Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008
From: Andreas Umland <andreumland@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: 2008-#1-Johnson's Russia List Research and Analytical Supplement
I would like to make the following brief comment on Stephen Shenfield's valuable review of "Europe-Asia Studies'" special issue on media freedom in Russia in RAS no. 41. Stephen is to be thanked for this concise and informative survey. However, I disagree with his last paragraph in which he adds his own comment on the issue of media freedom. In a nutshell, Stephen seems to assert that there is little difference between journalists being controlled by the government, on the one side, and being dependent on so-called "oligarchs," on the other (an argument, by the way, one often hears in Russia.)
While I am sympathetic to Stephen's idealism, I think there are, at least, three differences between these two forms of control:
(1) In, for instance, Robert Dahl's classic on democracy ("Polyarchy"), it is not stated that the main channels of information should be independent per se, but that they should be outside the control by government. The reasoning behind this is simple: The government is already in control of the police, the general procuracy, the military, the security service etc. It has the monopoly of using legally weapons against people. That seems enough of control for one group of people. "Oligarchs" do not have direct access to such instruments. (They may gain access to them, but that would seem to be less a problem inherent to these magnats, than again a problem of the state apparatus in question.) Therefore, in terms of democratic theory, control by "oligarchs" is less problematic than dependence on the government.
(2) Concepts like "the state" or "the government" are abstract. Behind them, there are real people. More often than not these decision makers belong to only one political camp or even one party which is in competition with other political camps or parties. The latter usually want to take the positions of the former who, in turn, would like to keep their governmental posts. While "oligarchs" might also be interested in increasing political influence, they are, by defintion, not politicians competing for state offices. Giving politicians control of mass media seems more problematic than journalistic dependence on business interestes.
(3) While there is only one state or one government, there are usually several "oligarchs" per country. If competing "oligarchs" control media outlets - that would still be pluralistic. In such a case, different people who are independent from, or even in conflict with, each other would have control of major information channels. No principal problem with that in terms of democratic theory here either.
The idea of total journalistic independence is ultimately an ideal, if not an utopia. There is always a publisher, an editor-in-chief, a financial investor, etc. on which the journalist is dependent in one way or the other.