| Other Photos |
 |
|
 |
Dissenters March, Russia Watches
The March of Those Who Disagree, organized by the opposition organization The Other Russia was held in St. Petersburg on March 3. One of the major accomplishments of the march was a breakthrough for the opposition on national television.
About 5000 people marched on Nevsky Prospekt in St. Petersburg. They broke through a special forces cordon and chanted anti-Putin slogans. More than 100 people, including National Bolshevik leader Eduard Limonov and member of the St. Petersburg legislative assembly Sergey Gulyaev, were beaten and detained during the action. March organizers, among whom were also leader of the United Civil Front Garri Kasparov and Popular Democratic Union leader Mikhail Kasyanov, called the event a “colossal success” where people “of different ages and social situations overcame their fear” of the authorities.
The St. Petersburg march differed from the one that took place in Moscow on December 16 last year in scale (about 3000 people marched in Moscow), activeness (the march was banned in Moscow as well, where authorities suggested that they hold a mass meeting instead, but the marchers did not break through police cordons) and coverage (on national television). Before this, Limonov, Kasparov and Kasyanov did not exist for national television. Now those channels have taken a different tack by informing viewers of the actions of the opposition and explaining them as an antisocial influence.
In July 2006, when the Other Russia forum took place in Moscow, not one of the three main channels (Channel One, Rossiya and NTV) said one word about it or showed a single picture. Channel One information director Kirill Kleimenov told Vlast analytical weekly that “We have heavy competition among material. And the have subjects that are more timely, bright and interesting than the Other Russian forum.” The heads of the information services at Rossiya and NTV were unable to explain why the Other Russia forum was not shown. In unofficial conversations, NTV journalists admitted that Other Russia was ignored on the orders of general director Vladimir Kulistikov.
The Other Russia was not on 24-hour news channel Vesti 24 (which, like Rossiya, is part of the All-Russia Television and Radio Broadcasting Co.), which had just premiered at the time. Its editor-in-chief Dmitry Mednikov commented for Vlast, “We do not consider the forum a worthy political event that desires any coverage.” He was apparently echoing the opinion of his boss, All-Russia Television general director Oleg Dobrodeev, who said in an interview with Kommersant in June 2006 that Garri Kasparov and Vladimir Ryzhkov (a member of the State Duma and cochairman of the Republican Party) “don't play any role in Russian politics whatsoever.” Former prime minister Mikhail Kasyanov's role was described by Dobrodeev as “very, very insignificant.”
The first signs of television's new approach were noticed in December, when coverage of the March of The Who Disagree appeared not only on NTV but on state-owned Channel One and Rossiya as well. Only brief footage was used with voiceovers that sometimes lied. Ekaterina Andreeva, host of the news show Vremya, for example, said that “the march didn't turn out as such and the organizers limited themselves to just a meeting,” while in reality the authorities banned the march. Sergey Brilev, who was host of News of the Week on Rossiya at the time, was a little more accurate when he said that the march “was transformed into a meeting” by Moscow authorities.
Now the situation has changed radically. The March of Those Who Disagree 2 was shown on all national channels. The tone of the coverage was sharply critical but the texts read by newscasters did not always correspond to what was being shown on screen. For example, the words “minor clash with the police who were trying to react to the provocation” was accompanied by shots of special forces troops beating marchers with their fists and clubs ad dragging them down the street.
Other Russia leaders were also seen on air. Kasparov's name was seen in a close-up, but never spoken, on Rossiya. Kasyanov's last name was mentioned, but not first (that is usual practice on state TV when referring to opposition leaders. Newscasters did at least avoid the usual labels, such as “marginal” and provocateurs.” Andrey Kondrashov, who replaced Brilev on News of the Week, even gave both the “official” estimate of the number of participants in the march (more than 2000 people) and the estimate of its organizers (more than 15,000).
The organizers of the march consider the airtime on national television as breakthrough in an informational blockade. They think it happened simply because the authorities were unprepared for the scale of the event.
“I think the television channels were caught unprepared and the decision to show the march was spontaneous,” said Kasyanov adviser Marina Litvinovich. “From the Kremlin's point of view, it is more effective to remain silent. But here they apparently decided that not showing the march would have an undesirable consequence: rumors would spread around the country – antigovernment riots, special forces, injuries and arrests.” In addition, Litvinovich thinks, the federal authorities realized that there were not “groups of provocateurs” marching, but real residents of St. Petersburg who are unhappy with the regime and whose opinions would be dangerous to ignore completely.
Kasyanov himself is certain that the authorities wanted to remain silent about the St. Petersburg march, but “events went beyond the framework of silence… Even the media that are hostile to us tried to make sense of what was happening.” Oppositions leaders are not upset that their television time included negative commentary. “The thing is that the picture works more than the text,” Kasyanov commented. “Viewers see that there are obviously more than 500 participants, as they are telling them.”
The opposition leaders admit that sometimes the pictures worked against them. In December, cameras caught a banner that was unfurled for only seconds with a greeting “from hard-currency prostitutes to the participants in the action.” A sign reading “Berezovsky, we're with you!” was filmed in St. Petersburg, and that gave St. Petersburg Governor Valentina Matvienko grounds to announce that the action was organized with the money of the disfavored oligarch.
“It has become a tradition to show paid provocateurs,” complained Litvinovich. “The state television channels have enviable luck, even in actions with many thousands of people, finding those who say it is a provocation. I assume that the provocation and the film crew's assignment come from the same place.”
Opposition members note that the television channels took different approaches to their coverage. In Kasyanov's party, they observed that NTV and Rossiya showed their leader among the speakers, while Channel One ignored his presence completely. “On the less censored Euronews, the march was the top news,” said Litvinovich, “but on NTV the coverage of our action was almost buried with sports and culture. An outright attempt to put the important event at the end so it will have less significance in the eyes of the viewers.”
Employees of the three national channels questioned by Kommersant confirm that it was not a chance variance from the norm, but a substantial change in informational policy in relation to the opposition. They say, however, that it is not due to any sudden liberalization in the presidential administration. There, a meeting is held every Friday with television executives where they receive instructions on who to show and how. One Vlast source suggested that there was no united center in the Kremlin to make a decision.
In the television industry, they say that some of the president's circle still says that the opposition should not be shown under any circumstances. That may be why no national channel gave the march extensive coverage, but restricted it to 40-second pictures. But any portion of the administration holds that information cannot be suppressed any way in our age of radio, newspapers, and the Internet and so the opposition has to be shown. But they too see a need to give out the information so that the viewer understands that “There is usually no point to these coalitions,” as Brilev said on News of the Week in December.
One TV journalist admitted that, a year ago, everyone was certain that the news would soon be reduced to reading circulars from the Kremlin on the air. “But it seems that it isn't any worse at all and, by current standards, that's not all that bad,” a well-known journalist at a national channel told Vlast. “Today we can show almost everything with almost no limits,” another journalist said. “It used to be that, if you asked on the run how to cover something, you were told we'll decide tomorrow. That meant that they were going to go ask there. Today they say Let's do it. And if you don't want to, let's not.'” He added that the state television channels could allow themselves more freedom, but the journalists are stopped by “the inertia of self-censorship, which it is very hard to snap out of.”
Vlast's sources at all three national channels agreed on one thing: The Kremlin has a poor understanding lately of how to cover events. In those conditions, they say, it is easier to work even at the state-owned stations. It gives them the chance to save face, at least partially. “Doing a story about the opposition, we won't look completely silly pretending there's nothing there. Relaxing control only helps maintain that balance.”
Arina Borodina, Maria-Luiza Tiramaste
All the Article in Russian as of Mar. 12, 2007
|
|
|
