Pulling the plug on TV-6 was a sad day for Vladimir Putin's Russia. Not only did this event hurt the cause of freedom of speech, but the rule of law here has been deeply wounded and President Putin has squandered the goodwill of the very people in the West he seeks to emulate.
Closing TV-6 in many ways reflects what has gone wrong in Russia since 1991. Many people share the blame for the failures that have occurred since communism's collapses. Indeed, the types of characters involved in TV-6's closure have been with us since then. Greed, power, position, and egos have beset the electronic media as they have everything else in the postcommunist era. The heavy-handed closures of NTV and TV-6 are merely two of the best examples of this country's halting leap toward normality, and both closures reveal Putin's selective approach to restructuring Russia.
Emotions about this event, however, are more in evidence than reasoned thoughts. The idea of ``freedom of speech'' has indeed suffered a set back, but a return to Soviet era thought control is not in the offing. For both Russia's government and its market place of ideas are continuing to discover what a free media actually means.
Some in government think that a ``free media'' should only champion and praise the ruling elite. Some rich ``New Russians'' see the media as a means for pushing their personal agendas at the expense of society's interests, making themselves even wealthier. Much of the TV-6 affair, indeed, was about money. Whoever secures the stations's license when it is opened for renewal in late March can, if he or she puts in a professional management, look forward to big revenues from advertising. This golden nest egg may have been part of the Kremlin's thinking about the station and its ownership all along.
Only days ago President Putin and Premier Mihail Kasyanov claimed that their actions were designed to protect the people of TV-6. Putin's magnanimous words about the channel were, as usual, made while he was abroad. (Sometimes I wonder if it would be better for Russia if its president ruled from a more idealistic Western environment). But in reality his words were empty, and merely shrouded another episode in his personal vendetta against the oligarch Boris Berezovsky (TV-6's owner), one that is unbecoming in a statesman.
It is, of course, valid to require Boris Berezovsky to obey the law but, as so often in Russian history, the cost has become higher than the aim. For Putin's Kremlin and his Media Minister have mocked the rule of law by twisting the rules to achieve their aim: to end Berezovsky's control of the station.
At a time when democracy is under threat, there is an urgent need for incisive, informed analysis of the issues and questions driving the news – just what PS has always provided. Subscribe now and save $50 on a new subscription.
Subscribe Now
Still, the so-called victims of the government's moves against TV-6 are not blameless. Many members of TV-6 merely carried over the war of words they had been waging against Putin when they worked at NTV, the channel Putin and his ministers took aim at in an earlier media struggle. NTV and TV-6 may be more truthful than state TV about the war in Chechnya, and both upstaged their rivals in exposing government corruption. Each however, espoused a journalism in the service of a personal agenda, which is little different than the subservient journalism practiced under state ownership.
The ``dictatorship of law'' that President Puting speaks about so often now appears to be more about arbitrary political preferences than establishing a society that plays by the rules. Indeed, so far, all that the ``dictatorship of law'' amounts to is the triumph of might over right. The weak retain no recourse. TV-6 was exhausted, by legal assaults, into submission.
But Putin's victory over Berezovsky is as empty as it is meaningless. The threat of force, not neutral enforcement of the law, remains the trump card. Here TV-6 and its managers miscalculated grievously. They thought that, in the end, Russia's legal code would protect them. Instead, serving the center of power, it crushed them.
Russia's public is outraged, not because the loss of TV-6 appears as a triumph of politics as usual, but because it leaves one less broadcaster to entertain. Very few Russians I spoke to about TV-6 mentioned the issue of freedom of speech; they spoke, rather, about who is now stealing from whom. Putin is not seen as the bad guy, he is seen as a Russian ruler disciplining a dubious business-political interest. Nothing more, nothing less.
Despite all that has happened, I continue to hope that Russia is not slouching back into its Soviet past. The mistakes that have been made tell us that Russia's ruling elite has yet to take the meaning of democratization seriously. Disagreement with the government, it must begin to see, is not sedition. Disagreement with government policy can often help rulers fine-tune or correct misdirected policies. On the other hand, would-be media magnets have yet to learn that the electronic media is not a personalized soapbox. Both sides have yet to realize that TV is more than a cash cow for advertising revenue.
All the same, those in the West should not see the struggle over TV-6 as a defining moment. Putin and Russia are not evil. Reform continues, but it is occurring in ways much more painful than we hoped.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
At the end of a year of domestic and international upheaval, Project Syndicate commentators share their favorite books from the past 12 months. Covering a wide array of genres and disciplines, this year’s picks provide fresh perspectives on the defining challenges of our time and how to confront them.
ask Project Syndicate contributors to select the books that resonated with them the most over the past year.
Pulling the plug on TV-6 was a sad day for Vladimir Putin's Russia. Not only did this event hurt the cause of freedom of speech, but the rule of law here has been deeply wounded and President Putin has squandered the goodwill of the very people in the West he seeks to emulate.
Closing TV-6 in many ways reflects what has gone wrong in Russia since 1991. Many people share the blame for the failures that have occurred since communism's collapses. Indeed, the types of characters involved in TV-6's closure have been with us since then. Greed, power, position, and egos have beset the electronic media as they have everything else in the postcommunist era. The heavy-handed closures of NTV and TV-6 are merely two of the best examples of this country's halting leap toward normality, and both closures reveal Putin's selective approach to restructuring Russia.
Emotions about this event, however, are more in evidence than reasoned thoughts. The idea of ``freedom of speech'' has indeed suffered a set back, but a return to Soviet era thought control is not in the offing. For both Russia's government and its market place of ideas are continuing to discover what a free media actually means.
Some in government think that a ``free media'' should only champion and praise the ruling elite. Some rich ``New Russians'' see the media as a means for pushing their personal agendas at the expense of society's interests, making themselves even wealthier. Much of the TV-6 affair, indeed, was about money. Whoever secures the stations's license when it is opened for renewal in late March can, if he or she puts in a professional management, look forward to big revenues from advertising. This golden nest egg may have been part of the Kremlin's thinking about the station and its ownership all along.
Only days ago President Putin and Premier Mihail Kasyanov claimed that their actions were designed to protect the people of TV-6. Putin's magnanimous words about the channel were, as usual, made while he was abroad. (Sometimes I wonder if it would be better for Russia if its president ruled from a more idealistic Western environment). But in reality his words were empty, and merely shrouded another episode in his personal vendetta against the oligarch Boris Berezovsky (TV-6's owner), one that is unbecoming in a statesman.
It is, of course, valid to require Boris Berezovsky to obey the law but, as so often in Russian history, the cost has become higher than the aim. For Putin's Kremlin and his Media Minister have mocked the rule of law by twisting the rules to achieve their aim: to end Berezovsky's control of the station.
HOLIDAY SALE: PS for less than $0.7 per week
At a time when democracy is under threat, there is an urgent need for incisive, informed analysis of the issues and questions driving the news – just what PS has always provided. Subscribe now and save $50 on a new subscription.
Subscribe Now
Still, the so-called victims of the government's moves against TV-6 are not blameless. Many members of TV-6 merely carried over the war of words they had been waging against Putin when they worked at NTV, the channel Putin and his ministers took aim at in an earlier media struggle. NTV and TV-6 may be more truthful than state TV about the war in Chechnya, and both upstaged their rivals in exposing government corruption. Each however, espoused a journalism in the service of a personal agenda, which is little different than the subservient journalism practiced under state ownership.
The ``dictatorship of law'' that President Puting speaks about so often now appears to be more about arbitrary political preferences than establishing a society that plays by the rules. Indeed, so far, all that the ``dictatorship of law'' amounts to is the triumph of might over right. The weak retain no recourse. TV-6 was exhausted, by legal assaults, into submission.
But Putin's victory over Berezovsky is as empty as it is meaningless. The threat of force, not neutral enforcement of the law, remains the trump card. Here TV-6 and its managers miscalculated grievously. They thought that, in the end, Russia's legal code would protect them. Instead, serving the center of power, it crushed them.
Russia's public is outraged, not because the loss of TV-6 appears as a triumph of politics as usual, but because it leaves one less broadcaster to entertain. Very few Russians I spoke to about TV-6 mentioned the issue of freedom of speech; they spoke, rather, about who is now stealing from whom. Putin is not seen as the bad guy, he is seen as a Russian ruler disciplining a dubious business-political interest. Nothing more, nothing less.
Despite all that has happened, I continue to hope that Russia is not slouching back into its Soviet past. The mistakes that have been made tell us that Russia's ruling elite has yet to take the meaning of democratization seriously. Disagreement with the government, it must begin to see, is not sedition. Disagreement with government policy can often help rulers fine-tune or correct misdirected policies. On the other hand, would-be media magnets have yet to learn that the electronic media is not a personalized soapbox. Both sides have yet to realize that TV is more than a cash cow for advertising revenue.
All the same, those in the West should not see the struggle over TV-6 as a defining moment. Putin and Russia are not evil. Reform continues, but it is occurring in ways much more painful than we hoped.