APPENDIX 23
Memorandum submitted by Danilo Leonardi,
Programme in Comparative Media Law and Policy (PCMLP)
MEMORANDUM ON
THE INTERNATIONAL
WORK OF
THE PRESS
COMPLAINTS COMMISSION
I am writing to make a submission with regard
to the international work of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC).
More specifically, I would like to give a few details about the
PCC's collaboration with Oxford University in a media self regulation
project that PCMLP Programme in Comparative Media Law and Policy
at Oxford is carrying out in the Russian Federation with UK Government
sponsorship.
I am the Co-ordinator of the "Russia Media
Law Networking Project CNTR 01 2361." DFID, the UK Department
for International Development, selected PCMLP to manage a three-year
project that seeks to pilot a press council in the Russian city
of Nizhny Novgorod and a media arbitration tribunal in Rostov-on-Don.
The overall aim of the project is to rely on media self-regulation
at the local level to help reduce judicial and administrative
interference with press freedom, encourage higher journalistic
standards and make available information about European regulatory
models. Work on the project started in November 2001. We have
already established two provincial centres in Russia that receive
our technical assistance. The Russian centres have been actively
working towards raising awareness and disseminating information
about the self-regulatory approach towards disputes over media
coverage The pilot press council and arbitration tribunal are
scheduled to be launched at the end of 2003.
PCC staff has a role in the Project via membership
in the advisory group. The PCC has provided input and made available
expertise on UK printed media self-regulation to project staff
and stakeholders. The PCC welcomed Russian project staff and stakeholders
on an afternoon visit to their premises in London. Professor Robert
Pinker, the Acting Chairman, as well as Tim Toulmin (Deputy Director)
joined me on a Russia Study Tour in October 2002. The UK delegation
which I guided during an arduous week of travel and meetings in
provincial Russia, also included Colin Shaw (former director of
the Broadcasting Standards Commission) and Ian Mayes (Ombudsman
at the Guardian Newspaper). Professor Pinker, Tim Toulmin as well
as Colin Shaw and Ian Mayes participated in roundtables and met
with the local authorities and the local media. They answered
numerous questions ranging in scope from the self-regulatory approach
to the resolution of disputes to the practicalities of preparing
and updating a code of conduct.
The project in Russia seeks to encourage the
industry, the media profession, the authorities and civil society
to participate in the creation of a new system for dispute resolution.
An assumption underpinning the initiative is that a complaints
mechanism based on the idea of self-regulation would ease in some
measure the difficult conditions under which the regional press
is currently operating. The pressures that are put on the Russian
media by the state and big corporations are well known—they
are frequently reported in the western press. It could be harassment
in the shape of unnecessary safety inspections on the premises
of media critical to the authorities. It could be physical threats
or worse. On a different level, in provincial Russia it is common
to find that a lot of the distribution and printing facilities
are controlled by local government or the (federal) Ministry of
the Press. In 2002 the local Nizhny Novgorod Parliament was considering
the passing of a law that would allow the authorities close down
a newspaper that lost more than two defamation cases in a given
period of time. Fortunately the bill was later abandoned. In this
environment defamation law suits are plentiful.
The self-regulatory initiative supported by
the Project aims at making available expertise in the field of
media disputes that the local judiciary lacks. Provincial judges
are isolated from international standards. Media cases tend to
be decided without regard to the European Convention on Human
Rights to which the Russian Federation is now a signatory. What's
more, the judiciary in both Nizhny and Rostov has to deal with
very large numbers of defamation proceedings (criminal defamation
is still in the Russian statute book). Local judges tell us that
they would welcome a self-regulatory initiative that would help
settle defamation disputes out of court.
The events in Russia following the media coverage
of the rescue of hostages held by Chechen rebels in a Moscow Theatre
last October highlighted the relevance of developing self-regulation
in the country. As is well known, the Russian media intensely
criticised the authorities' conduct of the rescue operations.
The authorities apparently were alarmed by the tone of the criticism.
Some media acknowledged afterwards that they had exaggerated to
increase programme ratings. The event prompted the legislators
to introduce "anti-terrorist" amendments to the "Law
On the Mass Media". Many in the media sector realised that
the amendments were tantamount to censorship. In an uncharacteristic
show of shared aims, heads of many media outlets and industry
associations collectively petitioned President Putin to veto the
proposed curbs on the press. President Putin obliged. The media
promised to put self-regulation and standards into operation.
It seems that the conditions for setting up self-regulatory mechanisms
are ready in Russia.
30 January 2003
| 
