#6521 #6522
#9 - JRL 6522
Vremya MN
October 30, 2002
JOURNALISTS TO INTRODUCE SELF-CENSORSHIP
Fighting a war and freedom of speech are two incompatible things
Author: Valery Vyzhutovich
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
ONE OF THE OUTCOMES OF THE MOSCOW HOSTAGE CRISIS IS A CHANGE IN RELATIONS BETWEEN THE MEDIA, THE GOVERNMENT, AND SOCIETY. KONSTANTIN ERNST, HEAD OF ORT, SAYS HIS NETWORK WILL INTRODUCE VERY STRICT SELF- CENSORSHIP. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT CLEAR HOW FAR THIS SELF-CENSORSHIP WILL SPREAD.
One of the outcomes of the Moscow hostage crisis is a change in relations between the media, the government, and society.
Having been a bastion of freedom of speech for the past ten years, the media have suddenly started to talk of censorship. Moreover, this time they mention censorship not as a threat, but as a positive change and strictly necessary under these special circumstances. To be precise, journalists have started to talk about "self-censorship".
General Director of the ORT television channel Konstantin Ernst assessed the coverage of the tragic events in Moscow by his channel as follows, "We made up our minds to introduce very strict self- censorship. The only thing that motivated out actions was the conviction that not a single report made by us should do any harm to the hostages and that all our actions should contribute to their release as soon as possible."
The "do no harm" principle motivating most media elsewhere in the world in crisis situations has finally been adopted by Russian media as well in connection with the recent events. General Seccretary of the Russian Journalists Council Igor Yakovenko was even more straightforward. He said, "A war and freedom of speech are two incompatible things."
The Media Ministry has demanded that footage broadcast on October 23-26 should be presented to it. After it is checked, some media may be reprimanded and some of them may be even punished. But the main point is that the ministry will remind to journalists that they must not show such materials that may arm terrorists with information about plans of special services for all the arms they have. They must not make any reports that may exacerbate the position of hostages. They must not spread panic or publish unconfirmed rumors.
Meanwhile, it is not clear whether the responsibility of media will be connected with responsibility of the government providing the information. The report that the terrorists intended to release Moslems and Georgians proved to be an ordinary lie. Where did journalists get this lie? The only source whether journalists received the "thoroughly filtered and correct information" was the operative headquarters handling this operation.
It is difficult to question the appeal to journalists not to talk too much until the situation is not resolved and every word of theirs may become a detonator. But what should the press do now? The tragedy is over only in the Theater Center in Dubrovka, but it is not over in Chehcnya. The war is going on. Thus, we will never know what gas was used by the special troops and if its appliance was justified. If there is a war in the country, this sort of information is a military secret. FSB employees will tell journalists: "Do you want to tell terrorists what they will be poisoned next time in order that they might secure themselves against it?"
The pecial services are always aspiring to mark their territory with red flags. Meanwhile, journalists naturally aspire to break through these flags. It is abnormal when media defend interests of special services presenting them as interests of the society. Won't the censorship propagated by the first channel lead to such a situation? Russia is a country where censorship, even if it's in the form of an internal editor, has a tendency to expand beyond the borders set up for it initially.
(Translated by Kirill Frolov)
Back to the Top Next Article
Oct. 30, 2002:
#6520 #6521 #6522
- Back to the Top -