» Latest Headlines

Obama should address Russian impunity in upcoming summit, says CPJ

FreeMediaOnline.org, Russia - by tedlipien - June 29, 2009 - 14:00 America/New_York - Be first to Comment!

cpj

(CPJ/IFEX) - In a letter to Barack Obama, The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) asked the President to urge Russia’s government to demonstrate its commitment to reversing the troubling record of impunity in attacks on the press:

June 25, 2009

Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500

Via facsimile: +1 202.456.2461

Dear President Obama,

In advance of your July 6-8 summit in Moscow with President Dmitry Medvedev, we’d like to draw your attention to the pressing issue of impunity in violent crimes against journalists in Russia. We ask you to place this issue on the agenda for your talks. Seventeen journalists have been murdered for their work or have died under suspicious circumstances since 2000. In only one case have the killers been convicted. In every case, the masterminds remain unpunished.

Your meeting comes on the fifth anniversary of the murder of Paul Klebnikov, the founding editor of Forbes Russia and a U.S. journalist of Russian descent. He was gunned down outside his Moscow office on the night of July 9, 2004. Although this case has received a high level of public attention, justice has been elusive.

The investigation was promising in its initial stages: Authorities determined the killing was work-related, they arrested suspects, and they brought a case to trial. The case unraveled in court amid questionable judicial decisions. The judge closed the proceedings to the public for vaguely expressed national security reasons and then left the jury vulnerable to intimidation. The defendants - Kazbek Dukuzov, charged as the gunman, and Musa Vakhayev, charged as the getaway driver - were acquitted in May 2006.

In November 2006, Russia’s Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s verdict and ordered a retrial of the two men. By then, however, Dukuzov had vanished. In the following months, Moscow City Court officials first postponed the retrial and then sent the case back to the Prosecutor General’s Office for further investigation. Officials did not disclose the rationale for this pivotal decision, which effectively sent the case back to step one. Investigators have reported no recent developments.

Neither have authorities reported progress in apprehending the alleged mastermind, Chechen separatist leader Khozh-Akhmed Nukhayev. Prosecutors have said Nukhayev ordered Klebnikov’s slaying because he was angered by the editor’s 2003 Russian-language book, Conversation With a Barbarian, which drew on interviews with the rebel leader. Authorities have offered no evidence to substantiate this claim.

Investigations into the 16 other journalist killings have been marred by secrecy, conflicts of interest, and undue influence from external political forces, CPJ research has found.

These victims represent the breadth of Russian journalism: They worked in large cities and small towns across Russia. They were veterans of international reputation and young reporters trying to examine injustices in their local communities. All shared one thing: They examined sensitive subjects that threatened powerful people in government, business, law enforcement, and criminal groups.

President Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin have pledged to enforce the rule of law by investigating crimes against the press.
Nonetheless, attacks on journalists continue to occur with impunity. In the past year alone, CPJ has documented work-related violence against 19 journalists in various parts of the country.

This record of impunity is a matter of international importance. Deadly violence against journalists has led to vast self-censorship, leaving issues of global significance underreported or entirely uncovered. A closed society is not a full and reliable international partner in our information-driven world. Russia is an influential member in a number of international organizations, including those predicated on the right to life and free expression. When Russia does not uphold press freedom and human rights for its own people, it undermines them for all.

When you meet with President Medvedev in July, we ask that you remind him of the commitment he made upon taking office on May 7, 2008 - to ensure that the lives and safety of all citizens are protected, to fight corruption, and to strengthen the rule of law. We ask you to engage President Medvedev in a dialogue and urge that his government demonstrate its commitment to reversing this very troubling record of impunity in attacks on the press.

Thank you for your attention to these urgent matters.

Sincerely,

Joel Simon
Executive Director

http://www.ifex.org/russia/2009/06/29/impunity_letter/

For more information:
Committee to Protect Journalists
330 7th Ave., 11th Floor
New York, NY 10001
USA
info (@) cpj.org
Phone: +1 212 465 1004
Fax: +1 212 465 9568
http://www.cpj.org

Internet Divides Russia Deeply and in More than One Way - Window on Eurasia

FreeMediaOnline.org, Internet, Paul Goble, Russia - by tedlipien - June 26, 2009 - 19:22 America/New_York - 1 Comment

Paul Goble

Vienna, June 26 – Despite reports about the expansion of Internet use in Russia, more than half of that country’s urban residents over age 12 have never gone online, and more than a third have never used a computer, global figures which set Russia apart from Western countries but ones that conceal deep divisions within the Russian Federation in the electronic world.

Those are just some of the findings offered in a 144-page report released this week that was prepared by the Public Opinion Foundation on the basis of interviews with 34,000 people in 1920 cities and towns of the Russian Federation. The report itself is available at bd.fom.ru/pdf/int0309.pdf; for a summary, see lenta.ru/articles/2009/06/25/report/.

The Lenta.ru commentary suggested that when variations among various educational and regional groups in Western countries are reported, the Western press speaks “digital divides.” But these divides are so much deeper in Russia, the news agency says, that it is better to refer to them as a digital “gulf” or “abyss.”

Not only have 54 percent of Russia’s urban residents over 12 never gone online, but ten percent of this group say they have never heard of the Internet. Moreover, of those who are not going online now, a third of the population says that it has “neither the desire, nor the possibility” to do so. And only eight percent of those not online say they plan to be this year.

Equally striking are two other general findings: Thirty-six percent of the sample said they had never used a computer, but in contrast to the situation only a few years ago, those who do go online are more likely to do it at home rather than at work, something that reflects greater connectivity and probably affects how Russians use this medium.

While the survey found Internet use to be relatively high in Moscow and St. Petersburg, in the other parts of the country, the Public Opinion Foundation study found that penetration of this technology was relatively low, averaging only 11 percent or significantly less, although in this area too there were some interesting divides as well.

Perhaps the most intriguing is that more than a quarter – 28 percent – of those who go online in the Southern Federal District – which includes the North Caucasus — do so via their mobile telephones, a reflection of the shortage of landlines in that region but a pattern that makes the Internet potentially more important as a means of connecting people opposed to the regime.

Moreover, this finding is a classical example of the way in which those who participate in this and other technical worlds may skip a stage, going directly from snail mail to cell phones rather than through all the stages that the countries which pioneered the current communications revolution have gone through.

Another intriguing example of such a leap from one level of communications technology to a much more advanced one came this week with the announcement of a launch of an Internet TV service for the Finno-Ugric peoples, groups historically poorly served by native language television in the past. (www.raipon.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=131:-lr&catid=1:2009-03-11-15-49-27).

Half – 46 to 53 percent – of those who do use the Internet use it for e-mail and social networking, but what struck the researchers at the Public Opinion Foundation as important is that 53 percent of those going online said they did not express their own opinions, and 52 percent did they did not listen to the opinions of others expressed in Internet forums.

And in a finding that also divides Russians from many other peoples around the world, only 25 percent of Russians said that their lives would be significantly changed if they no longer had access to the World Wide Web, and nearly as large a share said that their lives would not be affected at all if they could no longer go online.

Such experiences and attitudes suggest that Russians are not as passionately affected by or committed to the Internet as many have assumed on the basis of uncritical extrapolations from American or West European experience where the Internet has been integrated into and plays a far larger role in the life and work of a larger part of the population.

And these Russian patterns also suggest both that Moscow would face far less opposition if they move, as the parliament of Kazakhstan did this week, to seriously restrict access to the web and that outsiders should not view the Internet as being as important a transforming force or influential player as all too many now do.

Cautious to a Fault: Solidarity with Reformers in Poland and Iran - Reagan’s Response in 1981 Markedly Different from Obama’s in 2009

Broadcasting Board of Governors, Commentary, FreeMediaOnline.org, Georgia, GovoritAmerika.us, International Broadcasting, Public Diplomacy, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Russia, Surrogate Broadcasting, Voice of America - by tedlipien - June 25, 2009 - 23:41 America/New_York - 1 Comment

White House Photos, Lawrence Jackson. The President discusses Iran during his opening remarks at the Press Conference at the White House, June 23, 2009.

White House Photos, Lawrence Jackson. The President discusses Iran during his opening remarks at the Press Conference at the White House, June 23, 2009.

FreeMediaOnline.org Logo. FreeMediaOnline.org,  Free Media Online Blog,  GovoritAmerika.us, Commentary by Ted Lipien, June 26, 2009, San Francisco – Ronald Reagan’s strong response to the imposition of martial law  against the independent Solidarity trade union in Poland in 1981 was distinctly different from President Barack Obama’s nuanced comments about the crackdown on demonstrators in Iran in the aftermath of the disputed Iranian presidential elections. While President Obama may have wanted to show his appreciation of the subtleties of Iranian politics, his public statements projected around the world a sense of confusion and weakness instead of showing firm American support for human rights and democracy.   

Intellectually, President Obama is right that the current situation in Iran is not the same as the communist crackdown on Solidarity in Poland in the 1980’s and may require a different policy response from the way President Reagan dealt with communist regimes. But the right course of improving communications with the Muslim world, set by President Obama’s speech in Cairo, was undermined by his initial refusal to speak out strongly against violations of human rights in Iran. He may have lost some of the earlier respect among supporters of democracy in the Middle East and weakened his position vis-a-vis America’s most determined enemies.

President Obama is right that President George W. Bush had made monumental mistakes by his unsophisticated and interventionist approach to the Muslim world while appeasing other authoritarian rulers, including Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Public diplomacy mistakes by the Bush Administration are too numerous to list, but U.S. international broadcasting initiatives during the last eight years serve as a good example. The Bush-appointed Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) eliminated all Voice of America (VOA) highly-respected Arabic news programs and created Radio Sawa and Alhurra TV, which are viewed in the Middle East and by independent experts in the U.S. as propaganda stations that lack journalistic standards, credibility and audience. Alhurra had broadcast unchallenged statements by Holocaust deniers at a conference in Tehran organized by no other than President Ahmadinejad. The BBG  had also eliminated Voice of America Russian radio programs just 12 days before the Russian army invaded the disputed parts of the Republic of Georgia. Democrats serving as members of the bipartisan BBG, including former BBG member Edward E. Kaufman, who has replaced Vice President Joe Biden as a U.S. Senator from Delaware, had been instrumental in helping the Bush Administration to make and implement many of the misguided decisions that have replaced objective journalism by the Voice of America with crude propaganda that damages America’s reputation and interests abroad.

President Obama is right in offering a new style of public diplomacy in the Middle East and throughout the world. He did not go to Alhurra to give his first interview targeted for the Middle East but chose an Arab TV network instead. Unfortunately, he still does not have around him enough good advisors who could help shape all of his public statements on human rights and freedom of expression issues, especially in times of crisis, so that he and his Administration do not appear at times as being intimidated by dictators of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s kind or appear naive and impulsive like President Bush.

As someone who was in charge of Voice of America (VOA) radio broadcasts to Poland during the Solidarity period, I agree that the two situations — the imposition of the martial law in Poland in December 1981 and the crackdown on demonstrations in Iran in June 2009 – are not identical. They both required, however, from the President of the United States a quick and decisive public response that would not be misinterpreted by foreign leaders and public opinion. Unfortunately, President Obama did not pass this latest test with flying colors.

President Ronald Reagan with Pope John Paul II in Fairbanks, Alaska, May 02, 1984.

President Ronald Reagan with Pope John Paul II in Fairbanks, Alaska, May 02, 1984.

Undoubtedly, he is a highly intelligent leader and hopefully capable of making right assessments and decisions. His reading of the situation in Iran may be in some ways correct, but his initial public response to this latest crisis was insufficient and quite wrong. He may have been told that workers and intellectuals in Iran are not as united against the religious regime as the Poles were against the communists in the 1980s. America was never seen by the vast majority of the Polish people as a threatening imperial power; Russia was. On the contrary,  most Poles saw America as an only major ally that could help them free themselves from communism and Soviet domination. And unlike the religious authorities in Iran, the Catholic Church and Pope John Paul II were on the side of striking workers, protesting intellectuals and students.

But while the situation in Iran in 2009 is in some ways different from Solidarity’s struggles in Poland in the 1980s, the need for moral support for pro-democracy Iranian reformers is now just as urgent as support for Lech Walesa was for the Reagan White House.  To achieve their goals,  the reform-minded, largely urban Iranians who are behind the street protests could learn from Solidarity’s success in Poland by sticking to their non-violent posture. They could also follow the example of Solidarity’s intellectual advisers, who had shaped the alliance with the Polish industrial workers, by making a similar effort in reaching out to the poor, highly religious, and anti-Western rural voters who tend to support President Ahmadinejad and the clerical regime.

Even in Poland, where conditions were more favorable to creating a democratic society, the solidarity-building process between intellectuals and workers was long and arduous. It took several decades before the Polish society finally united to a sufficient degree against the communist rule. Strong but not overly aggressive statements from President Reagan, and radio broadcasts by the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, had helped the Poles in their struggle for freedom.

President Obama’s speech in Cairo, offering a new approach in dealing with the Muslim world, was a great public diplomacy success and was  seen in the region as a new beginning. Unfortunately, public diplomacy experts at the White House and the State Department were not able to show a similar sophistication when a sudden crisis developed in Iran. President Obama’s overwhelming public concern how his comments in support for the protesting Iranians might be perceived by anti-Western, anti-democratic, and pro-clerical forces was clearly not the right response and opened him to criticism from his Republican opponents.

The White House could have taken a lesson or two from President Reagan on how to articulate a strong public diplomacy message that strikes the right balance between legitimate policy concerns and the impact of presidential statements on public opinion.  It’s good for the president of the United States to be aware of all the subtleties of foreign policy, but in some situations speaking publicly about them sends a wrong message to both supporters and enemies of democracy. Reagan knew how to use public comments to project a strong and confident image abroad while still being able to practice diplomacy when it served America’s interests and the cause of freedom.

In responding to the crackdown on Solidarity In 1981, President Reagan expressed America’s unqualified support for freedom without any concern that he would be criticized in Moscow and Warsaw for interfering in Poland’s domestic politics or trying to undermine the Polish communist regime’s close links with the Soviet Union. He was still able to engage later in successful negotiations with Soviet and Polish communist leaders when they were already critically weakened by America’s resolve to support freedom. Reagan was decisive but not intellectually inflexible like President George W. Bush. His was the right approach, and history has proved him right.

President Reagan’s Address to the Nation About Christmas and the Situation in Poland, December 23, 1981

I urge the Polish Government and its allies to consider the consequences of their actions. How can they possibly justify using naked force to crush a people who ask for nothing more than the right to lead their own lives in freedom and dignity? Brute force may intimidate, but it cannot form the basis of an enduring society, and the ailing Polish economy cannot be rebuilt with terror tactics.

Poland needs cooperation between its government and its people, not military oppression. If the Polish Government will honor the commitments it has made to human rights in documents like the Gdansk agreement, we in America will gladly do our share to help the shattered Polish economy, just as we helped the countries of Europe after both World Wars.

 

 

President Obama’s reaction to street demonstrations in Iran was markedly different in an interview with Harry Smith of CBS News, June 19, 2009.

CBS News Harry Smith: Let’s move on to the news of the day.  The Ayatollah Khamenei gave his speech today, gave his sermon.  He said that the election in Iran was, in fact, legitimate.  He said, “The street demonstrations are unacceptable.”  Do you have a message for those people in the street?

President Obama:  I absolutely do.  First of all, let’s understand that this notion that somehow these hundreds of thousands of people who are pouring into the streets in Iran are somehow responding to the West or the United States, that’s an old distraction that I think has been trotted out periodically.  And that’s just not going to fly.

CBS News Harry Smith: People in this country say you haven’t said enough, that you haven’t been forceful enough in your support for those people in the street, and which you say? 

President Obama: To which I say the last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. That’s what they do. That’s what we’ve already seen. We shouldn’t be playing into that. There should be no distractions from the fact that the Iranian people are seeking to let their voices be heard.

Now, what we can do is bear witness and say to the world that the, you know, incredible demonstrations that we’ve seen is a testimony to, I think what Dr. King called the the arc of the moral universe. It’s long but it bends towards justice.

 

President Obama is right that the United States should not be seen as directly interfering in domestic Iranian politics, as this may hurt pro-democratic forces. But there is a big difference between actual interference and strong public statements in support of human rights abroad, especially in a crisis situation. Regardless of what President Obama says or does not say, Ahmadinejad’s supporters will still claim — as they have – that the United States is creating unrest in Iran. But if President Obama had taken a more Reagan-like approach in his public statements, while still maintaining diplomatic flexibility – supporters of human rights around the world would not be discouraged and enemies of freedom would not see him and the United States as confused by the events in Iran and weak against dictators. If the president’s public diplomacy advisers knew what they were doing, this would not have become an issue for the new administration. It is possible to have a sophisticated public diplomacy strategy in the Middle East without appearing too cautious in support of democracy and freedom of expression.

 

About Ted Lipien

Ted Lipien

Ted Lipien is a former Voice of America acting associate director. He was also a regional BBG media marketing manager responsible for placement of U.S. government-funded radio and TV programs on stations in Russia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries in Eurasia. In the 1980’s he was in charge of VOA radio broadcasts to Poland during the communist regime’s crackdown on the Solidarity labor union and oversaw the development of VOA television news programs to Ukraine and Russia. He is also author of “Wojtyla’s Women: How They Shaped the Life of Pope John Paul II and Changed the Catholic Church” (O-Books - June 2008). In his book he describes the efforts of the KGB and other communist intelligence services to place spies in the Vatican and to influence reporting by Western journalists.

Wojtyla's Women by Ted Lipien

Wojtyla's Women by Ted Lipien

About FreeMediaOnline.org

FreeMediaOnline.org Logo

FreeMediaOnline.org is a San Francisco-based nonprofit which supports media freedom worldwide. 

 

About GovoritAmerika.us

GovoritAmerika.us - US-Russia Multisource News Analysis/ГоворитАмерика.us - Всесторонний Анализ Новостей из СШАIn December 2008, FreeMediaOnline.org launched a Russian-language web site — GovoritAmerika.us ГоворитАмерика.us  – which includes summaries of some of the more serious news and commentaries from multiple U.S. government and nongovernment sources. According to Ted Lipien, the web site is designed to compensate for the loss of information from the United States for Russian-speaking audiences due to program and budget cuts implemented by the Broadcasting Board of Governors. The web site, which includes links to VOA Russian Service news reports, is also designed to counter the BBG marketing strategy that has forced broadcasting entities to focus on entertainment programming and to avoid hard-hitting political reporting that might prevent local rebroadcasting or offend local officials. GovoritAmerika.us web site was developed without any public funding and is managed by volunteers. It is also hosted on LiveJournal.com.

BBG officials initially had told the VOA Russian Service that their requests to resume radio broadcasts were a “non-starter” even after Russia invaded Georgia. Only after weeks of protests, including reporting by FreeMediaOnline.org, the BBG finally allowed VOA to produce a short audio program for the Internet, updated only Monday through Friday. This program is rather difficult to find on the VOA website. We made it available for easier access and listening on the GovoritAmerika.us website managed by FreeMediaOnline.org.

Report Cites Continued Weaknesses in US Broadcasting to Cuba - Voice of America

Broadcasting Board of Governors, FreeMediaOnline.org, International Broadcasting, Voice of America - by tedlipien - June 17, 2009 - 18:58 America/New_York - Be first to Comment!

U.S. lawmakers have heard testimony about continuing weaknesses in U.S.-government funded television broadcasting to Cuba. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) updated members of Congress on steps taken by the Broadcasting Board of Governors and its Office of Cuba Broadcasting on recommendations to deal with management, morale and other problems.

Since its inception in 1990, TV Marti has been the subject of controversy over cost, contracting, internal management and journalistic issues, and the inability of the Miami-based station to reach enough of the population in Cuba to justify the $500 million spent on the operation so far. More

Public Diplomacy: A National Security Imperative - Under Secretary McHale

FreeMediaOnline.org, Public Diplomacy, U.S. Department of State - by tedlipien - June 13, 2009 - 19:20 America/New_York - Be first to Comment!

The more languages and venues we communicate in, the more respect we show for our audience, the more effective we will be. Under Secretary McHale

 

“Whether we are strengthening old alliances, forging new partnerships to meet complex global challenges, engaging with citizens and civil society, or charting new strategies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, our national interests depend on effective engagement and innovative public diplomacy.” - Full Text

In Search of A Smarter, More Cultured Approach to U.S. Public Diplomacy and Broadcasting in the Middle East

Broadcasting Board of Governors, Commentary, FreeMediaOnline.org, Georgia, International Broadcasting, Public Diplomacy, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Russia, Surrogate Broadcasting, U.S. Department of State, Voice of America - by tedlipien - June 4, 2009 - 00:13 America/New_York - Be first to Comment!

White House Statement on the Global Engagement Directorate

White House Statement on the Global Engagement Directorate

FreeMediaOnline.org Logo. FreeMediaOnline.org,  Free Media Online Blog,  GovoritAmerika.us, Commentary by Ted Lipien, June 04, 2009, San Francisco – President Obama’s recent announcement of a new Global Engagement Directorate that will combine ”diplomacy, communications, international development and assistance” was short on specifics how this new structure might change the focus of U.S. public diplomacy and broadcasting initiatives. That’s hardly surprising, considering that the White House has to deal with many other seemingly more pressing problems. But when the Administration finally starts making hard decisions on global engagement, a greater appreciation of history and foreign cultures could help return some sanity and accountability to these programs. The President and the Senate also have to make better choices in selecting key officials responsible for international communications and avoid the temptation to use propaganda rather than dialogue and journalism in communicating with the Muslim world.  Such officials should be appointed and confirmed based on their qualifications as foreign policy analysts and international media experts rather than selected because of political loyalty or the size of their political contributions. Finally, there is no reason why American taxpayers should continue to fund many of the programs created during the Bush Administration that at best don’t work and often damage America’s image abroad. 

 

Propaganda Is Out, Journalism and Culture Is In - We Hope

Edward R. Murrow, 1956 photo.

Edward R. Murrow, 1956 photo.

If the White House is serious about avoiding past mistakes,  what’s clearly needed in communicating with the rest of the world is a more sophisticated approach that draws on what is best in American diplomacy, culture and objective journalism. Much will depend on what kind of people are put in charge of representing America to the world. They should appreciate what’s best in American culture.  The Administration should look for people who would be in the same league as Edward R. Murrow, who was President Kennedy’s choice to head the now defunct United States Information Agency (USIA), or John Chancellor, President Johnson’s choice to head the Voice of America (VOA) in the days when the White House appreciated the experience of professional journalists. 

The last thing America needs is leaving public diplomacy in the hands of obscure political loyalists who make private business deals on taxpayer-paid trips abroad and help their  business associates get hired as government consultants at the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which manages, or more accurately mismanages, U.S. international broadcasts. It’s hard to imagine that the late Armand Hammer, a U.S. business tycoon who made profitable trade deals with Lenin and Stalin, would have been put in charge of U.S. broadcasting during the Cold War, or that the late Edward E. Murrow would be discussing  private business deals with President Putin’s associates on a trip to Moscow if he were now in charge of these broadcasts. But such  apparent conflicts of interest and other abuses were common at the Broadcasting Board of Governors during the Bush Administration. The BBG has been consistently rated in government surveys as one of the worst managed Federal agencies. Read The Washington Post column by Joe Davidson: Employee Poll Makes VOA’s Parent the Worst Place to Work.

BBG Logo

BBG Logo

Under President Bush, political appointees selected to run State Department’s public diplomacy programs and U.S. international broadcasting were political operatives, advertising executives and mirror entrepreneurs who proved their value to the White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress with political contributions and loyal support. (The BBG is by law bipartisan and must include members of both parties, thus both the Bush White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress share the blame for selecting these individuals.) They were rewarded with jobs for which they were completely unsuited and unprepared.

It is not surprising, therefore, that during the past ten years, Under Secretaries of State for Public Diplomacy and members of the BBG have brought once sophisticated cultural and broadcasting programs to a new low level of simplistic and counterproductive propaganda. They promoted advertising and marketing campaigns that admittedly may sometimes produce desired results in a U.S. domestic business setting but turned out to be ineffective and outright offensive when applied to public diplomacy and international broadcasting. And that’s exactly what these political appointees who lacked any substantive experience in foreign policy, human rights and journalism, have done in trying to communicate America’s message to foreign audiences, especially in the Middle East.

 

Bring “American” Brand Back

BBG consultants declared “America” as a brand name not to be used in the Middle East and came up with a GM-like collection of new names and new private broadcasting initiatives, each one costing U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars. Since their creators lacked an even basic understanding of Arab culture and refused to listen to advice from area experts, there was no chance that they could be successful. And by all accounts, they were not. They should have asked themselves why the British, who after all perfected serious radio journalism for audiences abroad, did not feel the need to dilute the BBC World Service brand with new stations under many different names. 

Returning to a more sophisticated approach, using high-level cultural diplomacy and serious news broadcasts, may not be easy, as much of the knowledge and experience of previous decades has been destroyed and will take time to  rebuild. The only thing left of sophisticated news analysis and cultural programs once available on the Voice of America are old audio and text files of interviews with important cultural figures in the Arab world. They have been archived by the U.S. Embassy in Egypt, where some U.S. diplomats and local Egyptian employees still understand their value. It’s this kind of understanding and cultural sensitivity that needs to be brought back. Link to Egyptian Treasures from VOA on the U.S. Embassy Cairo website.

The BBG eliminated all VOA Arabic language programs to create privately-run Radio Sawa and Alhurra Television. The programming philosophy of these stations, developed by former BBG member Norman Pattiz, a Democrat  – who despite being then Senator Joe Biden’s protege worked closely with neoconservatives in the Bush Administration – specifically rejected anything cultural in U.S. international broadcasting above the level of Brittney Spears. BBG members claimed that their market research supported programming derived from Hollywood and popular culture. Their professional background, however, made it impossible for them to conduct a sophisticated analysis that would take into consideration Middle Eastern history, cultural sensitivities, and political implications of their programming choices.

The Obama Administration would do well by quickly reversing many of the BBG’s decisions of the past decade. Correcting these mistakes would greatly improve America’s image abroad and save U.S. taxpayers’ money. “American” brand  should be brought back by making the Voice of America again a primary U.S. international broadcaster. VOA broadcasts and Internet site in Arabic should be restored as soon as possible.

 

Sources of Failure

How did U.S. international broadcasting go from a series of great successes during the Cold War to disastrous results in the Middle East in the last decade? While the simplistic worldview adopted by the Bush Administration bears some of the blame, the BBG and its members have made a bad situation far worse than it had to be.  These well meaning but completely miscast individuals, most of them with backgrounds in small domestic U.S. businesses, took a Cold War concept of surrogate broadcasting — which in any case was totally unsuitable for the Middle East – and compounded their error by removing from it one element that had made the original surrogate broadcaster – Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty –  vastly successful in broadcasting to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. That element was a high level intellectual and cultural program content developed by local journalists, writers, artists, and intellectuals — not  U.S. advertising experts and political loyalists based in Washington, D.C.

Not satisfied with silencing Voice of America broadcasts in Arabic, the BBG members and their private consultants destroyed cultural uniqueness and effectiveness of RFE/RL Russian broadcasts and terminated VOA radio to Russia just a few days before the Russian army invaded Georgia. FreeMediaOnline.org reported that only one BBG member, Blanquita Walsh Cullum — the only working journalist on the Board – had the courage to to oppose these cuts and spoke out against other abuses, including an ultimately unsuccessful effort by a former BBG chairman James K. Glassman to hire Paula Zahn as the Board’s high profile spokesperson while VOA broadcasts to critical countries were being eliminated. Paula Zahn declined the job offer as a private contractor that would have cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. James K. Glassman, who ended up as President Bush’s last Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, refused to resume VOA Russian radio broadcasts during the Russian-Georgian conflict.

In the process of expanding their power, BBG members deprived  foreign journalists working for their surrogate broadcasters of any measure of independence and authority, which was one of the key elements of success of U.S. broadcasts during the Cold War. At the same time, they failed to provide clear editorial and policy guidelines — another key element that previous American management teams were usually able to put in place successfully by working in partnership with foreign journalists. Those who dared to oppose BBG’s misguided ideas were fired or found their programs eliminated. To cover up their mistakes, the BBG forced foreign employees to sign secrecy agreements and refused to make public independent studies showing the failure of their projects in the Middle East. Read  Report Calls Alhurra A Failure on ProPublica.org.

By all accounts, the broadcasting  Board has been an unmitigated disaster. Some of the abuses are only now beginning to come to light. BBG-approved personnel policies at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which discriminate against foreign-born journalists,  may soon come before the European Court of Human Rights. Close links between the BBG Democrats and neoconservatives in the Bush Administration have proven that the Board does not protect U.S. international broadcasters from political interference with program philosophy and program content.  

The Broadcasting Board of Governorss organizational chart looks very much like the one for General Motors with numerous brands and units that duplicate missions and budgets. Reforming the BBG, eliminating waste and abuse, and combining broadcasting units could save U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars. More up-to-date figures can be found on the BBG website in the FY2010  BBG Budget Request.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors's organizational chart looks very much like the one for General Motors with numerous brands and units that duplicate missions and budgets. Reforming the BBG, eliminating waste and abuse, and combining broadcasting units could save U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars. More up-to-date figures can be found on the BBG website in the FY2010 BBG Budget Request.

 

The Obama Administration has a choice of abolishing the Broadcasting Board of Governors and closing down Alhurra Television and other private broadcasting entities created during Bush years. Democrats and Republicans in Congress have a common interest in saving taxpayers money, which are now being wasted on ineffective and duplicate programs.

Alhurra Television and the BBG, however, has some powerful supporters, mostly among Democrats who helped to create Alhurra, including former BBG member Senator Edward E. Kaufman, D-DE, a protege of Vice President Biden.  Read ProPublica.org: Alhurra Bleeding Viewers, Poll Finds, But Spending is Up.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is an ex officio member of the BBG.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is an ex officio member of the BBG.

One of the key members of the Obama Administration who may have a say in what happens to the BBG and Alhurra is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She is an ex officio member of the BBG, although she does not attend its meetings. She is usually represented at these meetings by a senior State Department official. While President Obama wisely avoided giving interviews to Alhurra, Secretary Clinton was recently interviewed by the network. Secretary Clinton is a friend of BBG member D. Jeffrey Hirschberg. He was one of the Democrats who worked closely with the Bush White House to create Radio Sawa and Alhurra. Hirschberg, a director of the U.S.-Russia Business Council, was also said to be responsible for terminating VOA radio broadcasts to Russia shortly before the Russian invasion of Georgia.

Other than Senator Kaufman and perhaps also Secretary Clinton, Alhurra, which means “The Free One,” seems to have now far fewer supporters, especially among members of Congress. ProPublica.org reported that outraged members of Congress threatened to withhold funding after the network aired a report on a Holocaust deniers conference in Tehran. According to ProPulica.org, “the reporter who covered the conference told viewers that Jews had provided no scientific evidence of the Holocaust.”

As a former acting associate director of the Voice of America (VOA),  I am certain that VOA, the only American-brand broadcaster and a target of numerous BBG program cuts, is capable of providing news and representing America in a credible and responsible manner that will not embarrass the United States. It’s unlikely that VOA would give airtime to Holocaust deniers, as did Alhurra editors and anchors, who apparently felt they had no choice but to follow the BBG dictum of giving the audience what it wants based on market research. Although VOA has had various problems with its broadcasts over the years, it follows much more strict editorial and fiscal standards than the BBG’s favored private broadcasting entities and their contractors.

In some cases, private broadcasting entities and surrogate broadcasters can be effective if they have the right programming philosophy,  proper management and  sufficient autonomy combined with sufficient oversight.  Ultimately, much will depend on the quality and experience of the people the Obama Administration puts in charge of these programs. Their understanding how we can communicate with other nations by presenting what’s best in our culture and intellectual tradition will determine whether these programs will be successful in the future.

 

About Ted Lipien

Ted Lipien

Ted Lipien is a former Voice of America acting associate director. He was also a regional BBG media marketing manager responsible for placement of U.S. government-funded radio and TV programs on stations in Russia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries in Eurasia. In the 1980’s he was in charge of VOA radio broadcasts to Poland during the communist regime’s crackdown on the Solidarity labor union and oversaw the development of VOA television news programs to Ukraine and Russia. He is also author of “Wojtyla’s Women: How They Shaped the Life of Pope John Paul II and Changed the Catholic Church” (O-Books - June 2008). In his book he describes the efforts of the KGB and other communist intelligence services to place spies in the Vatican and to influence reporting by Western journalists.

Wojtyla's Women by Ted Lipien

Wojtyla's Women by Ted Lipien

About FreeMediaOnline.org

FreeMediaOnline.org Logo

FreeMediaOnline.org is a San Francisco-based nonprofit which supports media freedom worldwide. 

 

About GovoritAmerika.us

GovoritAmerika.us - US-Russia Multisource News Analysis/ГоворитАмерика.us - Всесторонний Анализ Новостей из СШАIn December 2008, FreeMediaOnline.org launched a Russian-language web site — GovoritAmerika.us ГоворитАмерика.us  – which includes summaries of some of the more serious news and commentaries from multiple U.S. government and nongovernment sources. According to Ted Lipien, the web site is designed to compensate for the loss of information from the United States for Russian-speaking audiences due to program and budget cuts implemented by the Broadcasting Board of Governors. The web site, which includes links to VOA Russian Service news reports, is also designed to counter the BBG marketing strategy that has forced broadcasting entities to focus on entertainment programming and to avoid hard-hitting political reporting that might prevent local rebroadcasting or offend local officials. GovoritAmerika.us web site was developed without any public funding and is managed by volunteers. It is also hosted on LiveJournal.com.

BBG officials initially had told the VOA Russian Service that their requests to resume radio broadcasts were a “non-starter” even after Russia invaded Georgia. Only after weeks of protests, including reporting by FreeMediaOnline.org, the BBG finally allowed VOA to produce a short audio program for the Internet, updated only Monday through Friday. This program is rather difficult to find on the VOA website. We made it available for easier access and listening on the GovoritAmerika.us website managed by FreeMediaOnline.org.

News Flashes from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty - Understanding Government

Broadcasting Board of Governors, FreeMediaOnline.org, GovoritAmerika.us, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Russia, Surrogate Broadcasting, U.S. Department of State, Voice of America - by tedlipien - June 3, 2009 - 19:13 America/New_York - Be first to Comment!

FreeMediaOnline.org Logo. FreeMediaOnline.org,  Free Media Online Blog,  GovoritAmerika.us, June 3, 2009, San Francisco —  Understanding Government website — undestandinggov.org — has published an in-depth report on charges of discrimination against foreign-born journalists at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), which is managed by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), an independent Federal agency created by Congress to oversee U.S. international broadcasting operations. The report refers to the work of FreeMediaOnline.org in support of independent journalism in media-at-risk countries.

NEWS FLASHES FROM RADIO FREE EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY

By Mitchell Polman

Washington, June 3 — Two former employees of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) recently sent U.S. to Attorney General Eric Holder a petition alleging unfair labor practices at the U.S.-supported radio and information service.  The petition is the latest salvo in an ongoing labor dispute that is causing international embarrassment for a venerable institution of America’s public diplomacy.  It is also causing some headaches for the Obama Administration and especially for Secretary of State Clinton, whom the plaintiffs at one point petitioned to appear before the court in her capacity as a member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), RFE/RL’s parent agency.

The former employees of RFE/RL, Snježana Pelivan of the Croatian service, and Anna Karapetian of the Armenian service, are suing RFE/RL and the BBG in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg over the radios’ employment practices.  The Croatian and Armenian governments are supporting their lawsuits.

Much more than background noise

Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty were created in 1950, as the Cold War was heating up, to broadcast news and information behind the Iron Curtain that people living in the region could not get from their own governments.  Until 1995, RFE/RL – often called simply “the Radios,” had its headquarters in Munich, Germany.  It was an important outpost for Western reporters, scholars, and human rights activists.  To the governments of Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe, RFE/RL’s news and features were a serious problem – one they drew attention to by attempting to jam the radio broadcasts. 

Today “the Radios” broadcast and maintain a web presence from a different headquarters in Prague, Czech Republic, to twenty countries in twenty-eight different languages.  All of the countries RFE/RL broadcasts to either lack a free press or are struggling to create one.  RFE/RL’s journalists often take great risks to report on sensitive topics.

Prior to moving to Prague from Munich in 1995, RFE/RL employees were covered by either German or American labor laws and many were members of American labor unions.  Today, the Radios are incorporated as a non-profit organization based in Delaware and thus are free to operate as a private entity in the Czech Republic. 

In their lawsuit, Pelivan and Karapetian allege that RFE/RL’s employment policies unfairly discriminate against the Radios’ non-Czech and non-American employees.  Czech employees are covered by Czech employment law and American employees by American employment law.  Third-country nationals are covered by a Czech law that allows foreign companies in the Czech Republic to fire foreign employees at will and without cause.

The suit also alleges that when RFE/RL moved from Munich to Prague, employees were not informed of the changes in their employment status, in violation of U.S. law.  Pelivan told me that “. . . people who worked for RFE/RL in Germany before moving to Prague, signing new contracts in Prague, had no clue that all of a sudden, they were at-will employees. No one from RFE/RL management had ever explained to people this essential change in contracts prior to their signature. Many of these people would not risk [moving] from their countries or from Germany for such low job security at RFE/RL.” 

The petitioners, who go so far as to ask Holder for a criminal investigation of RFE/RL, call the omission of information about employees’ new status “a dirty trick” and claim the change was “intentionally hidden from them by RFE/RL management.”  Pelivan says that even though this may be a violation of U.S. law, foreign employees of U.S. corporations are not allowed to challenge such violations in U.S. courts.  She feels that employees at RFE/RL who had neither American nor Czech citizenship were “placed in a legal vacuum and deprived of their fundamental human right to challenge a wrongful termination in any legal institution.”

In 2005, the plaintiffs’ attorney suggested an out-of-court settlement , and the Czech court invited RFE/RL to a mediation session on March 3 of that year, but RFE/RL did not appear.  On April 8, 2009 the Czech Constitutional Court found in favor of RFE/RL and the BBG, saying that no Czech law was violated in the dismissal of the employees.  The Czech court ruled that Pelivan and Karapetian’s employment contracts were governed by U.S. and DC employment law. 

Critics of the BBG allege that this labor law situation is part of a larger problem at RFE/RL, which is a small but important tool of America’s foreign policy.  According to many former employees (whose bias may be clear, but whose concerns about the Radios go beyond the issue of their termination), the firings of so many employees have intimidated those who remain into going along with changes in broadcasting strategies that they disagreed with, or keeping silence over mistakes made in RFE/RL broadcasts.  They further allege that this atmosphere of fear and possible retribution has made it easy for the BBG to hide problems at RFE/RL from Congress and presidential administrations.

Reporters and editors for Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty are generally native speakers familiar with the political and cultural background of the countries they cover.  Their broadcasts often criticize the governments of their home countries – and this criticism is not taken lightly.  A surprising number of RFE/RL employees have died in mysterious circumstances or been the victims of seemingly random violence, both during the Cold War and more recently.  Not surprisingly, the victims of violence – such as former Soviet dissident Tengiz Gudava of the Russian and Georgian services — had built up a base of listeners in countries still starved for real news about their own political systems. Gudava, formerly a popular broadcaster to Russia and Georgia, left RFE/RL in 2004 under protest, but from a home base in Prague, he had continued to write and report about human rights problems in the Caucasus and Central Asia.  On April 15, 2009, after leaving his apartment to buy a pack of cigarettes, Gudava disappeared. He was found two days later in a morgue not far from his home, the apparent victim of a hit and run car accident. 

While the reason for Gudava’s death has not been determined, it is clear that RFE/RL’s employees work in a highly-charged atmosphere and that, for people paid by the U.S. government, they take unusual risks – and lack corresponding protections.  Many foreign employees cannot easily return to their home countries because of their on-air criticisms against their home governments and leaders. If fired from RFE/RL, these employees face the challenge of finding other employment or gaining political asylum. 

The thorny relationships and complex expectations of employees in a radio service staffed largely by émigrés is an issue the United States has faced elsewhere, including at the Voice of America.  But clearly, the legal dispute is symbolic of a deeper conflict between RFE/RL’s management and its long-time employees, many of whom consider themselves as much freedom fighters as employees of a U.S.-sponsored radio service. 

Lawyers for RFE/RL weigh in

Understanding Government asked the Office of Legal Counsel for RFE/RL in Washington to address the issues raised by the petitioners.  

To begin with, RFE/RL’s legal counsel noted that during the move from Munich to Prague in 1995, many citizens of third countries (i.e., not citizens of the U.S. or the Czech Republic) “would have refused to stay with the Company had they not been given U.S.-law contracts, and today most third-country nationals prefer to be employed under U.S.-law contracts.”

Under these contracts, RFE/RL said, employees can “receive substantial and important benefits, such as an employer-funded savings plan, health insurance, life insurance, and long-term disability insurance.”

RFE/RL’s legal counsel went on to say that if employees were to sign contracts subject to Czech law, they would be obliged “to contribute a significant portion of their paychecks to the social security system of a country — the Czech Republic — in which they are not likely to settle when they retire.”  This argument seems ambiguous, however, since generally speaking, pension benefits are transferable between countries that have signed bilateral agreements — such as the Social Security agreement signed by the U.S. and the Czech Republic.  

The most important claim made by RFE/RL legal counsel is that the Radios do not “terminate employment relationships without reasonable cause, such as budget cuts, shifts in operational priorities, or performance-related factors.” 

Employees charge deception and subterfuge

Petitioners Karapetian and Pelivan, by contrast, argue that they and others have been subject to “acts of deception during the hiring process, and subsequent arbitrary terminations.”  A more disturbing allegation made by these two petitioners, and echoed by others, is that after their terminations, in order to receive the severance pay they were due, they were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements that forbid them from speaking publicly about RFE/RL’s operations and the circumstances of their departure.  According to the petition, some employees – who had no practical recourse and nowhere to go – “were forced to accept severance payments prepackaged by RFE/RL as . . . ‘shut up’ money.”

This objection is certainly heartfelt.  It also illustrates a cultural chasm between long-time employees of RFE/RL, many of whom lived much of their lives under authoritarian governments, and the usual expectations of employees of a U.S. company or non-profit organization.

According to RFE/RL’s Office of Legal Counsel, “severance is paid pursuant to a separation agreement that contains, among other things, a provision on confidentiality and a provision on mutual non-disparagement.  The confidentiality provision is standard in separation agreements used by American companies, and the mutual non-disparagement provision, also very common in such agreements, reflects and memorializes the fact that, in signing the agreement, both parties are expressing their desire to settle the matter amicably.”

Still, it does seem that employees who seek to dispute their terminations are in an untenable position.  If they seek redress for their termination, they lose their severance pay.  But they also seem convinced that they have no way to seek redress from RFE/RL for unfair treatment.  And there appear to have been no efforts to settle the dispute by RFE/RL.  Hence Pelivan and Karapetian’s petition to Attorney General Holder.

An insider’s look

One former employee who refused to sign a secrecy agreement was Mario Corti, an Italian journalist and expert on Russia who worked for RFE/RL from 1979-2005.  Corti’s most pressing concern is more with the way RFE/RL has been managed than the labor rights question – though he sees the issues as connected. Corti was promoted to Director of the Russian language service but later fired after repeated clashes with then-RFE/RL Director Jeffrey Trimble, who is now the Executive Director of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. 

In  an interview with freemediaonline.org, Corti charges that RFE/RL management seemed determined to gut the Russian-language service – and that “those among the old KGB and the new FSB officials, who see the U.S. as an enemy rather than a valuable and generous partner of Russia, could only be enormously happy with such leaders in charge of U.S. international broadcasting as the current U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) executive team.”  According to Corti, then-director Trimble even planned to shut down the Russian-language news service completely, but “did not carry it out because he was afraid of a mass rebellion in the Russian Service.” 

This former insider has telling criticisms of the way RFE/RL targeted its broadcasting within Russia, as well.  Corti says that RFE/RL management told them to “[f]orget about the regions” and concentrate only on audiences in Moscow and St. Petersburg, though Corti had been trying to build up the Radios’ presence in provincial cities. 

Corti also alleges that the BBG kept hiring outside consultants to conduct studies of the Russian service’s listenership until they got results showing declining ratings — which they then used to justify the termination of service.  On the other hand, Corti clearly has a long-standing loyalty to RFE/RL, where he worked for many years; he commented that the Radios’ “mission is indeed more noble than the judgment and behavior of some individuals who unfortunately happened to work there.”

Radio-free Radio Free Europe?

Because there are clearly so many unhappy former employees (not for nothing was the Broadcasting Board of Governors recently identified as the worst place in government to work), it’s hard to pass off their complaints as the opinions of a disgruntled few. Still, the legal issues are complicated and they may not be easily resolved.  But the charge that the Radios are denying basic labor rights to foreign employees of a U.S. government body that works on behalf of human rights and freedom of information is an embarrassment and may be symptomatic of a larger problem – the mismanagement of America’s public diplomacy strategies in recent years by Washington. 

America’s government-sponsored broadcasters have increasingly begun to imitate private sector commercial media entities that view ratings as paramount, and they have moved to eliminate radio broadcasting in such vital languages as Russian, Cantonese, and Hindi in favor of the Internet. RFE/RL, however, has a very different mission from a commercial broadcaster.  It has a mission to provide certain types of news and information to audiences that can not easily obtain them elsewhere.  Ms. Pelivac’s husband, Lev Roitman, was an RFE/RL Russian service broadcaster from 1975-2005 when he voluntarily retired.  Roitman says that he “was the first and, to the best of my knowledge, remain the last RFE/RL employee in Prague to have a title of ’senior commentator’. However, immediately after my retirement, my highly popular program ‘Commentators at the Round Table’, which on a daily basis covered social, economic, legal, human rights, historical, and international topics, was shut down. Somehow, I think, it could not be married to the market where the commentaries are not offered anymore — to an ever dwindling number of buyers.” 

RFE/RL has been under the leadership of Jeffrey Gedmin since March 2007. The BBG (as previously reported here) is largely vacant and four of its five members are serving after their terms have expired.  It would seem appropriate for the White House to step in and ask both sides to call off the lawyers — and resolve the unfortunate and unpopular legal dispute.  Thus far the Obama Administration has been silent on the issue.  A resolution of the legal case as well as the underlying strategic problems that made such a lawsuit possible seems essential not only for the sake of RFE/RL’s current and former employees, but also for the future of the Radios and their still-vital mission.

Bill Skundrich, Respected International Broadcaster, Leaves Voice of America

Broadcasting Board of Governors, FreeMediaOnline.org, Georgia, International Broadcasting, Internet, Russia, Voice of America - by tedlipien - May 27, 2009 - 17:56 America/New_York - Be first to Comment!

Bill Skundrich

Bill Skundrich

FreeMediaOnline.org Logo. FreeMediaOnline.org & Free Media Online Blog, May 27, 2009, San Francisco –  Friday, May 22, was the last day at the Voice of America (VOA) for Bill Skundrich, one of the most respected and popular U.S. radio and television journalists broadcasting to Russia.  He left VOA for a new job at the Department of Homeland Security.

Bill Skundrich’s colleagues describe him as an extraordinarily talented journalist and hard working manager who was holding the Russian Service together in one of the most difficult times in VOA’s history. They told FreemediaOnline.org that he was leaving his job at VOA with great deal of regret.

A native of Pittsburgh, Skundrich studied Russian language and literature in college. His mastery of the language led to his selection as a member of the U.S. debate team that went to the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Later, he worked at VOA for 25 years occupying broadcasting and managerial positions. He produced programs for radio, television, and more recently also for the Internet. His colleagues describe him as a thoughtful and inspiring leader who was able to bring together people with opposing viewpoints to work on common goals.

Bill Skundrich is one of many talented journalists who have left their jobs at the broadcasting entities managed by the BBG, which in 2008 had terminated VOA Russian-language radio programs. The broadcasts went silent just 12 days before the Russian military incursion into Georgia last summer. At the height of the conflict, BBG members had refused urgent requests from VOA journalists to resume radio broadcasts to the war zone and to other traditional VOA audiences in Russia and in many of the former Soviet republics.

BBG officials maintain that their decision was designed to focus limited resources on improving VOA’s Internet presence in Russia, but as a result of the termination of on-air radio and television broadcasts, VOA experienced an unprecedented 98 percent drop in its audience reach in Russia.  By effectively barring VOA from airwaves in Russia, the BBG added to the restrictions already imposed by the Russian authorities on Western broadcasters. No other international broadcaster has ever seen such a dramatic decline.

The BBG management practices have resulted in one of the worst employee morale in the entire federal government, as measured by the Federal Human Capital Survey conducted annually by the Office of Personnel Management. The survey, which polls workers at 37 agencies, found the BBG to be last in three categories (leadership and knowledge management, results-oriented performance, and talent management). The BBG is 36th, only one short of being the worst, in job satisfaction.

One of Bill Skundrich’s former VOA colleagues said that the BBG is “incredibly short-sighted not to hold on to him for dear life.” “There’s no one there who can touch him for talent, organization and general know-how,” said a former VOA manager, speaking about Bill Skundrich’s departure from the Voice of America.

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Has Lost Its Uniqueness Warns Former Director of Radio Liberty’s Russian Service

BBC, Broadcasting Board of Governors, Commentary, FreeMediaOnline.org, Georgia, International Broadcasting, Internet, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Russia, Surrogate Broadcasting, Voice of America - by tedlipien - May 19, 2009 - 20:21 America/New_York - 3 Comments

FreeMediaOnline.org Logo. FreeMediaOnline.org & Free Media Online Blog, May 19, 2009, San Francisco –  Interview with Former Director of Radio Liberty’s Russian Service, Italian journalist, writer and Russian expert Mario Corti.

In a nutshell, the station [Radio Liberty] has abandoned its uniqueness, its identity, its face.

Mario Corti

Mario Corti

Those among the old KGB and the new FSB , who see the U.S. as an enemy rather than a valuable and generous partner of Russia, could only be enormously happy with such leaders in charge of U.S. international broadcasting as the current U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) executive team. They have no reason to worry or need to do anything themselves to undermine U.S.-funded broadcasts; it is being done for them by these American government officials who are now trying hard to hide their mistakes from the White House, the U.S. Congress and the American public.

Directors of language services at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a U.S. taxpayer-funded international broadcaster with headquarters first in Munich, Germany and now in Prague, the Czech Republic, enjoyed at one time a great deal of authority. They often disagreed over programming issues with the radio station’s American management and on numerous occasions their arguments prevailed. Their expert knowledge of their countries and their cultures was widely respected.

In 1956, the head of Radio Free Europe’s Polish Service, Jan Nowak Jezioranski, successfully resisted pressures to call for a violent overthrow of the communist regime in Poland, knowing that such a call would inevitably lead to a Soviet Army invasion. In 1996, many years after leaving RFE/RL, he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States. He was able to survive his many battles with his American bosses because ultimately they realized that his knowledge of Poland was more sophisticated than theirs.

In better years, language service directors like Jan Nowak could arrange face-to-face meetings with individual members of RFE/RL’s previous oversight body, the Board for International Broadcasting (BIB), who actively sought their opinions on programming issues and acted as advisers rather than as micromanaging CEOs.

Rank and file journalists working at RFE/RL were also unafraid to voice their dissent as their rights and fair treatment were protected by German labor laws and membership in professional unions.

A drastic change in this tradition of dialogue and tolerance of dissent occurred in the 1990s with the creation of a new oversight agency, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the move of RFE/RL from Germany to the Czech Republic, and the arrival of a new American management team selected by the BBG. Using a communist era Czech law still on the books, BBG and RFE/RL lawyers worked hard to find ways to deny their journalists in the Czech Republic the right to form an effective union. Foreign journalists employed by RFE/RL were deprived of many of the protections of both Czech and American labor laws.

The most dramatic change, however, occurred in the status of RFE/RL language service directors. They lost practically all of their previous authority and direct access to BBG members. The new RFE/RL management insisted that they must report only to them and follow an entirely new programming philosophy developed by a key Board member Norman Pattiz for Radio Sawa and Alhurra Television. These were the two new private broadcasting networks for the Middle East which Mr. Pattiz, a Democrat, created in close cooperation with the Bush White House. His preferred talk show and music format, which he imposed on Middle Eastern broadcasting while terminating all Voice of America Arabic programs with their more serious news and cultural content, as well as his authoritarian radio management style more suitable for the competitive American market than for a multicultural journalistic institution with a mission of supporting freedom of expression, was also being forced on RFE/RL.

If language service directors resisted these changes, their new American bosses were more than ready to fire them or to eliminate their broadcasts altogether, and many lost their jobs and their programs. They were further humiliated by having to sign secrecy agreements to receive their severance pay. It is highly ironic that this condition was being imposed by a publicly-funded institution that claims to promote openness and transparency in the countries to which it broadcasts. The main purpose of this policy, it seems, was to hide management mistakes from the Administration, the U.S. Congress, and American public. Dissent over programming issues that could help identify waste of taxpayers money and problems, such as airing statements by Holocaust deniers on Alhurra Television, was ruthlessly stamped out at the stations under BBG’s management, including RFE/RL.

The consequences of the new BBG management style were disastrous in terms of journalistic integrity, mission effectiveness and audience ratings for RFE/RL, as they were for BBG broadcasting in the Middle East and for the Voice of America (VOA) in Washington, D.C., which is also managed by the BBG. BBG decision to terminate all Voice of America radio broadcasts to Russia, just 12 days before the Russian incursion into Georgia last summer, resulted in an unprecedented 98 percent drop in VOA’s audience reach in Russia, from 7.3% in 2007 to 0.2% in 2009 (est.).

Soviet jammers of VOA and RFE/RL shortwave radio signals during the Cold War and media restrictions imposed more recently by the Kremlin had not been nearly as effective in silencing U.S. broadcasts in Russia as BBG’s own actions, supposedly based on solid audience research. Only one BBG member, Blanquita Welsh Cullum, a Republican,  was said to have voted against ending VOA radio programs to Russia and her attempts to resume these broadcasts after the conflict in Georgia flared up were reportedly blocked by other BBG members, both Democrats and Republicans. In the latest Federal Human Capital Survey, the BBG was once again rated by its employees at the very top of the list of the worst-managed federal agencies.

After the move of RFE/RL headquarters to Prague, language service directors and rank and file journalists quickly lost almost all of their previous independence and authority. With each passing year, they became more and more silent. Visits to Prague by BBG members started to resemble meetings of the Soviet Central Committee. Uncomfortable looking Board members sitting on a podium in a long row in the former communist Parliament building gave inconsequential answers to a small number of questions allowed from the audience of employees fearful of losing their jobs and having to go back to Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and other countries governed by authoritarian regimes.

Tengiz Gudava

Tengiz Gudava

Even more disturbing for supporters of media freedom, however, were frequent firings of famous journalists, writers and artists who were some of the intellectual giants of international broadcasting. One of those fired was Mario Corti, the former head of RFE/RL’s Russian Service, a distinguished Italian journalist, writer, and analyst of Russian politics, society, and culture, admired  among his colleagues for his intellect and the courage to stand up to the RFE/RL management and the BBG. Another was a famous former Soviet dissident Tengiz Gudava, who after his expulsion from the USSR became a naturalized U.S. citizen.

Tengiz Gudava was truly a renaissance man. He had a doctorate degree in biophysics, was a journalist, poet, novelist, and musician. He was also a passionate defender of human rights, for which he had spent five years in a Soviet labor camp. He and Mario Corti were both fired by RFE/RL for resisting programming changes demanded by the station’s American managers and the BBG.

Last month, Tengiz Gudava was killed in Prague under still unexplained circumstances. It does not appear at this time that his death was related to his work as a journalist, but because of Tengis Gudava’s dissident status and his sharp criticism of Radio Liberty’s new programming philosophy, Mario Corti broke his long silence about the circumstances of the conflicts they both had with the station’s management and about their firing. Mario Corti gave an interview to a Georgian-American journalist Ia Merkviladze, which was published in online Russian-language magazine in New York City «Мы здесь», and also spoke with FreeMediaOnline.org, a San Francisco-based media freedom nonprofit, where he sits on the board of directors.

 

FreeMediaOnline.org interview with Mario Corti

 

FREEMEDIAONLINE.ORG: Both you and the late Tengiz Gudava had worked at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty as journalists for many years, and you also as director of Radio Liberty’s Russian Service. What did you learn about his death and what can you tell us about him as your friend and a fellow journalist?

MARIO CORTI: Unfortunately, his tragic death is still shrouded in mystery. I grieve, especially for his family.

Tragedy has surrounded many Radio Liberty employees. I have already experienced several deaths of my former Radio Liberty colleagues, among them those who died in undetermined circumstances. There was also a personal tragedy in Tengiz’s life. He totally identified himself with his job at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Because of this, he suffered when he was deprived of his much loved work, his extremely popular and much needed program about relations between various nationalities of the former Soviet Union. Tengiz was able to establish a real dialogue on the air. He built bridges between different cultures and religions.

FREEMEDIAONLINE.ORG: What other Radio Liberty journalists died in mysterious circumstances? Could there have been a link between their journalistic work and their tragic deaths?

MARIO CORTI: Certainly there was a link between a bomb placed at RFE/RL headquarters in Munich back in the 1980s and RFE/RL journalistic activities. Fortunately, no one had died in that attack, but a telephone operator had her face seriously burnt. What made the most impression on me, also because at the time I was the acting director of the Russian Service, was the murder of Molly Riffel-Gordin. She was the anchor of “Contacts”, a very popular program she hosted under the pseudonym of Inna Svetlova. She was shot in her face on July 25 1997 while on her way from the central train station to the RFE/RL headquarters in Prague. Czech and German police worked on the case, which still remains unsolved.

Another tragic although not violent death happened on April 5, 2000. On his way home from work Alexander Batchan died of a heart attack. He was a well known journalist who had previously worked for the Voice of America and had recently moved to RFE/RL. And he was only 47.

FREEMEDIAONLINE.ORG: Georgian journalist Ia Merkviladze who interviewed you wrote that when he left Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Tengiz Gudava was angry and upset and accused RFE/RL management of KGB-ness. What made Mr. Gudava voice such accusations?

MARIO CORTI: Naturally, he was puzzled as to why he and his program were taken off the air. Among other things, he pointed out that some RFE/RL employees were graduates of the university which trained children of party members and nomenklatura for careers as Soviet diplomats and KGB officers. But from my perspective, the push for a drastic change in Radio Liberty’s programming philosophy came primarily from the new American management at RFE/RL, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees RFE/RL, and from their private consultants. They were responsible for eliminating popular programs and taking off the air highly respected and admired radio personalities, including Tengiz Gudava and others.

FREEMEDIAONLINE.ORG: Until now you were publicly silent about your dispute with the American management at Radio Liberty. What else did you tell about it to the Georgian journalist who interviewed you after Tengiz Gudava’s death?

MARIO CORTI: I told her that I did not leave Radio Liberty voluntarily. The RFE/RL management first removed me from my position as director of the Russian Service, and then fired me. After my removal, I could have left slamming doors, especially since I refused to accept my severance pay when I was told to leave. RFE/RL has a policy of offering severance pay combined with secrecy agreements to dissident journalists to stifle public criticism of management decisions and any future discussion of the management’s mistakes. I could have gotten my ”hush money” had I only agreed to conditions which I considered as highly improper, even indecent, not only in relation to me but to other RFE/RL journalists and the reputation of the radio station itself, as well as the image abroad of America and American institutions.

FREEMEDIAONLINE.ORG: It seems that despite your disputes with the RFE/RL management, you, Tengiz Gudava and other journalists who had been fired were motivated by a strong desire to save the radio station’s mission as you saw it.

MARIO CORTI: I told the Georgian journalist that I have always had, and still have, great respect and awe for this venerable institution. Its mission is indeed more noble than the judgment and behavior of some individuals who unfortunately happened to work there. I refer here to some of the former American managers. In addition to firing me, they used the pretext of “restructuring” the Russian Service to get rid of  highly talented and experienced journalists who also disagreed with their programming ideas. Unfortunately, the late Tengiz and Serge Iourienen were also among those who had been let go at that time. Another distinguished RFE/RL journalist Lev Roitman, who was also highly critical of the changes being imposed on the Russian Service, left of his own volition.

FREEMEDIAONLINE.ORG: Can you be more specific as to the circumstances that led to your departure from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty?

MARIO CORTI: It all started with a sudden change in the upper management of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty ordered by the Broadcasting Board of Governors in Washington, D.C. Suddenly Jeff Trimble appeared, replacing the very professional Bob Gillette as Radio Liberty Director. Mr. Gillette, a former Los Angeles Times correspondent, was a great journalist and a true gentleman. Then Tom Dine, replaced the competent and very engaged Kevin Klose, a former Washington Post correspondent in Moscow, as the president of the entire corporation. They, in turn, brought their own people and placed them within the organization.

Jeff Trimble, whom Tom Dine called his “eagle,” turned out to be the engine of reform. Neither man had much familiarity with radio journalism and, in my opinion, they did not fit into the radio station milieu. They could never understand that Radio Liberty had its own special culture. At the very mention of the word “tradition” they laughed.

American managers who supported me and the Russian Service were themselves marginalized or forced out by the Broadcasting Board of Governors. Fortunately, they went on to other distinguished careers in the private and public sector. After leaving RFE/RL and the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB), which is part of the BBG, Kevin Klose was hired for a high level executive position at National Public Radio (NPR). Bob Gillette has worked in promoting responsible journalism and media freedom in the Balkans.

As for the team that the BBG brought in to replace them, after some years at RFE/RL Tom Dine returned to lobbying in the United States. Only Jeff Trimble is still associated with U.S. international broadcasting. He eventually replaced Tom Dine and served as RFE/RL’s acting president and is now the executive director of the Broadcasting Board of Governors in Washington, D.C. He was reportedly instrumental in implementing the BBG’s decision to terminate all Voice of America radio broadcasts to Russia just 12 days before the Russian-Georgian war last summer. This move has also led to a tremendous decline in employee morale as well as a historically unprecedented drop in VOA audience ratings in Russia. According to one estimate, the audience reach declined 98 percent in less than a year.

FREEMEDIAONLINE.ORG: How did you describe Mr. Dine’s and Mr. Trimble’s role at Radio Liberty to the Georgian journalist?

MARIO CORTI: They wanted to leave their own footprint in order to justify their existence to the BBG. Since they were “new” themselves, they thought this meant they should do something different, i.e., “new” in response to the demands from the BBG. In the final analysis, what really happened was just “change for the sake of change,” but it had a profound impact on Radio Liberty’s mission and the talented and dedicated journalists who worked there.

They searched for a formula for success, which they found in Moscow “talk” radio stations such as “Ekho Moskvy”. I don’t want to be misunderstood, “Ekho Moskvy” is a great station and provides a valuable service under somewhat difficult circumstances. But in my opinion, the thinking on the part of RFE/RL’s American managers was simple and superficial: since radio stations like Ekho Moskvy were successful, that meant to the RFE/RL managers that their formula should be copied, especially since it corresponded in some ways with Norman Pattiz’s idea of a successful commercial radio station. To them, this was “new.” To me and others who have known Russia for a long time and worked there sometimes for many years, it was a completely misguided idea.

For once, Moscow stations always had and still have FM frequencies, which Radio Liberty could not obtain then from the Russian authorities and still cannot get them now. It was vital for Radio Liberty to expand distribution of its programs in Russia in other ways, which is not a simple task given the political conditions, but that’s what they needed to focus on. Unfortunately, they had no idea where to start, and yet they didn’t  want to listen to any advice.

Instead of dealing with the real problem of program delivery, program distribution, cooperation with independent media, and media restrictions in Russia, they decided to take the easy but pernicious path of reforming the Russian Service from within, because it was easy and they could not think of anything else to do. Their idea was to change Radio Liberty’s broadcasting in form and content as if this alone could solve the problem of program distribution and prevent a fall in audience ratings. As it turned out, their strategy only made audience ratings fall even faster to a level much lower than ever before, which I’m sure is not what the U.S. Congress and U.S. taxpayers expected from the BBG, but that’s what they got.

The BBG now tries hard to keep this information secret and blames media restrictions in Russia, which do account for some drop in audience ratings for RFE/RL and VOA but cannot be blamed for the dramatic declines resulting from BBG-ordered programming and program delivery changes. For one thing, RFE/RL is still on the same AM frequency in Moscow, but the number of listeners there has been consistently dropping.

FREEMEDIAONLINE.ORG: What were some of the ideas which were advanced by the consultants hired by the Broadcasting Board of Governors and implemented by the RFE/RL’s top management?

MARIO CORTI: They wanted to concentrate broadcasting on Moscow and St. Petersburg — mainly Moscow. “Forget about the regions,” they told us. They also wanted more talk shows and — this may sound hilarious to those who know something about radio broadcasting in the Soviet Union — to rely on the old Soviet era UKV (Ultra Short Wave) frequencies, which were designed to prevent Soviet citizens from using their radio sets to listen to Western FM stations in border areas, where such signals could be heard. Knowing that UKV receivers were no longer being produced and the band was being phased out, I vigorously objected to their claims that Ultra Short Wave broadcasts were a good alternative, but I think it was one of RFE/RL’s managers who suggested that there are North Korean radio receivers which can pick up these frequencies and are still being sold in Russia. The idea that broadcasting on Soviet era frequencies being phased out can be a reasonable solution was rather typical for the team of RFE/RL managers and their BBG-hired consultants, who were undoubtedly paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for their recommendations.

FREEMEDIAONLINE.ORG: Did did you make any alternative recommendations to Mr. Dine and Mr. Trimble?

MARIO CORTI: Besides continuing some of the general goals set by my predecessor, the highly admired and respected journalist and manager Yuri Handler, I decided to decentralize Radio Liberty broadcasting, getting away from Moscow-centrism and expanding the network of correspondents in the regions. It seemed to me that people in Moscow knew little of what was happening in the regions, and listeners in the regions highly valued the attention paid to their concerns. I expanded the St. Petersburg bureau and opened a bureau in Ekaterinburg.

Since we did not have at the time and still do not have an FM frequency, I thought that we should rely on medium wave (AM) frequencies as part of a multi-platform program delivery strategy, which would also include traditional shortwave frequencies, Internet,  television, and cooperative projects with independent journalists and media. AM frequencies were more available, some with good signal quality, and had a good geographical reach unlike UKV. In Moscow we had our own license for a medium wave frequency. I found a similar solution in St. Petersburg, which would have allowed us to transmit our signal to the whole north-west of Russia, where most of the population lives. The management again didn’t listen to our recommendations. I also talked to them about the Internet and digital broadcasting. Now it’s commonplace, and tomorrow, will be even more so. They laughed at these ideas and said that BBG consultants knew better what would work and what would not.

I should mention that shortly before my removal as Russian Service director our audience reach in Russia, as reported by the audience research organization contracted by the Broadcasting Board of Governors,  peaked at around six percent, a figure well beyond what RL was able to achieve since. It was then that the new American management decided to put its plan into action and break with the culture, traditions and intellectual sophistication of the radio’s Russian Service. They abandoned the foundations laid by Yuri Handler together with Kevin Klose. They were determined to transform Radio Liberty into more of a “chat” radio, a clone of Ekho Moskvy and Radio Sawa. Again, Ekho Moskvy is a good station, but the RFE/RL management had no way of achieving the necessary signal strength and program distribution, and on top of that they had pretensions to be a real competitor to Ekho Moskvy — something that was totally unreasonable given their interference with programming and the political conditions in Russia. And so on and so forth. Later on, the management closed down the Ekaterinburg bureau and greatly reduced the St. Petersburg bureau staff. When Radio Liberty in St. Petersburg was taken off UKV, the Soviet era frequency pushed by the BBG consultants, nobody had listened to it for a long time. No one, it seems, had access to those “fantastic” North Korean receivers.

FREEMEDIAONLINE.ORG: The BBG-ordered research also showed that a focus on human rights and high culture in Radio Liberty programs to Russia was passe and should be replaced. You pointed out that some of the consultants who presented this research had links to former BBG member Norman Pattiz, the chief architect of Radio Sawa and Alhurra Television broadcasts to the Middle East. Were you pressured to change Radio Liberty’s Russian programs to make them conform to the style of Radio Sawa?

MARIO CORTI: One of the reasons given for my removal was that I “resisted changes”. After my removal, the RFE/RL management put their own people in management positions in the Russian Service to carry out their plans. They shut down many cultural programs, including the brilliant and popular broadcasts by Sergei Iourienen. They also shut down serious analytical programs, “Commentators at a Roundtable,” as well as Paramonov’s show (which they later reinstated), shut down Savitsky’s popular program on jazz (recently reinstated). They changed the format of other shows, expanded the number of talk shows, and so on.

In a nutshell, the station has abandoned its uniqueness, its identity, its face. Although not nearly as drastic as the BBG’s new format formula for Russia, a similar process was going on and is still going on in Great Britain at BBC’s Russian Service, which has resulted in vehement protests from a lot of respected people, including famous British academics.

FREEMEDIAONLINE.ORG: In your interview with a Georgian journalist you said that Tengiz Gudava and other journalists who were associated with Radio Liberty did not know the full picture of your battles with RFE/RL’s new American management. You also said that with people like that in charge of RFE/RL, “KGB-FSB can sleep soundly.” What did you mean by that?

MARIO CORTI: Let me put it this way. Jeff Trimble and Tom Dine were unhappy with the work of the Russian Service. In particular, Jeff Trimble was unhappy with the Russian Service newscast. I was unhappy too, but for different reasons, I wanted to make it more relevant to people most deprived of access to uncensored information, those who are particularly vulnerable in Russia today.

At one point Trimble – based on a study of our news made by his assistant Michele DuBach who later was appointed by him as Director of Broadcasting – even announced his decision to close our news service. He did not carry it out because he was afraid of a mass rebellion in the Russian Service. To bolster their position in favor of a possible future attempt to get rid of RL Russian Service news, he and Tom Dine ordered outside research. They first applied to the famed Annenberg School of Journalism, which — by the way — recently issued a study highly critical of  BBG’s proud creation Alhurra Television for practicing substandard journalism and lacking audience and effectiveness — a study which the BBG executive staff tried hard to suppress until they were ordered to release it by the Obama Administration.

In the case of Radio Liberty’s Russian Service, they didn’t get the negative result they really wanted. The international group of journalists put together by this respected institution [the Annenberg School of Journalism] to evaluate the RL Russian Service came to a generally positive and encouraging conclusion about our performance. I can imagine their surprise when reading the study issued by the Annenberg School of Journalism they discovered that the single most praised feature of our broadcasts was the Russian Service newscast. Then, the management decided to obtain research from Russia on the image of the Russian Service programs among the listeners in Russia. Here again, they miscalculated. The results of this research were also very positive for us.

So here you have three Russian Service success stories in a row: a positive evaluation by the Annenberg School of Journalism, the positive image study, and the peak of around six percent in our audience reach in Russia. So what did RFE/RL management and the BBG do at this point? They hired someone who had previously worked for BBG member Norman Pattiz — it was the latter who had the brilliant idea of creating Sawa Radio and Alhurra Television — and they got exactly the results Jeff Trimble had originally wanted to get. Based on these results, they proceed to “reform” the Russian Service. Great programs were eliminated, audience ratings immediately dropped. I would point out that similar  BBG “reforms” at VOA last year produced an even greater, 98 percent drop in audience reach in Russia; millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have been wasted. It’s shameful how the  generosity of the American people in support of much needed broadcasting that promotes understanding between nations and cultures is being abused by these officials.

In my opinion, those among the old KGB and the new FSB officials, who see the U.S. as an enemy rather than a valuable and generous partner of Russia, could only be enormously happy with such leaders in charge of U.S. international broadcasting as the current U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) executive team. They have no reason to worry or need to do anything themselves to undermine U.S.-funded broadcasts; it is being done for them by these American government officials who are now trying hard to hide their mistakes from the White House, the U.S. Congress and the American public.

FREEMEDIAONLINE.ORG: When Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty was based during the Cold War in Munich, West Germany, RFE/RL employees had full protection of the German labor law. The BBG and RFE/RL management used a communist era Czech law to deprive foreign journalists working for them in Prague of some of these basic protections. Do you think that this policy is designed to make journalists more dependent on the management and to stifle independent journalism and criticism at RFE/RL? Are these journalists vulnerable, in your opinion?

MARIO CORTI: Obviously they are vulnerable. Back in Munich many were members of the German journalists unions while others belonged the Newspaper Guild in New York. Nothing like this is true now. Now, according to the RFE/RL new Policy Manual, EEO regulations do not apply to non-American employees. And a Czech Court recently ruled that Czech labor law regulations do not apply to non Czech employees working for RFE/RL. So RFE/RL is allowed to do with its non American and non Czech employees — and they are the majority — whatever it wants, whether it’s right or wrong. They don’t have to worry about any legal consequences. What they don’t realize, however, is that employees without any rights will have little loyalty and little reason to alert the management to possibly fatal journalistic and programming mistakes if voicing dissent can result in them losing their jobs. Hopefully, the European Court of Human Rights, to which some former employees are turning now, or the Obama Administration will soon put a stop to this shameful treatment by RFE/RL and the BBG of its foreign journalists and other  foreign workers.

FreeMediaOnline.org allows republication of its interviews with attribution and link to our site.

 

More about Mario Corti

Mario Corti was born in Italy but his parents took him to Argentina, where he developed a lifelong interest in Russia. Later on he became a fluent Russian speaker and writer. Living in Italy in the 1970s, he was active in defense of human rights in the Soviet Union and published Russian samizdat books, articles and documents.

From 1979 until 2005, he worked at the U.S.-funded international broadcaster Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. He became the head of Radio Liberty’s Russian Service but left the station together with other veteran journalists over a programming dispute with the American management. He is an author of numerous books and articles, many of them published in Russian. Dreif, a book written in Russian about philosophy and culture, was published in Russia and Ukraine in 2002. His book, Salieri i Mozart, on the relationship between the two composers, was published in Russian in 2005. His articles on human rights and Soviet dissent have appeared in several languages in many countries. He speaks Italian, Rusian, English, German, Spanish, and French and has a working knowledge of several other European languages. Dividing his time between Italy and Russia, he now works as a freelance journalist and a consultant for a media group based in Saint Petersburg.

 

More about Tengiz Gudava

Tengiz Gudava, who had a Georgian father and a Russian mother, was a former dissident who organized music concerts in support of human rights in the Soviet Union and spent five years in a labor camp before being expelled to the West in 1987. He joined Radio Liberty and wrote and produced popular programs in defense of human rights for Russian and Georgian shortwave broadcasts.

Gudava was a harsh critic of the current Russian leadership. After he was dismissed from RFE/RL in 2004, he also posted on his personal website biting criticism of Radio Liberty’s new management and programming philosophy. On the night of April 15, Gudava left his Prague apartment on foot to buy cigarettes. He was found unconscious on a road in a secluded area about a 20 minute drive from his home. Police attributed his death to a car accident but could not explain how he ended up in a strange location a long distance away from his apartment in Prague.

Press Freedom in Russia on Downward Slope, Report Says - U.S. State Department (America.gov)

FreeMediaOnline.org, GovoritAmerika.us, Russia - by tedlipien - May 12, 2009 - 13:07 America/New_York - Be first to Comment!

FreeMediaOnline.org Logo. FreeMediaOnline.org & Free Media Online Blog, May 12 , 2009, San Francisco —

Kremlin extends grip on reporters, Internet, media advocacy group reports

Washington — Growing restrictions on the print and electronic press in Russia are reminiscent of the Kremlin’s tight control of media during the Soviet period, according to a new report from Freedom House.

“Media freedom continued to decline in 2008, with the Kremlin relying on Soviet-style media management to facilitate a sensitive political transition as well as deflecting responsibility for widespread corruption and political violence,” the report said.

Freedom House, the nearly 70-year-old U.S.-based nongovernmental organization dedicated to research on democracy and human rights, issued on May 1 its latest report, concluding that press freedom globally continues to decline. The biggest declines are concentrated in Russia and other former Soviet Union countries, marking what the report calls the “steady closing of what had previously been a much freer media space.”

Legal pressure and attempts to control broadcast media outlets have created a political landscape where the ability of Russian citizens to make informed choices has been compromised, the report said. U.S. State Department (America.gov)>>

ГоворитАмерика.us GovoritAmerika.us Выбор ГоворитАмерика.us GovoritAmerika.us. Вы можете скопировать и использовать эту статью. Подписка на рассылку ГоворитАмерика.us по электронной почте. Подписка на рассылку ГоворитАмерика.us.

» Older News

Read More