Report of the Commission on Radio and Television Policy: Volume 6, Number 2 The Carter Center August 1994 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Communiqué on Broadcaster Autonomy and the State 3. Broadcast Freedom and the State: Report of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Commission on Radio and Television Policy 4. Broadcaster Autonomy and the State: Models and Options Report of the Working Group 5. Commission on Radio and Television Policy Members 6. Working Group Participants Introduction: Co-Chair Jimmy Carter In September 1994, the Commission on Radio and Television Policy, bringing together the New Independent States, Poland, the Czech Republic, and the United States, met in St. Petersburg, Russia, to discuss the most important policy issue of the electronic media: how to strengthen the independence of radio and television. The members of the Commission represented several different approaches and types of government, but, in the end, there was unanimous agreement on a communiqué urging all parties to defend and extend autonomy of the media. Because television and radio have so much influence in the modern world, political leaders pay them a great deal of attention. Governments often attempt to apply undue influence to control the media in the hope that policies, programs, and elections will go their way. Unquestionably, the modern electronic media do have a profound influence on the opinions and attitudes of the public. It is sometimes less obvious - but no less important - that governments are, ultimately, best served by a free and autonomous media system. The credibility and effectiveness of the media depend on the perception that decisions affecting content are made independently of government control. And that is a fundamental condition of democratic governance. Independence from political interference is not the only condition of a democratic media system. Journalists must be protected (news decisions must be made independently of what investors might wish to see) and some predictable method of transmitting information must be assured. The Commission on Radio and Television Policy agreed that a number of buffer arrangements can contribute powerfully to the development and maintenance of broadcast freedom. What makes the battle for press autonomy especially difficult is the often invisible nature of the benefit it produces. The public may not always understand the democratic asset a free press provides, but access to and use of the media by ordinary citizens and the politically powerful alike is one of the best schools of democracy. There are new possibilities, with new technologies, and new forms of participation for national conversations. At the same time, autonomy for the press and the interests of the public are held in balance only by a respect for an understanding of mutual rights. The Commission strongly favored voluntary codes of journalists' ethics and voluntary practices concerning violence on television. It did not favor governmental or other controls, but also noted that civility is essential to democratic discourse. Since the first meeting of the Commission in 1991, the enormous role television and radio plays in the fates of nations has been amply demonstrated. It is our hope that the work of our Commission and the guidebooks it produces (the first, Television and Elections, has been translated at this time in 11 languages; the second, Television/Radio News and Minorities, is in three languages), will serve to further the development of democracy. Introduction: Co-Chair Eduard Sagalaev Five years ago, if you had asked a question regarding the autonomy and independence of the mass media, you would have received an answer containing a complete quotation from the works of V. I. Lenin. It would be based on Marxism and display the complete independence of radio and television in a country run by the dictatorship of the proletariat. You also would have received a long-winded and suffering attempt to show the outstanding examples of how free and independent the Soviet journalist is in his expression of social views and opinions. Today we can boldly say that those times have passed, but we can just as boldly and honestly admit that today our society still has not arrived at that moment when the mass media information can be considered truly free and independent. A great step forward has been taken from the time when our entire society and our media were mired in the euphoria of the building of developed socialism, or in other words - complete stagnation. For the most part, this progress is particularly visible in the acknowledgement and profound re- evaluation of the significance of the press, radio, and television. Present at the September 1994 meeting of the members of the Commission on Radio and Television Policy in St. Petersburg were scholars, public and political figures, and heads of both independent and state television stations from Russia, the United States, Poland, the Czech Republic, former republics of the Soviet Union, and the Baltics. They discussed the issue of media autonomy, and, in particular, electronic media - radio and television. They discussed these media as the most important factors in the preservation of the democratic development process in the post-communist territory. The history of Russia in the last few years has repeatedly demonstrated to us the attempts of government and other political circles to control the mass media. However, in all cases, these attempts led to the opposite results. Today, we can already say that our political and governmental officials take the opinions of the leading independent radio and television journalists to heart. They willingly take part in broadcasts and try not to undertake open attempts to regulate public opinion by seizing control of the media. Naturally, it would be an absurd claim to state that, at the present stage, our mass media have attained the standards of a developed democratic country. There are still a great many unresolved problems: the inability to protect journalists, finances, the mastery of modern technology, and the like. A long road lies ahead, but the first step has already been taken - the foundation of the infrastructure of democratic mass media has been laid. All that is needed now is time to strengthen this foundation and to introduce democratic journalistic principles. The Commission on Radio and Television Policy has already made its contribution to this process, but a great deal remains to be done. I am pleased to announce that in Russia a Commission on Radio and Television Policy is now registered. It is a natural extension of our Commission, and, in the near future, it will try to take on part of the burdensome load in assisting the development and strengthening of democratic mass media. Communiqué on Broadcaster Autonomy and the State September 13, 1994 The Commission on Radio and Television Policy, chaired by President Jimmy Carter and Eduard Sagalaev, met in St. Petersburg, Russia, on September 12- 13, 1994, to consider how to strengthen broad-casters' autonomy against the incursions of state power, or of economic interests. This communiqué treats issues to which the Commission gave highest priority; other important matters are discussed in the forthcoming Commission Report. 1. The stability of modern democratic states depends in large measure on the perception and reality of free broadcasting. Without an independent broadcasting system, ordinary citizens lose confidence in the state, its institutions and processes. Freedom of communication helps government to establish a civil society in which citizens' loyalty and participation is voluntary and authentic. As recent history teaches, attempts by governments to control information cannot last. 2. In the process of formation of democratic institutions, the state-owned television should be transformed into public-service television. 3. Buffer organizations should be formed according to legislation for broadcasting in each nation. Specifically, the Commission recommends that three buffer functions be established: a. Assigning frequencies and granting licenses. b. Making available a means for the public and the personnel of broadcast organizations to file complaints about abuses. This function would be dedicated to protecting free expression. c. In cases where states provide financial support to broadcasters, distributing the money so that government and ruling parties are removed from programming decisions. These functions may be undertaken by three separate buffer organizations, by two, or by one, depending on the desires of each nation. To minimize influence of ruling powers, members should represent a variety of political parties, movements, minority groups, and other organizations such as universities. 4. Broadcasters must enjoy technological autonomy, which is the ability to extend their signals without dependence on government, except for frequency management. This goal is especially difficult to attain if the state owns all of the available means of transmitting or distributing broadcast signals, such as satellites. Under these conditions, the government should open its distribution facilities to all broadcasters without discrimination. For example, this means nonstate and state broadcasters should pay the same fee for satellite time, transmission facilities, and equipment rentals or purchases. To minimize any chance for discrimination, the Commission strongly recommends that nations should promote multiple means for dissemination of media programming,