From: "William Dunkerley" <wd@publishinghelp.com>
Subject: Press Freedom and Subjugation Don't Mix, re Schumaker (JRL9224), Aslund (JRL 9220)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005
It is good that James Schumaker (JRL 9224) challenged my assertion that there has been no real press freedom in Russia (JRL 9223). His reaction is emblematic of the misunderstanding that many have experienced as they try to make sense out of the Russian media situation. I'm glad to have this opportunity to try to clear things up.
The kernel of Mr. Schumaker's disagreement seems to be that in the Yeltsin era, (1) oligarchs could and did order slanted news stories, (2) others paid to place stories in print and broadcast media, and (3) overall journalistic standards were low. Nonetheless, he believes that the media possessed a liveliness that was embodied in the flowering of debate.
But, there's nothing in that argument with which I disagree. It's just that those factors don't add up to press freedom. That's where we disagree. A free press can be lively. But, a lively press is not necessarily a free press. A press that is subjugated by financial overlords is not free. (See Oxymoronic Press Freedom, JRL 9140.)
What is a free press in a democratic society? It is one with the strength and independence to provide citizens with truthful and reliable news. The notion that mere pluralism fills the bill is nonsense. For instance, if I were to ask people on the street for directions to my destination, I wouldn't want an assortment of misleading responses, even if they were delivered as lively repartee. I'd want a clear message that is accurate.
And that is what Russians deserve from their media. Indeed, that is the essence of press freedom: the ready availability of news that is presented to satisfy the informational needs of consumers, not malarkey that was paid for by an oligarch or politician, even if some find it entertaining.
So, Mr. Schumaker has taken me to task over issues on which we do not disagree. He admits that Yeltsin-era media had low standards, prostituted itself, and lied. But, yet, he somehow believes that served the people's need for freedom of the press. That's some concept of press freedom!
The fact is that it was not legally possible for press freedom to function in Yeltsin's Russia. Putin corrected that regulatory calamity. The Russian media still have a long way to go before a state of press freedom will exist in the country. But, at least now there's a legal possibility for progress.
What perplexes me, though, is why people like Mr. Schumaker, Dr. Aslund, and others persist in accusing Putin of destroying freedoms from the Yeltsin era which never really existed! Does anyone have an explanation for this phenomenon?