higher management body expressly stipulated by law. of the founding/co-founding legal entity of the print media. Hence, this law amends This tendency originates in 2012, when the laws of on print media in Ukraine, sanctions for violation of personal data on information agencies, on the national processing entered into effect, and most broadcasting council of Ukraine, and on importantly, when criminal liability television and radio. The law also stipulates for invasion of privacy was toughened. that the close relatives of individuals acting The legal framework favored authorities’ either as founders or co-owners of a media attempts to «punish» journalists for outlet shall be considered «intermediaries» investigating hard-hitting cases. For that also control the media. instance, following the complaint filed by First Deputy Prime Minister of Crimea On the other hand, law 409-VII prohibits Pavel Burlakov, the police opened a non-residents to act as founders, co- criminal investigation into the disclosure

54 Ukraine

of confidential information by the Crimea- based newspaper Argumenty Nedeli publication, whose journalists published an article about Burlakov’s residency in Komsomolsk (near Simferopol).

At the same time, draft law no. 0947 improving the enforcement of the law on access to public information has stalled in Parliament, even though previously passed by the legislators during the first reading.

Also, in 2013 there were new attempts to ensure legislative control over the internet, as the media coverage of Euromaidan events argued in favor of online media as the only means of information opposing propaganda.

In general, 2013 showed the consequences of Ukraine’s non-complying with international legal commitments, which were aimed to improve the country’s media environment.

The Institute of Mass Information carrying out continuous monitoring of the work Photojournalist Aleksandr Zakletskiy was one of the journalists severely beaten by police officers while covering conditions of journalists through its project a clash between authorities and protesters near the Barometer of the Freedom of Speech recorded presidential administration on December 1, 2013. 139 cases of attack and threats against journalists in 2013. Massive beatings committed by special forces Berkut, violent attacks, arrests and One of the first in this series was an criminal cases (49 people) against journalists attack of group of young sports fans (further peaked in December last year, when media referred to as «titushki» by the name of one representatives were covering the rallies in of the group’s members) against journalists support of the European integration. Both Olga Snitsarchuk and Vlad Sodel, who Ukrainian and foreign journalists became covered of the May 18th protest. The incident victims of those attacks. Most of the assaults has revealed a number of serious problems were registered against press photographers in the law enforcement system, as the attack and video operators recording misconducts was witnessed by police officers, whom the of police officers. Press cards and vests reporters repeatedly asked for help. The failed to provide protection from the part of case received widespread publicity because special forces and instead seemed to act as an of policemen’s lack of adequate reaction additional irritating factor. Journalists were during the incident, as well as the slow forced to abandon identification documents progress of the investigation. Following the that made them live targets. massive protests of media professionals, the perpetrators were sentenced to three In December, journalist and Euromaidan years’ probation and compensated the activist Tetiana Chornovol was brutally reporters for moral and material damage. beaten. She was known for her investigations

55 Ukraine

of Dneprovskii District Police Department of Kherson Vladimir Martynenko, claiming moral damage of EUR 100 000 from the editor of the online publication Khersonskaya Pravda, Taras Buzaka. On November 19th, 2012 the media outlet published an article titled «Yesterday’s Shooting at the Corner of Chornomorskaya and Perekopskaya» and reported on police officers allegedly shooting a lawbreaker during an attempted arrest.

Nevertheless, this dispute ended amicably, as Martynenko withdrew his claim, and the outlet accepted the policeman’s request for refutation of certain information. However, lawsuits have not constituted a widely used tool to influence journalists because of the subsequent wide public reaction, whereas intimidation and pressure have been preferred as more subtle mechanisms.

The law on access to public information adopted in 2011 was viewed as a great Journalist and Euromaidan activist Tetiana Chornovol was achievement of the civil society and the brutally beaten on December 25, 2013. journalistic community, although its enforcement was less successful. Despite into the corruption schemes of the former the law being relatively effective in Ukraine, Ukrainian authorities. The attack took place there are still obstacles on the way to full the second day after she shot a documentary access to information about the government’s about the mansions of the Minister of Interior activities. The organizations which monitor Vitalii Zakharchenko and the Prosecutor the implementation of the law (Center for General Viktor Pshonka, close allies of Policy Analysis and Research, Media Law former President Viktor Yanukovych in law Institute, Regional Press Development enforcement and prosecution authorities. Institute, Office of the Commissioner for The attackers’ actions were qualified as Human Rights, etc.) have listed the following hooliganism, despite the severe injuries as the most problematic types of requests for inflicted on Chornovol. The incident testified information: public procurement procedures, that police, prosecutors, courts and other income statements of MPs and civil state bodies remained loyal to those who servants, disbursement of budget funds and obstructed the work of the media. administration of public property, qualifying some public information as classified, Lawsuits remained an effective tool to and lack of public access to urban plans. shut down media outlets through excessive compensations. In turn, government officials (Denis Ivanesko, head of the Main Department In 2013, there were a few cases where for Access to Public Information of the officials filed lawsuits against journalists Presidential Administration) emphasized and demanded excessive compensations for that, in their view, the law on access to moral damage. The lawsuit filed by the Chief public information was quite effective in

56 Ukraine

helping journalists produce high-quality In late 2013, many journalists resigned reports. Thus, every fourth reply of the from TV news programs (mainly on the state- authorities to requests for information by owned broadcaster Pervyi Natsionalyi, TRC media served as grounds for journalistic Ukraina) in disagreement with the editorial news stories. However, journalists and social line strictly limiting the topics shown on TV activists claimed there was a «glass ceiling» and prohibiting coverage of the mass protests concerning information about property and in the country. land plots owned by high-ranking officials. The excessive dependence of the media Paragraph 3, Article 15 of the Constitution policy on its owners creates conditions for self- of Ukraine contains just three words: censorship. Self-censorship has extended «Censorship is prohibited». Unfortunately, equally to all types of media including reality shows that most Ukrainian television, radio and print. It is not the fear of media outlets cannot benefit from this reprisals (as it was until 2005) that promotes constitutional provision. The main reason for self-censorship within newspapers and this is the lack of sustainability of Ukrainian magazines, but the financial dependence on media, which offer their owners a tool of their owners. There is an unspoken rule that exercising influence. no journalist will ever publish any news story which could, in any way, harm the interests During the last year, many popular (primarily financial) of the owner. And, on media outlets were brought under the the other hand, journalists are strongly control of the so-called «family» of president encouraged to prepare articles to damage the Yanukovych. One of the leading Ukrainian competitors of the owner (without limitation media outlets — Ukrainian Media Holding to media competitors only). (UMH) — was sold to Sergiy Kurchenko, a close ally of president Yanukovych. The In general, the main guarantee against deal had a dramatic impact on the editorial censorship could be the establishment of public policy of popular and influential social and service broadcasting and denationalization political weeklies such as Forbes Ukraine of state-owned newspapers. and Korrespondent formerly appreciated for unbiased, high-quality analytical content, Ukraine has a proactive journalistic including investigation articles on pro- community called Stop Censorship, created government party members. Shortly after in May 2010 by the journalists from TSN news the Media Holding was transferred to the program (1+1 TV channel), who plead for no new owner, cases of censorship in these censorship on TV. Later the community was publications were being reported, such as joined by the journalists from Vіkna news bans on certain topics and people, especially program (STB TV channel) and some other on politicians representing the ruling party. media outlets. The community, along with Mass layoffs of those who disagreed with other professional media organizations, the new editorial policy followed. Former aims to create the necessary socio-political Forbes Ukraine journalists published a list of environment to ban interference in the «forbidden topics» that confirmed Ukrainian professional activities of journalists. authorities’ intolerance of criticism, as well as the intention of the new UMH leadership Ukrainian legislation contains specific to resort to all means in order protect the provisions to fight monopoly in the media. party in power in UMH-controlled media. Thus, Article 10 providing guarantees It also confirmed the opinion shared by the against monopoly in print outlets «of media community that the media holding the Law on Print Media sets a ban on was acquired for political motives. any monopoly in this field. Therefore, an

57 Ukraine

individual or legal entity may establish or all the benefits of civil servants, including control no more than 5% of all publications. the same pension standards. Article 7 of the Law on Television and Radio was symbolically named Antitrust Privatization would reduce the quantity Restrictions. According to this article, no and improve the quality of local publications; broadcaster or its subsidiaries have the however the law on denationalization of right to own more than two TV channels print media has been postponed by the and three radio channels in the country. Parliament for several years. The same restrictions are applied to founder’s rights for natural and legal In fact, subscription to periodicals is persons. Communications companies, monopolized by the state-owned enterprise which operate broadcast networks, are not Ukrposhta, which owns the network of allowed to found or own any broadcasting mailboxes throughout the country. Although companies. The legislative provisions there are more than 100 agencies providing regulating monopoly in the media are subscription to periodicals, they deliver only rather specific and strict, but have been an insignificant amount of the print press. easily circumvented in practice so far. Last year, Ukrposhta has increased the delivery fee by 45 percent. There are about one thousand state- owned and municipal newspapers registered Thus, by enjoying direct subsidies from the in Ukraine. The state also owns National state budget, while also generating income Television, the National Radio (both with from advertising and sales, the state and national coverage), 27 regional TV and radio community-owned media undermine the stations, and several other broadcasters. public’s trust in Ukrainian media. The authorities exercise full control over the personnel and editorial policy of all these As the freedom of press is highly broadcasters. dependent on the financial conditions of the media, in Ukraine no influential However, the authorities intend to media can be regarded as a self-sustainable denationalize print media owned by the business. All of them, in one way or state or local authorities. And, although another serve as a tool — a tongue or in accordance with Article 42 of the a shield — for their owners, and their Constitution of Ukraine authorities should purpose is not to generate profit, but to ensure protection of the competition, state form a favorable public opinion about and community-owned media still enjoy the owner. The most dangerous thing for numerous advantages. According to Article the independent media in Ukraine is not 6 of the Law on Governmental Support the judicial or administrative sanctions, for Mass Media and Social Protection of nor physical threats or intimidations Journalists, state and community-owned of journalists, but the lack of financial media are funded directly from the public independence and the inability to survive budget, and enjoy indirect benefits and without external support. Any civilized advantages that create conditions for unfair country has two main sources of funding competition in the market of print press, the media: advertising and direct sales of and strengthens editors’ dependency on media products (subscription to or sale of state bodies and local governments, as well newspapers and magazines, subscription the officials thereof. These publications have to a TV channel or special TV and radio not shown any interest so far in assessing fee). In Ukraine, the income from sales and the needs of the audience or the quality of advertising cannot even cover the full cost their content, while their journalists enjoy of the media products. In 2013, for the first

58 Ukraine

time ever, the top four television groups reported they were running at a loss: the Broadcasting cost of the content amounted to EUR 360 million, whilst the market volume was While it is often the political events that no more than EUR 320 million. According change the media environment in Ukraine, to these companies’ representatives, the this tendency was particularly evident television market is undervalued. in 2013. Oligarchs, who supported the authorities in power, monopolized the media Most investors see the media business space of the country to impact the editorial as something secondary to their main policy of their media outlets. Independent business. Advertising sales are regarded by media, as well as journalistic standards have the vast majority of Ukrainian media owners slowly disappeared under the weight of the not as means to make profit, but to influence pro-government information field. public opinion, so the commercial airtime is mainly sold at dumping prices. Changes on the market of media ownership

Consequently, unsustainable media The media market has undergone are beneficial to their owners, who find substantial changes in 2013. Several major it is easier to manage the staff when players have changed their owners, and new their salaries depend on the owner’s media outlets emerged. As time has shown, contributions rather than audience ratings it was a unidirectional game in favor of the or advertising. Ultimately, it is the financial authorities. vulnerability of the media that contributes to the wide popularity of the indirect or Inter Media Group. The year 2013 started so-called «hidden» advertising. In these with a big change in the ownership of circumstances, lots of critical pieces in the country’s top-rated channel Inter. the media should not be interpreted as On February 1st, the owner of KH Media manifestations of freedom of speech, but Limited Valeriy Khoroshkovskiy signed an as custom content ordered by the owner or a agreement to sell all of his shares in Inter sponsor, intended to destroy business and/ Media Group Limited to Dmytro Firtash’s or political rivals. Thus, the interests of the GDF Media Limited. Inter Media Group was public are pushed aside. assessed at EUR 1.8 billion. On February 7th, the media reported that Serhiy Liovochkin The phenomenon of hidden advertising (at the time head of Yanukovych’s became so extensive and so common lately Presidential Administration) had become that attempts to combat it are considered a partner of Dmytro Firtash to own a 20% futile. Advertisers and consumers continue stake as well. The management of the to be cheated on circulation and ratings, so channel was changed accordingly. Hanna in 2013 the country witnessed a scandal over Bezliudna was appointed director of the viewership ratings which led to changes in Business Development team at Inter Media audience measuring, as the agency Nielsen Group, Yehor Benkendorf became chairman replaced GfK Ukraine. of Inter Management Board, and Yevgeny Kiselyov became the director of the News Ukrainian and international media Production team at National Information organizations share the same conclusions: Systems. it is for the first time since the country’s independence that the working conditions UMH Group. On June 21st, another big for journalists have become so dangerous deal was announced: Boris Lozhkin signed and inadequate. the contract to sell his UMH Group to LLC

59 Ukraine

VETEK, owned by young oligarch Sergiy Other changes. A scandal arose over the Kurchenko. The media reported that this TVi channel’s ownership change in April young businessman was backed by Sergiy 2013. Some members of the staff left the Arbuzov and Oleksandr Klymenko, close channel in protest. friends of Viktor Yanukovych’s son. Another channel called 112 Ukraine UMH Group is a huge media holding to started broadcasting on November 26th, include magazines such as Korrespondent, 2013. This channel is associated with the Forbes Ukraine, newspapers Komsomolskaya names of former Interior Minister Vitaliy Pravda in Ukraine, Argumenty i Fakty, Zakharchenko and Deputy Prime Minister Internet websites www.forbes.ua, www. Sergiy Arbuzov. But 112 Ukraine’s CEO Andrii korrespondent.net, www.i.ua, www. Podschipkov denied this and claims he owns bigmir.net, www.football.ua; radio stations the channel personally. Retro FM, Nashe Radio, Europa Plus, Avtoradio and many others. Editorial policy of the media after changes in ownership Focus weekly, belonging to the holding, and its webpage were transferred to another The change of owners of all media (except entity–Vertex United (according to media TVi channel) tightened the editorial policy reports, owned by Boris Kaufman and and increased pressure on journalists. Oleksandr Hranovskyi). Thus, the new management of Inter TV Multimedia Invest Group. A new media dismissed the Public Council established holding appeared in 2013 to show rapid with the consent of the former owner Valeriy growth. In early 2013, Ihor Huzhva (former Khoroshkovskyi and composed of public editor-in-chief of the Russian weekly Moscow figures and media experts (the Council acted News and the Ukrainian weekly Segodnya) under the Memorandum of Cooperation returned to Ukraine to announce the launch with the International Fund Vozrozhdenie), of another newspaper. Soon he chaired a and claimed they have no need for any big media holding and, according to him, external control or «censorship». It is worth he is the owner of the company, which noting that independent monitoring carried includes Vesti daily (partly distributed free out during this period (from December 2012 of charge), www.vesti.ua news portal and to mid- February 2013) showed a positive Vesti Reporter weekly. He also announced trend for Inter TV channel, which complied the launch of radio Vesti FM (based on Radio with the highest journalistic standards and 24) and the channel Vesti TV (based on UBR ensured balanced access of different political satellite channel and several regional digital forces to airtime. The channel has kept this terrestrial channels). positive run only for a while. On April 8th, the Public Council announced the suspension The real owners of this holding are of cooperation with Inter and stressed there unknown. The media suggested several had been negative changes in editorial versions: the first is the holding belongs to policy. Namely, Hanna Bezulyk’s talk show former Vice-PM Sergiy Arbuzov, the second Spravedlyvist (Justice) was replaced with rumors it is owned by pro-Russian politician Shuster Live, a talk show considered biased and former head of the Presidential Admini- in terms of topics and people invited to the stration of Leonid Kuchma Victor Medved- show. As the Public Council emphasized, chuk, and the third that it belongs to Russian the important political subjects have been businesses. However, Ihor Huzhva insisted substituted with less controversial issues. he was the sole owner of the media group. Another talk show called Big Politics, hosted

60 Ukraine

by Yevgeny Kiselyov, also disappeared from Similar tendencies were visible in the air. another one of the holding’s magazines, Korrespondent. On November 18th, Vitaliy Soon, the newscasts presented by Inter Sych declared his intention to leave the office started to show negative dynamics as well after many years of leading the editorial regarding other journalistic standards. The staff. A few days later, Julia McGuffey, violations of journalistic standards and editor-in-chief of the website, said she was manipulations peaked at the end of the year, quitting. More than 20 employees have when the mass protests started to unfold. resigned afterwards from the publication However, at the end of November, the channel and the website. made a breakthrough in showing the real nature of the violent dispersal of peaceful The editorial policy of the said publications demonstration and the assaults against has also changed negatively. A vivid example: students and youngsters in the Independence the first day after the violent dispersal of Square. This might be influenced by one a peaceful demonstration on the night of the owners of the channel, Sergiy of November 30th and the brutal assaults Liovochkin, who disagreed with the violent against protesters, mostly students, Forbes. dispersal of the Maidan and expressed his ua ignored the event, while Korrespondent. intention to resign from the Presidential net openly manipulated the facts, focusing Administration (the resignation was not on police victims and ignoring those among accepted immediately). However, Inter the protesters. regressed back to manipulations, juggling the facts and glossing over important topics. Black PR against independent journalists and public figures As a consequence, at the end of last year, on December 26th, the team of Sergiy As the independent media went under Liovochkin–consisting of the director of the control of pro-government groups, National Information Systems Nazim Bedirov, a massive campaign was launched to Executive Director Lavrenti Malazoniya and discredit independent journalists and Ihor Shuvalov, left the channel. Anton Nikitin public media organizations, apparently was appointed director of NIS. fueled by the government’s worry that they might pose a threat bigger than the Changes in the UMH Group, acquired by parliamentary opposition due to their Sergiy Kurchenko, have also been far from independent investigations and criticism of positive. On June 21st, Forbes.ua editor-in- the government. chief Vladimir Fedorin announced plans to resign in October, two months ahead of Firstly, people were misled by the fake his contract’s expiration date. He believed edition of Ukrainska Pravda newspaper. that the buyer «will pursue one of three Secondly, a clone of Ukrainska Pravda goals: either to silence the journalists before website called Ukrainska Kryvda appeared the presidential election, or to clean his online. The anonymous editor of the fake own reputation, or to use the publication publication promised to post files on every to address issues that have nothing to do journalist and every media outlet. The first with the media business». On November portion of damaging information concerned 15th, a number of journalists and editors hryvnia exchange rate fluctuations: the announced their resignation in disapproval fake site published a list of journalists of the new leadership’s ( Mikhail Kotov was who allegedly received Russian money for named editor-in-chief) intention to change posting information about the collapse the editorial policy of the publication. of the hryvnia. The allegations remained

61 Ukraine

unproven. Ukrainska Pravda representatives The media outlets controlled by the so- suggested that Sergiy Arbuzov’s public called «Family» (a small group of oligarchs, relations team stood behind the fake, while close allies to Viktor Yanukovych’s son) went other media outlets had other versions. from criticizing the actions of the protesters to openly manipulating the facts. We have The propaganda campaign against non- already mentioned the manipulations done governmental organizations and independent by Korrespondent.net above, but the same is journalists increased significantly in autumn valid for other media institutions as well. «A 2013 and the media environment might have rehearsal of war in Ukraine. The situation seen yet another scandal if Maidan had not is out of the control of opposition leaders. developed. Provocateurs and extremists stormed the Presidential Administration» — read the The Maidan article about December 1st mass demonstration published by Vesti daily newspaper, owned by Throughout the year people witnessed the Ihor Huzhva. In fact, the newspaper shifted increasing split between pro-government the emphasis from the event to the protesters’ and pro-opposition (or anti-government) confrontation on Bankova Street. The events media outlets. Accordingly, the media were accompanied by comments of the pro- presented two distinct perspectives on the Russian political analyst Vladimir Kornilov, current events. At the beginning of last which further inflame the situation. year, the split was exemplified by two media (More examples can be found in the article: projects: «Ukraine and the World 2013. Global S. Yeremenko «Delicate manipulations of agenda» (a joint project of Rinat Akhmetov’s certain Ukrainian medіa in the heat of the Segodnya Daily and The New York Times) protest» at: http://osvita.mediasapiens.ua/ and «The World in 2013. Ukrainian Edition» material/25536). (a joint project of Ukrayinskyi Tyzhden and The Economist). The projects provided In those days, the TV audience was also two different views on Ukraine for the provided with completely different pictures on upcoming year: the first one describedthe two most watched TV channels in Ukraine, the achievements of Viktor Yanukovych’s Inter and 1+1. An ordinary TV news monitoring government, the stability of the country by the NGO Telekritika (daily monitoring and its Eurasian perspectives, while the during the protests can be found in the section second criticized Yanukovych’s government Monitor at www.osvita.mediasapiens.ua) for devastating the country’s economy, showed that 1+1’s coverage of the events in deepening corruption, etc. and proposed the country was less biased than others, and the European integration as the only option the channel tried not just to inform society for Ukraine (for detailed analysis of these about the events, but also to analyze them. projects, please see: «D. Dutsik Segodnya Inter demonstrated the worst compliance vs Ukrainskyi Tyzhden» at: http://osvita. with journalistic standards by depicting the mediasapiens.ua/material/15524). demonstrators as radicals and by trying to justify the government’s actions. The state- The mass protests in favor of the European owned First National channel was the only one integration that started in November, and that, in some respects, surpassed Inter in terms which were followed by rallies against the use of bias. The TV stations belonging to Victor of violence and illegal acts of the government Pinchuk (STB, Novyi Channel and ICTV) and in power ultimately scattered journalists Renat Akhmetov’s Ukraina channel oscillated between opposite sides of the barricades— between the Maidan and the government, as some due to their own beliefs, others because they could not avoid covering the protest, but of the beliefs of their employers. at the same time tried to compromise with the

62 Ukraine

government, which ensued in a tendency to has been constantly developing since the avoid criticizing the power, and often glossed late 90s. An average monthly subscription important topics that might have irritated fee for broadband Internet access amounts authorities. Channel 5 openly supported the to EUR 9-11, one of the cheapest in the protesters and the opposition. world. The cost of the Internet in Ukraine contributes to the service’s accessibility Positive trends. The events which unfolded to new customers and favors market rapidly in the country in November 2013 expansion. A Ukrainian Cyrillic domain pushed forward the launch of new media zone .УКР for websites was registered in projects, mainly online TVs. Hromadske. 2013, extending the range of domain names tv, Hromadske radіo, Spіlnobachennia, for local business and media. Espreso.TV appeared during that time. Live streaming became common, providing However, government interference with people with streaming chance to observe the the activities of companies is among the live events taking place in Kyiv and enabling most disturbing factors of the industry them to draw their own conclusions. This development. In 2013 the government took was an important breakthrough, as part of actions to control online payments and the national TV channels manipulated facts the distribution of content online by using and events during the Euromaidan. These the controversial method of searching the projects have proven as promising and quite premises of companies and seizing network capable to further influence the information servers. In 2013 the law enforcement agencies space in Ukraine. Even though they are targeted the following entities: the IT- unlikely to replace public broadcasting in the company GlobalLogics, the Russian social country, their experience may be considered network VK.com, the online payments in the future creation of such outlets. company WebMoney, the Internet-provider Volya, and the file exchange service company FS.com. On Dec 9, 2013, the government used the same method against their Internet and political opponents: police invaded into the headquarters of opposition political party New Media Batkivchyna and seized the servers.

According to the data provided by Kyiv Freedom of the speech in the Ukrainian Institute of Sociology (KIIS), 49.8 percent of Internet was influenced by the launch of the adult population in Ukraine has access to three online TV projects. Spilno.TV was the Internet as of Sept 2013. Internet access launched in May 2013 as an online television expands from big cities to smaller cities and funded through crowdsourcing. In June 2013, towns. The market for online advertising a group of 15 journalists previously retired grows with an annual rate of 20 to 30percent from TVi channel announced the launch and in 2013 was estimated at about EUR of Hromadske.TV, which began streaming 180 million. The segment of tablets on the five months later. Finally, Espresso.TV was market is rapidly growing — 784 000 tablets launched in November 2013. The emergence were imported to Ukraine during the first of three independent online televisions three quarters of 2013. The growth of tablets had a positive impact on the editorial sales in the 3rd quarter of 2013 constituted 233 policies of conventional TV channels, whose percent compared to the same period in 2012. broadcasting was traditionally viewed as biased, unethical and pro-governmental. The market of Internet providers in The launch of the new media also indicated Ukraine is diverse and competitive since it that Internet technologies are relatively well

63 Ukraine

developed in Ukraine and that there is a Internet providers would be charged with a public demand for online streaming. 2 percent tax fee on their gross income. The consequences would be eventually supported On the other hand, in 2013 the market by consumers, as the average Internet fee forces had a negative impact on the freedom would increase significantly. Currently of speech. One of the biggest media-holding the draft law is also being examined in the UMH, owned by Boris Lozhkin has been sold parliamentary committees. to businessman Sergiy Kurchenko, a close ally of Yanukovych. The deal had a dramatic New challenges for independent media in Ukraine impact on the work of the influential online news resources Korrespondent.net, Forbes. In 2013 attacks against independent ua, and Bigmir.net. Most editors and online news websites acquired new journalists have left the portals because of dimensions. In summer 2013 the users of pressure and censorship from the part of the Ukrainska Pravda (pravda.com.ua) have new owner. The quality of news dropped as been mislead by two fake websites almost a consequence and news websites such as identical to Ukrainska Pravda. The first one, Korrespondent.net have become a tool for Ukrainska Kryvda (http://www.kryvda. pro-government propaganda. com/) had stolen the visual appearance of Ukrainska Pravda and published biased Legislative initiatives targeting Internet anti-opposition articles. By launching Ukrainska Kryvda, its unknown founders In 2013 the legislative initiatives in the violated copyright laws, registered their site field of the Internet mainly aimed to restrain from Russia and located their hosting in freedom of speech online. The key initiatives Australia, thereby protecting the identity of are the following: site’s founders. The second fake site stole the brand «Ukrainska Pravda» and registered a Draft law no 2208а amending the Law domain name similar to the original one on Protection of Public Morality» as of (www.pravda.com.ua) — http://ukrpravda. 10.06.2013 — initiated by pro-government ua/. The phenomenon of fake sites attested MP Volodymyr Oliynyk, the draft law an ever sophisticated trend of discrediting provides to strengthen the control over independent journalism in Ukraine. the dissemination of information in the Internet. In particular, the bill proposes Security and Cyber attacks against news websites to oblige Internet providers to deny access to websites promoting ethnic hatred, In 2013 the journalism community has violence, or violations of civil rights and been widely exposed to cyber attacks, liberties. In fact, the legislation would ranging from restricting users’ access allow law-enforcement agencies to shut to web resources to journalists’ emails any site without prior notice, based on any and files being hacked. In October request coming either from citizens or the 2014, the executive director of Institute government. Currently the bill is being of Mass Information (IMI) Oksana examined in parliamentary committees. Romanyuk’s email was hacked and private correspondence was leaked publicly. Draft law no 2576 on Amendments to According to IMI report on the freedom of the Tax Code of Ukraine in order to support speech in Ukraine, 49 cyber attacks against national cinematography» as of 19.03.2013 — journalists have been undertaken in 2013. the initiative suggests to support national cinema industry by introducing a tax The anti-government protests that have on the Internet. Telecom operators and sparked in Ukraine in late November 2013

64 Ukraine

65 Ukraine

had a great impact on the freedom of Internet helps citizens create and explore speech in the Internet. The protests have tools of democratic governance and civil originated from users’ online activities society. The Internet is also seen as a last and have been fueled by online discussions island of freedom of speech in Ukraine, and dissemination of information through where traditional media are mainly Twitter, Facebook and news websites. controlled by pro-government oligarchs. Consequently, social networks and news It is therefore unsurprisingly that websites became targets of anonymous cyber Yanukovych government targeted Internet attacks. The tactic of silencing the voices providers and online media. Dozens of of journalists and civic activists through DDoS attacks against independent online distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks news resources as the protests unfolded has been widely used since December 2013 indirectly indicated the government’s till February 2014. engagement behind the attacks. At the same time, freedom of speech has been On December 2, the website of Ukrainska strengthened by the launch of three online Pravda was subject to a DDoS attack, the TV stations, thus expanding the variety first one since the beginning of protests. On of independent voices covering Ukraine’s December 13, Cityband.com.ua, a resource political life. that had published a map of protests in Kyiv, was shut down. The notice on its front page Recommendations: read: «Our site is under DDoS attack. We had to close hosting. Sorry, friends. But we have 1. Professional standards of journalism created a more informative map on Yandex — remain one of the main issues for the Cityband Euromaidan.» majority of Ukrainian media owned by oligarchs, including online news sites. Thus, On December 14, the journalists of Liga. the discussion on journalism standards, net wrote on the website’s Facebook official accompanied by educational workshops and page: «We are currently under a very strong training should be a priority for the media DDoS attack. Our technicians are working community in Ukraine; the whole night through.» 2. Journalists should improve their The website www.yanukovich.info that knowledge of the opportunities provided by publishes findings on corruption schemes of the Internet and social media in order to use President Yanukovych’s family has been shut them in their everyday work; down by DDoS attacks for a couple of days in the mid-December 2013. 3. Journalists’ solidarity and defense of their rights through trade unions should Other online news resources covering be strengthened to develop the tradition of Ukrainian protests, such as Glavcom.ua, independent media in Ukraine; Censor.net, and RadioSvoboda.org have been attacked by unknown hackers. 4. Journalists should also pay special attention to the challenges of digital era and Conclusions become proficient in cyber security to protect themselves and their media products; Social media and the Internet play an important role in the everyday life 5. Journalists and media activists should of 20 millions of Ukrainians, including be encouraged to create media start-ups to informing on various aspects of the diversify and increase competition on the country’s political and social life. The media market.

66 Ukraine

Conclusions

Progression of events in Ukraine in 2013 will depend upon political will, pressure clearly demonstrates the instruments, of civil society (which has fundamentally which may be used by an undemocratic strengthened its positions and influence over rule for instituting total control over the the recent few months) and overall situation mass media. Such instruments include, in the country. for instance, buying up of media-assets by those in power with an aim of their further The revolution has drastically changed usage for political expediency; goal-seeking the picture, offered by Ukrainian television atrocity and hostility towards journalists channels — the latter were granted an on the side of country’s law enforcement opportunity of working freely with the First bodies. At the same time, an organized National (Ukrainian: Pershyi Natsionalnyi) state- resistance of Ukrainian media world to run television channel being no exception. the pressure of authorities, its carrying Nevertheless it is fair to assume that the out of a professional duty despite severe problem of influencing the content of owners environment has become one of the most or (in case of state-run TV) authorities will important factors, predetermining the still be relevant, since underlying causes whole course of developments in Ukraine of television problems, dependence on the over the past year. owner’s position in the first place, are still there. The first test in this respect will be Revolutionary changes in the country, coverage by television (as well as other media) leading to a fall of the authoritarian of the forthcoming presidential campaign — regime of Viktor Yanukovych at the cost of the pre-term election is set for May 25. In unprecedented violence and harassment this regard the issue of paid journalism not against journalist and even their murders, marked as advertisements continues to be give a chance of improving the situation relevant. The media economic conditions with the media freedom. Altogether Ukraine have not improved what makes media has a legislative framework of an adequate organizations resort to doubtful types of quality, allowing mass media carry out its occupational earnings. functions efficiently. Nevertheless, the issues of improving access to public information, Internet in Ukraine has dramatically foundation of public broadcasting service, illustrated its power and influence during reducing state involvement in mass media mass protests in November 2013 — February and enhancement of television and radio 2014 and stands a good chance of exploitation broadcasting services are currently of vital of its success, since there are no factors importance. Moreover, legislative insights constraining it in Ukraine. It is evident that are already in place to various extents the new government is unlikely to adopt the within every sphere mentioned. Obviously, «best» practices of its predecessors as regards subsequent legal reforms of media sphere of controlling Internet to any extent.

67 Infographics

68 Infographics

69 Infographics

70 Infographics

71 Infographics

72 Managing editor — Nataliya Sad

Editors — Anatoliy Martsynovskyi and Andriy Kulakov

Editors of English version — Ioana Burtea and Cristina Leva

Translation — Vladyslav Yurechko

Proofreader — Nataliya Pivovar

Infographics — Yaryna Mykhaylyshyn

Internews Ukraine

15 Ryz'ka Street, 04112 Kyiv, Ukraine tel/fax: +38 044 458 44 40 www.internews.ua

www.mediafreedomwatch.org

: EaPMediaFreedomWatch

: @mediafreewatch

This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The content of this publication is the sole responsibility of its authors and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.

The European Union is made up of 28 Member States who have decided to gradually link together their know-how, resources and destinies. Together, during a period of enlargement of 50 years, they have built a zone of stability, democracy and sustainable development whilst maintaining cultural diversity, tolerance and individual freedoms. The European Union is committed to sharing its achievement and its values with countries and peoples beyond its borders.

73 74