2004-henrikas yushkiavitshus.pdf

8/16/2019 2004-Henrikas Yushkiavitshus.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2004-henrikas-yushkiavitshuspdf 1/40

Why Press Freedomis Disappearing in the

Post-Communist World



The 18th Annual

Harold W. Andersen

Lecture

Why Press Freedom

is Disappearing in thePost-Communist World

By Henrikas Yushkiavitshus

A Lecture Series

On Global

CommunicationsIssues

December 9, 2004



Additional copies of this booklet may be

obtained by contacting:

World Press Freedom Committee

11690-C Sunrise Valley Drive

Reston, Virginia 20191 USA

Tel: (703) 715-9811

Fax: (703) 620-6790E-mail: [email protected]

This transcript of the proceedings

has been lightly edited.

Photographs by Javier Sierra

© 2005




CONTENTS

1 Welcome and introductory

remarks by James H. Ottaway, Jr.,

Chairman of the World Press

Freedom Committee, Director of

Dow Jones & Co., and of Ottaway Newspapers, Inc.

10 “Why Press Freedom is

Disappearing in the Post-

Communist World,” by HenrikasYushkiavitshus, Senior UNESCO

Communications Adviser

22 Questions and Answers

34 About the Andersen Lecture



Welcome by James H. Ottaway, Jr.,

Chairman of the


MR. OTTAWAY: Good afternoon. My name isJames Ottaway. I’m chairman of the World PressFreedom Committee. I’d like to welcome you allto our Andersen Lecture. I will introduce Mr.

Yushkiavitshus later, so I won’t go through his biography now. Next to him is Ronald Koven, theEuropean representative of the World PressFreedom Committee in Paris since 1981, a veter-an of the battle at UNESCO back in 1983, when

we urged the United States to get out of UNESCO because it had so many anti-press free-dom policies and people in its administration. Hewas eagerly positive and helped the U.S. and theUNESCO battle to get the United States back asa member of UNESCO, which it has now

rejoined. Now we’re working with Louise Oliver,our U.S. Ambassador to UNESCO, on a number of issues, and with Mr. Koichiro Matsuura, theDirector General of UNESCO, who’s become areal champion of press freedom. And I think

that’s in no small part, because of the educationand coaching he’s gotten from Rony Koven inParis. He’s had a difficult throat operation thisyear, so his enemies are very pleased that he’s notspeaking as well as he was earlier this year. Buthe’s been a great warrior for press freedom for

many years. Next to him is our host and benefactor today,

Harold “Andy” Andersen, who was chairman of the World Press Freedom Committee from 1979to 1996. He was chairman of the Omaha World-Herald Company in Nebraska. But that state was

too small for him. He was president of the

1



American Newspaper Publishers Association,our leading newspaper association in the United States. That was too small for him. He became president of the International Federation of Newspaper Publishers, now the World Association of Newspapers, and so, has been inthe forefront of international press freedom

issues for several decades now. Next to him is our brilliant lawyer, Kevin

Goldberg, who is our communications attorney

at Cohn & Marks, here in Washington. He hasmost recently helped us by writing an amicuscuriae brief against insult and criminal defama-

tion laws that can be used by local lawyersaround the world and is being used by them tofight local battles. It’s in English and Spanish and it’s on our website, if you’re interested— www.wpfc.org.

Next to Kevin is Mark Bench, our ExecutiveDirector, who appeared here last year asExecutive Director-Designate, when MarilynGreene, our previous Executive Director wasretiring. He’s been with us now going great gunsin his first year, full of energy and enthusiasm,

and particularly helpful with the Spanish-speak-ing groups that we work with because he’s fluentin Spanish. He came from a broadcast and man-agement background but was involved withWPFC way back since 1976. He’s known theissues and stances we’ve taken in internationalorganizations over the years.

To put it succinctly, our first duty of the World Press Freedom Committee is to monitor interna-tional organizations, to try to do everything wecan to stop bad legislation, bad policy, bad state-

ments at summit meetings, such as the currentWorld Summit on the Information Society, whereRony and others of us have worked hard to assurethat the countries that have no free press do not

control the final declarations in the summit about press freedom.

2



Also in the audience is Marilyn Greene, whoserved as our Executive Director for seven yearsand kept us going in many directions around theworld. She’s a former foreign correspondent for USA Today, and she’s taking a well-deserved rest. Working with us is not an easy job. So,we’re glad you’re here, Marilyn. Our photogra-

pher today, Javier Sierra is also our ProjectsDirector. He’s the Spanish-speaking journalistwho has been particularly helpful in some cases

we’re working on in South America, Mexico, and Spain.

Mary-Esther Dattatreyan is our Office

Manager of many years and keeps things goingwell. And next to her, her husband, Kumar, whois our unofficial computer consultant.

I call your attention to some publications out-side on the table, as you came in. One is called

“New Code Words For Censorship,” a book of essays by international journalists about the dan-ger to press freedom of the euphemisms that people use who want to control the press in variousways and control free speech. These are somereally interesting essays helpful to you. Another

publication, “Press Freedom on the Internet,”describes one of our major campaigns at themoment, particularly at the World Summit on theInformation Society, where issues of the Internetare being debated and where a governance com-mittee has been set up by Kofi Annan to reporton what it thinks about governance. It could be adangerous committee. There is no press repre-sentation on it. Too much government represen-tation, and I’m sure there are going to becontroversial recommendations coming out of

that committee, that we’ll have to work on.Behind all the work we do, is one man who has

had the longest history with the World PressFreedom Committee and is still our senior advis-

er, Dana Bullen. He was our Executive Director for 16 years. He’s our historical memory bank

3



and one hell of a good editor when we need thoseskills. Thank you all for coming.

I would like to introduce our speaker now. Our Andersen Lecturer this year is HenrikasYushkiavitshus, who for obvious reasons we allcall “Yush.” He’s a good, good friend of theWorld Press Freedom Committee. He served for

nineteen years as vice chairman of the SovietState Committee for Television and Radio, whatwe have known as Gostel-Radio. He held a min-

isterial ranking in the old Communist govern-ment. As such, he played a key role inimplementing in Soviet broadcasting

Gorbachev’s policy of Glasnost in the 1980s. Asyou know, this liberalized to some extent the flowof information in Russia and led eventually torevolutionary change. Thanks in part to a directtelephone link from his desk to Gorbachev’s,

Yush was able to cut through Soviet bureaucraticred tape to help Western broadcasters cover theMoscow Olympic and Friendship Games. As aresult, he established close ties with major Western television personalities, such as Ted Turner, founder of CNN and still a friend of

Yush.But in 1990, his life changed dramatically, as

did the lives of many Russians. In 1990, he wasnamed Assistant Director General for Communication at UNESCO, in Paris. There he put into practice, in the UN Agency, new policies promoting press freedom, which represented acomplete turnaround from that organization’s previous encouragement of international presscontrol. Yush became a major voice for pressfreedom in the former Soviet Union, as well, as

in any nation around the world, from that posi-tion. And he’s continued to be the articulatespokesman who has understood the difference between state-controlled news and freedom of

the press.In the years 2000 and 2001, he oversaw

UNESCO’s wide ranging Management Reform

4



WPFC’s 2004 Andersen Lecture featured UNESCO’s former Assistant Director General for Communication, Henrikas Yushkiavitshus, who gave a stark picture of media freedom and independence in the former Soviet Bloc.

Harold “Andy” Andersen asks his customary first question.This time he asked about the resurgence in international forums of efforts to suppress “the flow of information inand out of countries, except under government sponsorship.”



“The free market has led not so much to pluralism of the press but to increasing media concentration, and without strong pluralistic and independent media,the gangrene of corruption tends to infect the body of the state,” said Yushkiavitshus.

Harold “Andy” Andersen and WPFC’s Senior

Adviser and former Executive Director Dana Bullen, chat after the lecture.

“Press Freedom in the world is today, again, indanger. Many politicians are for press freedomwhen they are fighting for power, and they’remuch less enthusiastic about it when they are in power,” said Yushkiavitshus in his remarks.



(From right) Mark Bench, WPFC’s

Executive Director;

Kevin Goldberg,WPFC’s General

Counsel; Host and Benefactor Harold “Andy” Andersen,

and Yushkiavitshus.

(From left) Dana Bullen, Kevin Goldberg, Harold“Andy” Andersen, Henrikas Yushkiavitshus, James H.Ottaway, Jr., Mark Bench and WPFC’s European

Representative Ronald Koven.

(From left) WPFC’s Chairman James H. Ottaway, Jr.; Beth Howe, Home Delivery Manager, The Washington Post; Bo Jones, Publisher and CEO, The Washington Post, and Mark Bench.



Kevin Goldberg (left) and Mark Bench share a laugh beforethe lecture begins.

The audience—gathered at Washington, DC’s, National Press Club—listens to Yushkiavitshus’ presentation.

Washington Post Publisher Bo Jones (left) and WPFC Chairman James H. Ottaway, Jr., discuss mutual concerns.



Program, which UNESCO Director GeneralKoichiro Matsuura introduced to streamline and cut the administrative budget of UNESCO whichhad become bloated. He remains a special ad-viser on communication and administration toDirector-General Matsuura at UNESCO in Paris,and he continues to play influential roles in

“...we all [need to] discuss and analyzewhy press freedom in the world is today,again, in danger.”

Lithuania and in Russia as a frequent speaker ininternational news media conferences. He isendeavoring to help the former Soviet bloc coun-tries stop this reversal of press freedom.

Mr. Yushkiavitshus was born in Lithuania,trained as a broadcast engineer, began his career

in Lithuanian television and radio, serving aschief of its technology department from 1960 to1966. Among his many awards he holds anEmmy from the U.S. National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, the annualDirectorate Award, in 1990, for his role inexpanding the global exchange of television broadcasting between East and West. He willspeak to us today about why press freedom is being rolled back to more state control in somany post-Communist countries. This is a very

important topic of our times. Yush, it’s yours.

9



18th Annual Harold W.Andersen Lecture

“Why Press Freedom is Disappearing in

the Post-Communist World”

By Henrikas Yushkiavitshus

MR.YUSHKIAVITSHUS: Thank you very

much for inviting me to speak. And when Ilooked into the topic, “Press Freedom in thePost-Communist World, Why It Is Disappearing,”and I thought about this topic, regretfully, I havefound that today I have to speak not about only post-Communist countries but also about the

whole world after Communism. I would like tounderline that I don’t pretend that my analysiswill be correct. It’s my personal opinion. But, Ithink what is important today, is that we all think,discuss and analyze why press freedom in the

world is today, again, in danger. The end of the

“...many politicians are for press freedom when they are fighting for power, and they’re much less enthusi-astic about it when they are in power.”

Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union

was really the turning point in the history of humankind, and we citizens of so-called Communist countries, hoped that after those dra-

matic changes, democracy would prevail, marketeconomy would ensure high living standards, and an era of real press freedom would start.

The post-Cold War reality very soon cooled off our euphoria and taught us some important les-sons. One of them is that many politicians are for

press freedom when they are fighting for power,

10



and they’re much less enthusiastic about it whenthey are in power. Another lesson is that marketeconomy must not be given top priority over basic freedoms, human rights and democraticvalues. Otherwise, a free market may well turninto a black market, controlled by the mafia. Themafia is one of the strongest factors today that

limits press freedom in many post-Communistcountries. Almost every week we learn aboutnew cases when journalists are beaten or mur-

dered because they refuse to be influenced, bought or intimidated. Physical violence against journalists is the ultimate form of censorship.

Central governments in Georgia, Armenia and Moldova are too weak to protect journalists fromviolence and too intolerant themselves of criti-cism. We had hoped very much, for example, thatin Georgia, after its revolution, that press free-

dom would flourish.Just a couple of days ago, I spoke with thehead of the journalism faculty of the Universityof Tbilisi and he said, “Henrikas, it’s not so easy.

“The impunity of journalist killers is aterrible reality of today.”

The new power doesn’t like press freedom,either. Because of that now, I am looking hope-fully at what is happening in Ukraine and, of course, we hope that democracy will win. But,

how will it be with press freedom? It is a veryimportant test for the people who are coming to power. In other previous Soviet Republics, inAzerbaijan, Belarus and Central Asia, journalists

are too frightened to criticize governments, butthey are targeted by the mafia. Less than twomonths ago, on the 20th of October, the body of Veronika Cherkasova, a reporter for the newspaper, Solidarnost, was found with multiple stabwounds at her apartment in Minsk, Belarus.

Cherkasova was a general reporter, covering a

11



wide range of subjects, but she also undertook investigative work on the sex trade and organized crime. In Ukraine, the murder in 2001 of theinvestigative journalist, Georgy Gongadze is stillnot solved. Recently, the authorities stated rather cynically that killers could not be found, becausethey themselves had been killed. The murder in

Moscow of the American investigative journalistand editor, Paul Khlebnikov of the Russian edi-tion of Forbes Magazine caught international

attention, but just like in so many similar casesover the last 10-15 years, the killers of the jour-nalist have not been found.

Today before coming here, I called my friend Bogdanov*, who is tracking murders of jour-nalists. I asked what is now the number of vic-tims. The total for this year is 12. Not one killer has been found. There is a meeting next

Wednesday in Moscow of 100 family membersof murdered journalists; there are now more

“...the free market [in Russia] has led not so much to pluralism of the press

but to increasing media concentration,and without strong pluralistic and independent media, the gangrene of corruption tends to infect the body of the state.”

than 200 such families in all these years. Theimpunity of journalist killers is a terrible realityof today. I would say that one day the mafiaworld will erect a monument to the “Unknownkiller of journalists,” and I am afraid that some

politicians will lay flowers on it. So, marketeconomy, yes. Market society, no.

In Russia, privatization was done in a rather tough way. Priority was given to the market.

12

*Vsvelod Bogdanov, President of the Russian Union of Journalists



There even was the excuse that there are manyrecommendations and books on how to changefrom capitalism to socialism, but none on how tomove from socialism to capitalism. The advisersfrom the West also gave priority to the market asthe incarnation of democracy. All other values of democratic society, including press freedom,

were very, very much neglected. The media, veryoften, were forgotten in the different programs of assistance and were caught on the horns of a

dilemma: how, after the cynicism of the commu-nist era, based not on business but on totalitarian-ism, and after the euphoria of Glasnost, this, its

mission for freedom and democracy, not to slideinto cynicism about the market economy?Instead of being a means of democratization itwas more and more perceived as an end in itself.

It was intellectuals, those who had fought for

democratization and a free market who becamethe first victims of that market economy. As aresult, the older generation of intellectuals is get-ting ever more skeptical and the younger one,cynical. The lack of an intellectual component inthe market economy mechanism has resulted in

many social distortions and bitter deceptionsamong the populations. Media, on their part,lacked experience in how to secure their finan-cial independence and their editorial freedom.Consequently, the free market has led not somuch to pluralism of the press but to increasingmedia concentration, and without strong pluralis-tic and independent media, the gangrene of cor-ruption tends to infect the body of the state. Theannual total amount of money spent for corrup-tion in Russia is estimated at some 40 billion dol-

lars. Life proves that government structurescannot function effectively without freedom of information. Left alone, these structures tend to believe in their infallibility, close in on them-

selves and degenerate, like some royal dynastiesin the past.

13



We can talk as much as we like about the independence of courts of law, but such independ-ence can only exist if there are independent massmedia. A court left one-on-one with the execu-tive power will also sooner or later become defacto a tool in the hands of the latter. The independence of such a court is but an illusion. So,

the conclusion is, less press freedom meansmore corruption. It is not that leading Russian politicians do not understand the dangers of cor-

ruption. Two years ago, President Putin spokeabout the problem of corruption in the country.In his address to the Federal Assembly of the

Russian Federation, on 18 April 2002, he said:“Corruption does not result from the absence of repression… but is a direct consequence of limited economic freedoms. No administrative

“It will be possible to root out [paid-for articles] only if and when journalistscan earn decent wages and whennewspapers can be profitable from suchnormal income sources as advertising

and circulation sales.”

barrier can resist bribes. The higher the barrier is, the bigger the number of bribes is and thenumber of officials that accept them.” I would add that corruption is also a consequence of

limited press freedom.So, why do we witness limitations of press

freedom? The explanation lies in the resistanceof a selfish establishment which does not hesitateto use the power of the state for its own purposes.The establishment would like to have free handsand does not want the press to point fingers at thecases of “conflict of interest.” That is to say, atcorruption. The establishment is composed notonly of government bureaucrats. So-called oli-

garchs also are and have always been part of this

establishment. Different oligarchs played differ-ent games with the state machine, very often cor-

14



rupting it. More often than not, those gamesaffected press freedom. The day in 1996 when aleading manager of Russian IndependentTelevision (NTV company) joined PresidentYeltsin’s reelection team, and when the presidentordered GAZPROM to transfer 800 million dol-lars to NTV, this signified the beginning of the

end of independent television in Russia.

“Russia has very little historical memory of democracy.”

The intentions were good—not to let theCommunists return to power, but exactly thesame principle had been used by the communistregime. The end justified the means. Those elec-tions left Russian television forever economical-ly dependent on the state. So were those leading

journalists so naive that they played with firewhen they accepted investors with political goalsand thus made themselves vulnerable to govern-ment pressure? This is not an easy question toanswer. What happened to NTV was wholesale

corruption of journalism, starting at the top of the profession. So it is not surprising that there isalso retail corruption, with journalists beingcommissioned by this or that company to writearticles on demand.

Newspapers not only know about this practice,

but they also take their share, and public relationsfirms are happy to provide this kind of service atestablished rates. This system of paid-for articlesmasquerading as straight news reports even has aname, Zakazukha. It will be possible to root outthis phenomenon only if and when journalists canearn decent wages and when newspapers can be profitable from such normal income sources asadvertising and circulation sales. And today I

spoke to the president of the Russian Union of Journalists, who told me, “Henrikas, what is left of

real journalists may be 15 percent. All the rest arecommunications engineers and public relations.”

15



Even such an expert as Jeffrey Sachs, former adviser to the Russian Government, once saidvery accurately about the situation in Russia,“We felt like we were invited to treat a sick person, but when we put him on the operation table and opened him up, we suddenly found that he had anabsolutely different anatomy and organs which

we had not studied in our medical institute.”Many factors affect press freedom in the world.

One of them is terrorism. Terrorism kills not only

people, it also kills press freedom today. After the Nord Ost Theater tragedy in Moscow, when some130 hostages died, President Vladimir Putin

vetoed a law restricting reporting on terrorism.

“There is only one silver lining to thiscloud. Programs of Radio Liberty and the Voice of America are regaining

popularity in Russia.”

If passed, this law would have seriously limited press freedom in Russia. So-called “power min-istries,” such as the minister of interior or defense, were, of course, interested in such a lawas it would have made it impossible for the publicto know about the numerous mistakes made dur-ing counter-terrorist operations. After the Beslanschool tragedy, there are again attempts in theRussian Parliament (Duma) to limit press cover-

age of terrorist attacks. It is clear that terroriststry to use the press for their own purposes, butsome of the proposals discussed in the Duma gotoo far. It is proposed, for example, that informa-tion about such events should be released onlyafter the incident is over. It reminds me of the

Chernobyl tragedy. It was the time of Glasnost.Still, the information was not released on time.And today, we have hundreds of thousands of ill people because they didn’t know what the danger was. Some people went to look at that power sta-

tion fire. Children went to look at that fire because information was not disclosed that doing

16



this was absolutely dangerous. We still have towait and see what the decision of the Duma and that of the President will be. By the way, someRussian journalists propose to call this draft lawThe Russia Patriot Act (in an analogy to theU.S.A. Patriot Act). Vladimir Putin is theyoungest president in Russian history, and I am

sure he is eager to learn from more experienced politicians elsewhere in the world.

Russia has very little historical memory of

democracy. It first had tsars, then Lenin, Stalin,Khrushchev and Brezhnev. None of them was ademocrat. Gorbachev also lacked experience in

democracy. So it is logical for President Putin toseek friendly advice from his new friends in theold democracies. The Prime Minister of Italy,Silvio Berlusconi, has the most extensive experi-ence on managing media among the European

state leaders. One has the impression that theecho of this experience can be heard in Russia.The relationship between the Russian televi-

sion stations and the Russian government resem- bles more and more that between the Berlusconigovernment and television and radio in Italy.

Both in Russia and Italy we are witnessing amarriage of the executive power with the massmedia. It is no secret that there is less and lesscriticism of the government policies on TV in

“Some former communist countriesvalue press freedom very highly.They understand what it means notto have it.”

Russia. There is only one silver lining to this

cloud. Programs of Radio Liberty and the Voiceof America are regaining popularity in Russia.More than a quarter of a century ago the well-known American journalist Walter Cronkite said,“Freedom of the press is not just important to

democracy, it is democracy.” For many years hiscountry, your country, the United States, has

17



been the best example of real press freedom and democracy. United States-based World PressFreedom Committee has done a great job. TheVoice of America, Radio Free Europe and RadioLiberty have for many years supported the spiritof freedom behind the Iron Curtain and still are playing a very important role.

Recently, however, there have been some dis-turbing facts. They were discussed in May of thisyear in Warsaw, Poland during the General

Assembly of the International Press Institute, aglobal network of editors, media executives and leading journalists. The IPI leaders wrote a letter

to then-U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell,concerning the exclusion of journalists from theU.S. Visa Waiver Program for visitors fromfriendly countries. The letter recalled that over the previous 12 months a number of foreign journal-

ists have been seized at United States borders and deported forcibly to their home countries. Manywere mistreated and prevented from making tele- phone calls that could have helped clarify their status. This is a violation of the rules concerningthe persons arrested in a foreign country. Today,

we are happy to see friendly family photos of our leaders. It is a rare chance for all of us to benefit

“...Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, even Lithuania, historically

have more ancient experience in demo-cracy than France or Germany, not tomention Spain, Portugal or Greece.”

from good personal relations between them. It is

good to know that they have a common under-standing of the dangers of terrorism in the world.But, is there a common understanding of pressfreedom? Without a free press, it is not possible tofight corruption and today corruption feeds ter-rorism. Do Western democracies still care about

press freedom in the world? I hope they care.

18



In the annual report on press freedom prepared by the non-governmental organization“Reporters Without Borders,” Russia, theCaucasus and Central Asia lag behind. Close tothe bottom of the list is Belarus, in 144th place.President Lukashenka’s regime tolerates no criti-cism and systematically uses all possible means

to reduce the few dissident voices to silence.Uzbekistan occupies the 142nd place in the list,not far from Belarus, because of the govern-

ment’s brutal repression of independent mediathat are almost non-existent. Five journalistswere in prison there at the beginning of this year.

Yet, while Belarus is condemned in every possible way, Uzbekistan is a partner and a friend of the West. This shows that human rights and pressfreedom are not really held in much value ininternational relations. Much more important is

the number of Boeings, Airbuses or MiGs sold or military bases established.Indeed, times have changed very quickly. Just a

few years ago, the old democracies had clear pri-orities: human rights, freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Those were the main slo-

gans of the leading world politicians. PresidentJimmy Carter in a Vienna meeting shared thatfamous kiss with Leonid Brezhnev. But alreadyin their first meeting, Carter brought up the prob-lem of human rights in the Soviet Union. Today, press freedom in the world depends not only onso-called “old democracies.” Some former com-munist countries value press freedom very high-ly. They understand what it means not to have it.By the way, President Vaclav Havel was probablyright when he said that it was time to stop calling

those countries “former communist countries.”Communism was a short period in their long his-tories. Otherwise, he said, “We should call theUnited States a former British Colony.” The same

can be said of the former Soviet republics. Eachof them has a different history and traditions.And all that influences significantly their respec-

19



tive situations with regard to press freedom. Inthose countries that have historical memories of market economy and democracy, like the BalticStates—Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania—both eco-nomic development and press freedom situationsare similar today to those in the old democracies.

According to the press freedom ranking for

2004 by Reporters Without Borders, there ismore press freedom in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania than in Austria, Canada, France, the

United Kingdom, Italy, Spain and, I am sorry tosay, in the United States. Latvia occupies the10th place, Estonia the 11th, Lithuania the 16th

and the United States…the 22nd. There are stillislands of paradise for press freedom. They can be found in Northern Europe, in Denmark,Finland, Ireland, Iceland, the Netherlands and Norway. By the way, these countries are rated as

having the lowest levels of corruption in theworld. Since the European Union’s decision toaccept new members from the so-called post-communist countries, the debate has been goingalready for 15 years about the old and newdemocracies. In this debate, for the traditional

West, “new” are those who do not have historicalexperience of democracy, do not understand whata market economy is, and therefore are to betaught and, if necessary, reprimanded.

You may remember how President Chirac rep-rimanded Poland, Lithuania and others becauseof their good relations with the United States.One has a tendency to forget that Poland, theCzech Republic, Slovakia, even Lithuania, his-torically have more ancient experience in democ-racy than France or Germany, not to mention

Spain, Portugal or Greece. Of course, I should say that the new democracies very often are notfair to the West and I wouldn’t like to agree withthem, but I have to admit that there exist such

opinions. There are politicians in those countrieswho claim that their nations do not owe anythingto the West because its assistance to their fight

20



for freedom was only the correction of theWestern betrayals of the democrats to the Sovietsat Yalta in 1945, Budapest in 1956 and Prague in1968.

Still, the majority of the people, especiallyyoung ones are enthusiastic about the politicalchanges. There are many young journalists who

are eager to learn from the best examples of the professional and free press in the West. Theyknow foreign languages, they read your newspa-

pers, and they trust you, as we, the older genera-tion, trusted you from behind the Iron Curtain.Maybe sometimes we were over-idealizing you.

These young people will not allow the rebuildingof jamming stations in their countries, and theywill fight against any restrictions on the Internet,for whatever reasons. Let us hope that one day all political leaders will understand that although

both freedom of speech and press freedom dooften provoke public and political controversy, asexperience shows us again and again, when free-dom is sick the only cure is more freedom.Thank you.

21



Questions and Answers

MR. OTTAWAY: Thank you, Henrikas, for avery crystal clear speech about the problem of press freedom in former communist countriesand some of our own. The text of his speech withcolor slides are available on the table as you goout and I urge you to take them and use them if

you’re in the news business to report this aswidely as possible. He said some very importantthings that are not said often enough in theUnited States, about how we do not always call press freedom a major priority in our foreign pol-

icy and should. We have time for some questions.If there are those who would like to ask a ques-tion, could you speak into a microphone and stateyour name clearly. Our tradition is that the firstquestion comes from Mr. Andersen. So, Andy, doyou have a question to get us started?

MR.ANDERSEN: Well, first a brief com-ment, I’m glad to be here today, especially glad because of Yush’s presence with us. In fact, at myadvancing age, I’m glad to be anywhere today.But, among good friends in the audience and of

course up here at the head table, with people withwhom I have worked and who are performing socapably, remember that we expect another 15years from Jim as chairman of WPFC. He’sdoing a fine job. We first became acquainted with Yush when we were battling UNESCO’s

new world and communication order, whichcould be summarized by saying that the propa-ganda minister in each country could control theflow of information both in and out. That’s a cap-sule description, I think, of what people were try-ing to achieve. I think we, with your help,

blocked that movement from UNESCO’s spon-

22



sorship, but that sort of thinking persists today.Would you care to say how is it manifestingitself? I’m thinking not so much of the individualsuppression of journalists…of freedom withincountries, which I think was your primary focustoday, but this idea of suppressing the flow of information in and out of the country except

under government sponsorship. Where is thatmovement focused today and how is it doing? Ithink it’s no longer in UNESCO.

MR.YUSHKIAVITSHUS: Today, for manycountries, and especially for young people, it isvery important to have access to the Internet.

And, it was already clear during the Genevameeting of the World Summit on the InformationSociety that the main battle will be about theInternet. There are many attempts to limit possi- bilities on access to the Internet. You know for

example, China’s already closed access toGoogle news. In some countries, web sites arecompletely blocked, just as radio stations were jammed in the past. The Internet developed sosuccessfully because governments have notunderstood what is happening. When they under-

stood it, it was already a bit too late. Now theyare trying to catch up. I am very happy thatUNESCO has taken a strong position on the gov-ernance of the Internet, including several decla-rations which were accepted by all member statesincluding China. The Sofia Declaration spon-sored by UNESCO refers very clearly to the need for news media using Internet to enjoy the samefreedoms as traditional media. I must say that itwas Rony Koven, who in Sofia very skillfullysucceeded to put it into the Declaration.

MR. OTTAWAY: Any other questions? Pleasecome to a microphone, if you can? And tell uswho you are, please, so we can give you credit inthe record.

MR.WOLFSON: I’m Lewis Wolfson fromAmerican University. It’s probably premature toask you this, but do you think what is happening

23



in Ukraine now would have an effect on other governments in the former Soviet Union and others that are in that group that you’re talkingabout?

MR.YUSHKIAVITSHUS: I am sure that itwill have an impact. I am not sure what impact because you have, of course, after 1968 events in

Czechoslovakia and Prague, the Brezhnevregime kept fighting, and it made the situationworse. I have met Gorbachev personally many

times, and I have met President Putin a couple of times in UNESCO meetings. He’s learning veryrapidly. He’s speaking, saying very correct things

as he did at a recent meeting of world news agen-cies. He answered in a very correct way, respect-ful of press freedom. What is disturbing is thathis statements and reality in Russian media aredifferent. I can’t say why. People sometimes say

he is surrounded by wrong advisers or there can be other influences. When you think objectively,he has to be interested in free press because thenumber one problem today in Russia is corrup-tion, and corruption is really feeding terrorism. Nobody can believe that terrorists could go to

Nord-Ost Theater, or to Beslan school withoutsomebody being corrupted. So, I hope he willunderstand. You know, I would like to be an opti-mist, but you know what the difference betweenoptimist and pessimist? The pessimist is the sameas the same optimist, only better informed.

MR. OTTAWAY: I hope some good will comeof that struggle for freedom in Ukraine. Terry.

MR. MAGUIRE: Terry Maguire with theMediterranean Media Center. You drew somecomparison between the situation in Russia today

and in Italy with Silvio Berlusconi. I’m wonder-ing in terms of the way the situation in Italy,whether it be the trials in which SilvioBerlusconi finds himself at the moment or

whether it be his situation in the media market- place in Italy, I’m wondering how those are cov-ered today in Russia, and how Russians are

24



seeing those developments. Is he held out as ahero? Is he held out as someone who is to be con-demned for what he has done?

MR.YUSHKIAVITSHUS: I must say thatthere is not a lot of information in Russia aboutthis process in Italy. But, better informed journal-ists tell us, especially those who know foreign

languages and who know about personal rela-tionships, that there are three very good friends,Bush, Berlusconi and Putin. Sometimes they are

saying that if these good friends could only tellPresident Putin, “Look, it is not good to followthis line.” But on the other hand they are saying,

“But look what Berlusconi is doing.” Whatever Berlusconi is doing, we in Russia are in someways, making a carbon copy of it. Well, maybenot exactly. But the principle is more and morethe same in this marriage of television and the

state. Today, fifty per cent of all television infor-mation in Russia is coming from the state.Seventy per cent of TV outlets are state organiza-tions. And fifty per cent of revenues are fromstate agencies. So, television is becoming practi-cally some sort of state monopoly. This is not so

much yet true of the printed press. There are stillnewspapers that are expressing quite independentnews. But the problem is that their distribution isvery limited—40,000, maybe 50,000, and mostlyconfined within the Moscow area.

MR. OTTAWAY: Okay. Any more questions?

MS. JEDRZEJCZAK: My name is SarahJedrzejczak, and I wanted to ask a question relat-ing to the situation in the Ukraine. As you mayhave heard, there was some type of courageoustelevision reporters, on state-owned television,

who came out and decided they would not lie for the regime anymore. There was a deaf inter- preter, for example, who was written about in theWall Street Journal. Could you comment on how

that may be transforming the state-run televisionin the Ukraine and what effect it might have inother parts of neighboring countries?

25



MR.YUSHKIAVITSHUS: It’s good for thosecourageous journalists to say that they are chang-ing sides. Sometimes people ask me, Where wereyou before? Because when you see that the oppo-sition is winning, to switch to the opposition’sside is easier than before. But it is easy to say,you know. It is much more difficult to do it, to be

in their place. You must also know that many journalists, even in the state organizations, find the way to state the truth between the lines. That

was also very important during the Soviet time.For example, in the Soviet Union, it was theater that was doing a lot to express this hope for free-

dom. Everybody had heard about the TagankaTheater in Moscow. There were also some newspapers whose talented journalists were findingthe way to say things in a very interesting waythat those who wanted to understand, understood

it. I can tell you myself, it was I who proposed tothe chairman of Soviet Television and Radio toshow, live, the Brezhnev visit to the United States. Do you think the people in Russia werelooking at Brezhnev? They were looking whatwas behind Brezhnev. They were looking how the

American people look, how their streets look,how their homes look. When during Soviet time,we also succeeded, for example, in putting theWimbledon tennis tournament on the air live.Many people who don’t know anything abouttennis were looking at the Wimbledon competi-tion to see how the people looked, how they weredressed, to see their faces. It was an open win-dow. After Wimbledon, this competition trans-mission, I was elected vice president of theTennis Federation in spite of my not playing

tennis very well.MR. OTTAWAY: Obie, will you state your

name, please?

MR. OBERMAYER: Herman Obermayer. I

have a conceptual question. You established thatthere is a direct relationship between marketeconomy and a free press and then you said,

26



“Market society, no.” And I would like to ask whether that’s not a conflict of terms, conflict of concept, conflict of values, which ultimately isself-defeating. The first, the second defeats thefirst, because you can’t advocate free economywithout advocating, market economy withoutadvocating market society.

MR.YUSHKIAVITSHUS:Yes. You know, before you said this, I had thought about it. Themarket economy is a very powerful mechanism

and, of course, without a market economy therecan’t be any progress. You have in the United States a market economy, but I can’t say that you

have a totally market society. Your society valuesare absolutely different. Your family values areabsolutely different. In your religious families,market economy is important because you know people are earning money and pushing the econ-

omy ahead, but in these families, money is notthe most important thing. For them, it’s other spiritual values which are most important. And what is the problem? In Russia today, I think thatthere is distortion of real human values. Russiahas natural resources, maybe the most in the

world, and they have the most educated people.So, what’s the problem? The problem is a distort-ed scale of moral values.

MR. OTTAWAY: That’s a powerful answer.Question?

MR. SEGOV: My name is Juri Segov. I’m the bureau chief of Business in Russia magazine, soI understand various things that you’re talkingabout. Would you share with us what the West,the United States, Western European countries,can really do to influence or interact with the

Russian government to change the situation?We see participation of many representatives of the media business in Russia who have beenfighting against the government, one way or

another, who have been suppressed, expelled from the country or jailed. What can the Westreally do, in practical terms, to bring this point

27



not only to discussion but to a practical solutionof the problem?

MR.YUSHKIAVITSHUS: As they have beentold, everything depends on priorities in interna-tional relations. You remember that these priori-ties were different some years ago, and todayhuman rights, freedom of the press and freedom

of expression are very low on the agenda. It’s practically mere lip service. I spoke aboutRussia. But when was the last time you heard

about anything wrong in China? Does it meanthat China is a free country? Of course, it’s nowdeveloping. Everybody’s admiring. They’re using

thirty percent or a bit less of the world steel pro-duction. Of course, I understand the United States is interested in business with China.Everybody’s interested. So, business is first and human rights is second. When was the last time

you read anything about some human rights problem somewhere? You remember there was atime when every day we were reading aboutSakharov, about Solzhenitsyn, heroes of our time, heroes in the West and heroes, by the way, behind the Iron Curtain for those people who

were thinking. Not so long ago, we considered Gao Yu a hero,

a Chinese journalist who was jailed in China and received the UNESCO prize, given to one person per year. And why was she jailed? She was jailed because she wouldn’t disclose the sources of her information. You know what’s going on in theUnited States on this same topic now. It’s a prob-lem that in the whole world, the priority of free-dom of expression is not in first place. So, whenyou ask, what to do?

We all of us together have to remember thatthis is the thing which is most important, because without it, there can’t exist a freeworld. What was won can be lost, and there will

be no freedom of expression for which many people fought so hard and so long. How to dothis? The press itself must do it. There was the

28



World Summit on the Information Society inGeneva. It was a very dangerous moment and still is. Why? Because this World Summit on theInformation Society attempted to throw out, for example, Article 19 of the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights, and significanteffort had to be made so that it would remain.

And there was not very much discussed aboutmedia during this Summit. There was a parallelForum meeting for broadcasters at the same

time. But it didn’t influence them at all because parallel lines cross only in Lobochevsky’sgeometry, not in Euclid’s. So, you know, we

have to think also about Tunis where the second portion of the Summit is being held in November 2005. But what has the press beenwriting about it? How many articles have youseen? I have seen two articles in The Herald

Tribune about the World Summit on theInformation Society. We ourselves have to bemore dynamic on these things.

MR. OTTAWAY: Very good statement. That’sexactly the problem, and we hope you’ll help uscarry on this battle through your generous contri-

butions to the World Press Freedom Committee.One more question, okay?

SPEAKER: Could you please just commentabout why the Western press doesn’t dig a little bit more to point out the real truth about what’s been happening in Ukraine?

MR.YUSHKIAVITSHUS: I live in Paris.I follow Gusinsky* television. You cannotexpect this kind of coverage from state media inRussia. I am sure Yanukovich** will not beelected. But it will be interesting to see after the

Orange Revolution wins in Ukraine how it will

29

*A Russian-language satellite TV service for Russians abroad, based in New York and Israel and founded by exiled multi-millionaire Vladimir Gusinsky after he was forced to give up hisRussian-based media.

**Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Victor Yanukovich, theofficial candidate in the presidential election.



treat press freedom. Personally, I am disappoint-ed with what is happening in Georgia. We arenot very happy with press freedom in Armenia.It is a big test. It takes a very courageous politi-cian to respect press freedom. Even the best of politicians sometimes hesitate. I respect verymuch the balance of former Czech President

Havel. Even Havel, at one moment began tohesitate. Of course, it’s very unpleasant whenthe press is criticizing you, and you really have

to overcome all this domestic conflict. I spokewith Lithuanian politicians; my origin is fromLithuania, you know, and I spoke with President

Adamkus***, we have very good relations.President Adamkus came back to Lithuaniafrom the United States, so he understands thesetraditional values. When there is criticism in the press about him—and there is criticism—he

said to me, “Henrikas, it’s very unpleasant, butit has to be.” For other politicians without that background, it is more difficult. But I am veryhappy that in the Lithuanian press, written pressand radio and television, now freedom isabsolute.

What is also important for press freedom is professionalism of journalism. We sometimesforget about it, but ethics of journalism isextremely important. When the theory of jour-nalists being the Fourth Power came to Russiafrom the United States, where it is so popular, itcreated a lot of damage because journalists inRussia took it very literally. Many professional journalists also became members of Parliament.They thought, “I am in power, so the more power, the better.” I never could imagine that in

the United States, journalists would put them-selves in such a position. They would have tochoose one or the other. So, you know, profes-

30

***Lithuanian President Valdus Adamkus, born in Lithuania. Hisfamily emigrated to the United States after WWII, where he became a regional director of the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency before returning to Lithuania.



sionalism is also important. And, by the way,the World Press Freedom Committee for yearshelped journalists in Eastern Europe and Russiavery much by arranging seminars on politicaland professional issues.

MR. OTTAWAY: Thank you. One lastquestion.

MS. ASSENOVA: Thank you. MargaritaAssenova, with Freedom House. My question issomehow related and similar to a previous ques-

tion. What is the role of the Russian media insupport of the new Russian imperialism? Is therea clear division between the state media and the

private media? Is there support for expanding theinfluence of Russia over the former Sovietstates? I’m not talking just of the Soviet Union.What are the dangers to press freedom in coun-tries that achieve a level of democracy? Is it

economic policy, or...MR.YUSHKIAVITSHUS: First, aboutRussian imperialism, I wouldn’t use such a term because of what Russia is trying to do, trying tohave its place in the world. It is clear that itsimportance was lost in the last years. Many peo-

ple in Russia blame Gorbachev for this becausetheir standard of living for the majority of people is lower than it was before. So, some politi-cians, not having any other arguments like, for example, Zhirinovsky*, try to play on thisRussian nationalism and talk about Russia’sfamous past during Stalin’s era, etc. But I think that clever politicians, and I think that includesPutin, understand that this argument goesnowhere. In Moscow, by the way, only forty per cent of inhabitants are Slavs. You have living in

Moscow and Moscow district, about two millionAzerbaijanis and about one million Armenians.You can’t build a multi-national society playingonly this nationalistic theme, and most politi-

cians understand this.

31

*Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Russian Liberal Democratic (ultra-nationalist) Party leader



I was telling my friends in Russia that in theUnited States you have learned this. When Itake taxis in Washington, D.C., I have never heard English spoken. I’ve heard a number of other languages, but never English. I am sure if you ask them, the drivers will say that they are proud to be U.S. citizens. At the same time,

they will say that I am Russian, Chinese, or Lithuanian, and I think it’s a tremendous expe-rience in your country and your society—a

tremendous experience. Even in France I sawduring the Olympic Games, a nice black ladythat was crying while the “Marseillaise” was

playing for the Gold Medal she was receiving.And I told my Russian friends, it would be a big achievement for Russia if a Chechen young person would cry with joy when the Russianflag is raised.

Of course, Russia seeks its place in the world.I talk about that very often with Primakov**, and he once told me that he’s not anti-American, thathe only wants it to be recognized that Russia alsohas its own legitimate interests in places like theMiddle East and Central Asia.

Regarding once again the independence of media, there will happen in other countries whathas happened in Russia, unless there is economicindependence of media. Probably, everybodyknows Adam Michnik***. He said that journal-ism without ideas is cynicism and journalismwithout money, without business, is bankruptcy.So you have to do both. Thank you.

MR. OTTAWAY: Thank you, Henrikas, thatwas a wonderful talk and very interesting ques-tion period. It’s 2:00, I declare the meeting over

and thank you all for coming and I urge youagain to take a look at copies of the speech on the

32

**Former Prime Minister Evgeni Primakov, also former Director of the Soviet Foreign Intelligence Service

***Editor-in-Chief of Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland’s leadingnewspaper and Eastern Europe’s most successful publication toemerge from political dissidence to Communism.



way out and some of the books that we have pro-duced on press freedom issues. I’m very pleased you were able to come today. Thank you.

33



About The Andersen Lecture

This lecture was the 18th in the HaroldW. Andersen series on global media issues.

It was sponsored by the World Press FreedomCommittee. The lectures are intended to focusattention on international communication and press freedom issues.

A listing of the previous lecturers, includingnoted journalists, the secretary general of theUnited Nations and the director general of UNESCO, is set out on the inside back coverof this booklet.

The lectures honor Harold W. Andersen,chairman of the World Press FreedomCommittee from 1979–1996. Mr. Andersen was

chairman of the Omaha World-Herald Company, president of the American Newspaper PublishersAssociation, and president of the International

Federation of Newspaper Publishers in Paris.Mr. Ottaway is present chairman of the World

Press Freedom Committee, director of DowJones & Co., and of Ottaway Newspapers.

The World Press Freedom Committee isheadquartered in Reston, Virginia, near

Washington, D.C., and unites under its banner 45 journalistic organizations on six continents to provide a strong global voice in support of thefreedom of news media in all countries.

2004-henrikas yushkiavitshus.pdf

Documents