Why Press Freedom

is Disappearing in the
Post-Communist World

The 18th Annual

Harold W. Andersen
Lecture

Why Press Freedom

is Disappearing in the
Post-Communist World

By Henrikas Yushkiavitshus
A Lecture Series
On Global
Communications
Issues
December 9, 2004

Additional copies of this booklet may be

obtained by contacting:
World Press Freedom Committee
11690-C Sunrise Valley Drive
Reston, Virginia 20191 USA
Tel: (703) 715-9811
Fax: (703) 620-6790
E-mail: freepress@wpfc.org

This transcript of the proceedings

has been lightly edited.
Photographs by Javier Sierra

2005
World Press Freedom Committee

CONTENTS
1

Welcome and introductory

remarks by James H. Ottaway, Jr.,
Chairman of the World Press
Freedom Committee, Director of
Dow Jones & Co., and of Ottaway
Newspapers, Inc.

10

Why Press Freedom is

Disappearing in the PostCommunist World, by Henrikas
Yushkiavitshus, Senior UNESCO
Communications Adviser

22

Questions and Answers

34

About the Andersen Lecture

Welcome by James H. Ottaway, Jr.,

Chairman of the
World Press Freedom Committee
MR. OTTAWAY: Good afternoon. My name is
James Ottaway. Im chairman of the World Press
Freedom Committee. Id like to welcome you all
to our Andersen Lecture. I will introduce Mr.
Yushkiavitshus later, so I wont go through his
biography now. Next to him is Ronald Koven, the
European representative of the World Press
Freedom Committee in Paris since 1981, a veteran of the battle at UNESCO back in 1983, when
we urged the United States to get out of
UNESCO because it had so many anti-press freedom policies and people in its administration. He
was eagerly positive and helped the U.S. and the
UNESCO battle to get the United States back as
a member of UNESCO, which it has now
rejoined. Now were working with Louise Oliver,
our U.S. Ambassador to UNESCO, on a number
of issues, and with Mr. Koichiro Matsuura, the
Director General of UNESCO, whos become a
real champion of press freedom. And I think
thats in no small part, because of the education
and coaching hes gotten from Rony Koven in
Paris. Hes had a difficult throat operation this
year, so his enemies are very pleased that hes not
speaking as well as he was earlier this year. But
hes been a great warrior for press freedom for
many years.
Next to him is our host and benefactor today,
Harold Andy Andersen, who was chairman of
the World Press Freedom Committee from 1979
to 1996. He was chairman of the Omaha WorldHerald Company in Nebraska. But that state was
too small for him. He was president of the
1

American Newspaper Publishers Association,

our leading newspaper association in the United
States. That was too small for him. He became
president of the International Federation of
Newspaper Publishers, now the World
Association of Newspapers, and so, has been in
the forefront of international press freedom
issues for several decades now.
Next to him is our brilliant lawyer, Kevin
Goldberg, who is our communications attorney
at Cohn & Marks, here in Washington. He has
most recently helped us by writing an amicus
curiae brief against insult and criminal defamation laws that can be used by local lawyers
around the world and is being used by them to
fight local battles. Its in English and Spanish and
its on our website, if youre interested
www.wpfc.org.
Next to Kevin is Mark Bench, our Executive
Director, who appeared here last year as
Executive Director-Designate, when Marilyn
Greene, our previous Executive Director was
retiring. Hes been with us now going great guns
in his first year, full of energy and enthusiasm,
and particularly helpful with the Spanish-speaking groups that we work with because hes fluent
in Spanish. He came from a broadcast and management background but was involved with
WPFC way back since 1976. Hes known the
issues and stances weve taken in international
organizations over the years.
To put it succinctly, our first duty of the World
Press Freedom Committee is to monitor international organizations, to try to do everything we
can to stop bad legislation, bad policy, bad statements at summit meetings, such as the current
World Summit on the Information Society, where
Rony and others of us have worked hard to assure
that the countries that have no free press do not
control the final declarations in the summit about
press freedom.

Also in the audience is Marilyn Greene, who

served as our Executive Director for seven years
and kept us going in many directions around the
world. Shes a former foreign correspondent for
USA Today, and shes taking a well-deserved
rest. Working with us is not an easy job. So,
were glad youre here, Marilyn. Our photographer today, Javier Sierra is also our Projects
Director. Hes the Spanish-speaking journalist
who has been particularly helpful in some cases
were working on in South America, Mexico, and
Spain.
Mary-Esther Dattatreyan is our Office
Manager of many years and keeps things going
well. And next to her, her husband, Kumar, who
is our unofficial computer consultant.
I call your attention to some publications outside on the table, as you came in. One is called
New Code Words For Censorship, a book of
essays by international journalists about the danger to press freedom of the euphemisms that people use who want to control the press in various
ways and control free speech. These are some
really interesting essays helpful to you. Another
publication, Press Freedom on the Internet,
describes one of our major campaigns at the
moment, particularly at the World Summit on the
Information Society, where issues of the Internet
are being debated and where a governance committee has been set up by Kofi Annan to report
on what it thinks about governance. It could be a
dangerous committee. There is no press representation on it. Too much government representation, and Im sure there are going to be
controversial recommendations coming out of
that committee, that well have to work on.
Behind all the work we do, is one man who has
had the longest history with the World Press
Freedom Committee and is still our senior adviser, Dana Bullen. He was our Executive Director
for 16 years. Hes our historical memory bank

and one hell of a good editor when we need those

skills. Thank you all for coming.
I would like to introduce our speaker now. Our
Andersen Lecturer this year is Henrikas
Yushkiavitshus, who for obvious reasons we all
call Yush. Hes a good, good friend of the
World Press Freedom Committee. He served for
nineteen years as vice chairman of the Soviet
State Committee for Television and Radio, what
we have known as Gostel-Radio. He held a ministerial ranking in the old Communist government. As such, he played a key role in
implementing in Soviet broadcasting
Gorbachevs policy of Glasnost in the 1980s. As
you know, this liberalized to some extent the flow
of information in Russia and led eventually to
revolutionary change. Thanks in part to a direct
telephone link from his desk to Gorbachevs,
Yush was able to cut through Soviet bureaucratic
red tape to help Western broadcasters cover the
Moscow Olympic and Friendship Games. As a
result, he established close ties with major
Western television personalities, such as Ted
Turner, founder of CNN and still a friend of
Yush.
But in 1990, his life changed dramatically, as
did the lives of many Russians. In 1990, he was
named Assistant Director General for
Communication at UNESCO, in Paris. There he
put into practice, in the UN Agency, new policies
promoting press freedom, which represented a
complete turnaround from that organizations
previous encouragement of international press
control. Yush became a major voice for press
freedom in the former Soviet Union, as well, as
in any nation around the world, from that position. And hes continued to be the articulate
spokesman who has understood the difference
between state-controlled news and freedom of
the press.
In the years 2000 and 2001, he oversaw
UNESCOs wide ranging Management Reform
4

WPFCs 2004 Andersen Lecture featured UNESCOs

former Assistant Director General for Communication,
Henrikas Yushkiavitshus, who gave a stark picture of media
freedom and independence in the former Soviet Bloc.

Harold Andy Andersen asks his customary first question.

This time he asked about the resurgence in international
forums of efforts to suppress the flow of information in
and out of countries, except under government
sponsorship.

Press Freedom in the world is today, again, in

danger. Many politicians are for press freedom
when they are fighting for power, and theyre
much less enthusiastic about it when they are in
power, said Yushkiavitshus in his remarks.
Harold Andy
Andersen and
WPFCs Senior
Adviser and
former Executive
Director Dana
Bullen, chat after
the lecture.

The free market has led not so much to pluralism of

the press but to increasing media concentration, and
without strong pluralistic and independent media,
the gangrene of corruption tends to infect the body of
the state, said Yushkiavitshus.

(From right) Mark

Bench, WPFCs
Executive Director;
Kevin Goldberg,
WPFCs General
Counsel; Host and
Benefactor Harold
Andy Andersen,
and Yushkiavitshus.

(From left) Dana Bullen, Kevin Goldberg, Harold

Andy Andersen, Henrikas Yushkiavitshus, James H.
Ottaway, Jr., Mark Bench and WPFCs European
Representative Ronald Koven.

(From left) WPFCs Chairman James H. Ottaway, Jr.;

Beth Howe, Home Delivery Manager, The Washington Post;
Bo Jones, Publisher and CEO, The Washington Post, and
Mark Bench.

Washington Post Publisher Bo Jones (left) and WPFC

Chairman James H. Ottaway, Jr., discuss mutual concerns.

Kevin Goldberg (left) and Mark Bench share a laugh before

the lecture begins.

The audiencegathered at Washington, DCs, National

Press Clublistens to Yushkiavitshus presentation.

Program, which UNESCO Director General

Koichiro Matsuura introduced to streamline and
cut the administrative budget of UNESCO which
had become bloated. He remains a special adviser on communication and administration to
Director-General Matsuura at UNESCO in Paris,
and he continues to play influential roles in

...we all [need to] discuss and analyze

why press freedom in the world is today,
again, in danger.
Lithuania and in Russia as a frequent speaker in
international news media conferences. He is
endeavoring to help the former Soviet bloc countries stop this reversal of press freedom.
Mr. Yushkiavitshus was born in Lithuania,
trained as a broadcast engineer, began his career
in Lithuanian television and radio, serving as
chief of its technology department from 1960 to
1966. Among his many awards he holds an
Emmy from the U.S. National Academy of
Television Arts and Sciences, the annual
Directorate Award, in 1990, for his role in
expanding the global exchange of television
broadcasting between East and West. He will
speak to us today about why press freedom is
being rolled back to more state control in so
many post-Communist countries. This is a very
important topic of our times. Yush, its yours.

18th Annual Harold W. Andersen Lecture

Why Press Freedom is Disappearing in
the Post-Communist World
By Henrikas Yushkiavitshus
MR.YUSHKIAVITSHUS: Thank you very
much for inviting me to speak. And when I
looked into the topic, Press Freedom in the
Post-Communist World, Why It Is Disappearing,
and I thought about this topic, regretfully, I have
found that today I have to speak not about only
post-Communist countries but also about the
whole world after Communism. I would like to
underline that I dont pretend that my analysis
will be correct. Its my personal opinion. But, I
think what is important today, is that we all think,
discuss and analyze why press freedom in the
world is today, again, in danger. The end of the

...many politicians are for press

freedom when they are fighting for
power, and theyre much less enthusiastic about it when they are in power.
Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union
was really the turning point in the history of
humankind, and we citizens of so-called
Communist countries, hoped that after those dramatic changes, democracy would prevail, market
economy would ensure high living standards, and
an era of real press freedom would start.
The post-Cold War reality very soon cooled off
our euphoria and taught us some important lessons. One of them is that many politicians are for
press freedom when they are fighting for power,
10

and theyre much less enthusiastic about it when

they are in power. Another lesson is that market
economy must not be given top priority over
basic freedoms, human rights and democratic
values. Otherwise, a free market may well turn
into a black market, controlled by the mafia. The
mafia is one of the strongest factors today that
limits press freedom in many post-Communist
countries. Almost every week we learn about
new cases when journalists are beaten or murdered because they refuse to be influenced,
bought or intimidated. Physical violence against
journalists is the ultimate form of censorship.
Central governments in Georgia, Armenia and
Moldova are too weak to protect journalists from
violence and too intolerant themselves of criticism. We had hoped very much, for example, that
in Georgia, after its revolution, that press freedom would flourish.
Just a couple of days ago, I spoke with the
head of the journalism faculty of the University
of Tbilisi and he said, Henrikas, its not so easy.

The impunity of journalist killers is a

terrible reality of today.
The new power doesnt like press freedom,
either. Because of that now, I am looking hopefully at what is happening in Ukraine and, of
course, we hope that democracy will win. But,
how will it be with press freedom? It is a very
important test for the people who are coming to
power. In other previous Soviet Republics, in
Azerbaijan, Belarus and Central Asia, journalists
are too frightened to criticize governments, but
they are targeted by the mafia. Less than two
months ago, on the 20th of October, the body of
Veronika Cherkasova, a reporter for the newspaper, Solidarnost, was found with multiple stab
wounds at her apartment in Minsk, Belarus.
Cherkasova was a general reporter, covering a
11

wide range of subjects, but she also undertook

investigative work on the sex trade and organized
crime. In Ukraine, the murder in 2001 of the
investigative journalist, Georgy Gongadze is still
not solved. Recently, the authorities stated rather
cynically that killers could not be found, because
they themselves had been killed. The murder in
Moscow of the American investigative journalist
and editor, Paul Khlebnikov of the Russian edition of Forbes Magazine caught international
attention, but just like in so many similar cases
over the last 10-15 years, the killers of the journalist have not been found.
Today before coming here, I called my friend
Bogdanov*, who is tracking murders of journalists. I asked what is now the number of victims. The total for this year is 12. Not one killer
has been found. There is a meeting next
Wednesday in Moscow of 100 family members
of murdered journalists; there are now more

...the free market [in Russia] has led

not so much to pluralism of the press
but to increasing media concentration,
and without strong pluralistic and
independent media, the gangrene of
corruption tends to infect the body of
the state.
than 200 such families in all these years. The
impunity of journalist killers is a terrible reality
of today. I would say that one day the mafia
world will erect a monument to the Unknown
killer of journalists, and I am afraid that some
politicians will lay flowers on it. So, market
economy, yes. Market society, no.
In Russia, privatization was done in a rather
tough way. Priority was given to the market.
*Vsvelod Bogdanov, President of the Russian Union of Journalists

12

There even was the excuse that there are many

recommendations and books on how to change
from capitalism to socialism, but none on how to
move from socialism to capitalism. The advisers
from the West also gave priority to the market as
the incarnation of democracy. All other values of
democratic society, including press freedom,
were very, very much neglected. The media, very
often, were forgotten in the different programs of
assistance and were caught on the horns of a
dilemma: how, after the cynicism of the communist era, based not on business but on totalitarianism, and after the euphoria of Glasnost, this, its
mission for freedom and democracy, not to slide
into cynicism about the market economy?
Instead of being a means of democratization it
was more and more perceived as an end in itself.
It was intellectuals, those who had fought for
democratization and a free market who became
the first victims of that market economy. As a
result, the older generation of intellectuals is getting ever more skeptical and the younger one,
cynical. The lack of an intellectual component in
the market economy mechanism has resulted in
many social distortions and bitter deceptions
among the populations. Media, on their part,
lacked experience in how to secure their financial independence and their editorial freedom.
Consequently, the free market has led not so
much to pluralism of the press but to increasing
media concentration, and without strong pluralistic and independent media, the gangrene of corruption tends to infect the body of the state. The
annual total amount of money spent for corruption in Russia is estimated at some 40 billion dollars. Life proves that government structures
cannot function effectively without freedom of
information. Left alone, these structures tend to
believe in their infallibility, close in on themselves and degenerate, like some royal dynasties
in the past.

13

We can talk as much as we like about the independence of courts of law, but such independence can only exist if there are independent mass
media. A court left one-on-one with the executive power will also sooner or later become de
facto a tool in the hands of the latter. The independence of such a court is but an illusion. So,
the conclusion is, less press freedom means
more corruption. It is not that leading Russian
politicians do not understand the dangers of corruption. Two years ago, President Putin spoke
about the problem of corruption in the country.
In his address to the Federal Assembly of the
Russian Federation, on 18 April 2002, he said:
Corruption does not result from the absence of
repression but is a direct consequence of
limited economic freedoms. No administrative

It will be possible to root out [paid-for

articles] only if and when journalists
can earn decent wages and when
newspapers can be profitable from such
normal income sources as advertising
and circulation sales.
barrier can resist bribes. The higher the barrier
is, the bigger the number of bribes is and the
number of officials that accept them. I would
add that corruption is also a consequence of
limited press freedom.
So, why do we witness limitations of press
freedom? The explanation lies in the resistance
of a selfish establishment which does not hesitate
to use the power of the state for its own purposes.
The establishment would like to have free hands
and does not want the press to point fingers at the
cases of conflict of interest. That is to say, at
corruption. The establishment is composed not
only of government bureaucrats. So-called oligarchs also are and have always been part of this
establishment. Different oligarchs played different games with the state machine, very often cor14

rupting it. More often than not, those games

affected press freedom. The day in 1996 when a
leading manager of Russian Independent
Television (NTV company) joined President
Yeltsins reelection team, and when the president
ordered GAZPROM to transfer 800 million dollars to NTV, this signified the beginning of the
end of independent television in Russia.

Russia has very little historical

memory of democracy.
The intentions were goodnot to let the
Communists return to power, but exactly the
same principle had been used by the communist
regime. The end justified the means. Those elections left Russian television forever economically dependent on the state. So were those leading
journalists so naive that they played with fire
when they accepted investors with political goals
and thus made themselves vulnerable to government pressure? This is not an easy question to
answer. What happened to NTV was wholesale
corruption of journalism, starting at the top of
the profession. So it is not surprising that there is
also retail corruption, with journalists being
commissioned by this or that company to write
articles on demand.
Newspapers not only know about this practice,
but they also take their share, and public relations
firms are happy to provide this kind of service at
established rates. This system of paid-for articles
masquerading as straight news reports even has a
name, Zakazukha. It will be possible to root out
this phenomenon only if and when journalists can
earn decent wages and when newspapers can be
profitable from such normal income sources as
advertising and circulation sales. And today I
spoke to the president of the Russian Union of
Journalists, who told me, Henrikas, what is left of
real journalists may be 15 percent. All the rest are
communications engineers and public relations.
15

Even such an expert as Jeffrey Sachs, former

adviser to the Russian Government, once said
very accurately about the situation in Russia,
We felt like we were invited to treat a sick person,
but when we put him on the operation table and
opened him up, we suddenly found that he had an
absolutely different anatomy and organs which
we had not studied in our medical institute.
Many factors affect press freedom in the world.
One of them is terrorism. Terrorism kills not only
people, it also kills press freedom today. After the
Nord Ost Theater tragedy in Moscow, when some
130 hostages died, President Vladimir Putin
vetoed a law restricting reporting on terrorism.

There is only one silver lining to this

cloud. Programs of Radio Liberty and
the Voice of America are regaining
popularity in Russia.
If passed, this law would have seriously limited
press freedom in Russia. So-called power ministries, such as the minister of interior or
defense, were, of course, interested in such a law
as it would have made it impossible for the public
to know about the numerous mistakes made during counter-terrorist operations. After the Beslan
school tragedy, there are again attempts in the
Russian Parliament (Duma) to limit press coverage of terrorist attacks. It is clear that terrorists
try to use the press for their own purposes, but
some of the proposals discussed in the Duma go
too far. It is proposed, for example, that information about such events should be released only
after the incident is over. It reminds me of the
Chernobyl tragedy. It was the time of Glasnost.
Still, the information was not released on time.
And today, we have hundreds of thousands of ill
people because they didnt know what the danger
was. Some people went to look at that power station fire. Children went to look at that fire
because information was not disclosed that doing
16

this was absolutely dangerous. We still have to

wait and see what the decision of the Duma and
that of the President will be. By the way, some
Russian journalists propose to call this draft law
The Russia Patriot Act (in an analogy to the
U.S.A. Patriot Act). Vladimir Putin is the
youngest president in Russian history, and I am
sure he is eager to learn from more experienced
politicians elsewhere in the world.
Russia has very little historical memory of
democracy. It first had tsars, then Lenin, Stalin,
Khrushchev and Brezhnev. None of them was a
democrat. Gorbachev also lacked experience in
democracy. So it is logical for President Putin to
seek friendly advice from his new friends in the
old democracies. The Prime Minister of Italy,
Silvio Berlusconi, has the most extensive experience on managing media among the European
state leaders. One has the impression that the
echo of this experience can be heard in Russia.
The relationship between the Russian television stations and the Russian government resembles more and more that between the Berlusconi
government and television and radio in Italy.
Both in Russia and Italy we are witnessing a
marriage of the executive power with the mass
media. It is no secret that there is less and less
criticism of the government policies on TV in

Some former communist countries

value press freedom very highly.
They understand what it means not
to have it.
Russia. There is only one silver lining to this
cloud. Programs of Radio Liberty and the Voice
of America are regaining popularity in Russia.
More than a quarter of a century ago the wellknown American journalist Walter Cronkite said,
Freedom of the press is not just important to
democracy, it is democracy. For many years his
country, your country, the United States, has
17

been the best example of real press freedom and

democracy. United States-based World Press
Freedom Committee has done a great job. The
Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio
Liberty have for many years supported the spirit
of freedom behind the Iron Curtain and still are
playing a very important role.
Recently, however, there have been some disturbing facts. They were discussed in May of this
year in Warsaw, Poland during the General
Assembly of the International Press Institute, a
global network of editors, media executives and
leading journalists. The IPI leaders wrote a letter
to then-U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell,
concerning the exclusion of journalists from the
U.S. Visa Waiver Program for visitors from
friendly countries. The letter recalled that over the
previous 12 months a number of foreign journalists have been seized at United States borders and
deported forcibly to their home countries. Many
were mistreated and prevented from making telephone calls that could have helped clarify their
status. This is a violation of the rules concerning
the persons arrested in a foreign country. Today,
we are happy to see friendly family photos of our
leaders. It is a rare chance for all of us to benefit

...Poland, the Czech Republic,

Slovakia, even Lithuania, historically
have more ancient experience in democracy than France or Germany, not to
mention Spain, Portugal or Greece.
from good personal relations between them. It is
good to know that they have a common understanding of the dangers of terrorism in the world.
But, is there a common understanding of press
freedom? Without a free press, it is not possible to
fight corruption and today corruption feeds terrorism. Do Western democracies still care about
press freedom in the world? I hope they care.
18

In the annual report on press freedom prepared

by the non-governmental organization
Reporters Without Borders, Russia, the
Caucasus and Central Asia lag behind. Close to
the bottom of the list is Belarus, in 144th place.
President Lukashenkas regime tolerates no criticism and systematically uses all possible means
to reduce the few dissident voices to silence.
Uzbekistan occupies the 142nd place in the list,
not far from Belarus, because of the governments brutal repression of independent media
that are almost non-existent. Five journalists
were in prison there at the beginning of this year.
Yet, while Belarus is condemned in every possible way, Uzbekistan is a partner and a friend of
the West. This shows that human rights and press
freedom are not really held in much value in
international relations. Much more important is
the number of Boeings, Airbuses or MiGs sold or
military bases established.
Indeed, times have changed very quickly. Just a
few years ago, the old democracies had clear priorities: human rights, freedom of speech and
freedom of the press. Those were the main slogans of the leading world politicians. President
Jimmy Carter in a Vienna meeting shared that
famous kiss with Leonid Brezhnev. But already
in their first meeting, Carter brought up the problem of human rights in the Soviet Union. Today,
press freedom in the world depends not only on
so-called old democracies. Some former communist countries value press freedom very highly. They understand what it means not to have it.
By the way, President Vaclav Havel was probably
right when he said that it was time to stop calling
those countries former communist countries.
Communism was a short period in their long histories. Otherwise, he said, We should call the
United States a former British Colony. The same
can be said of the former Soviet republics. Each
of them has a different history and traditions.
And all that influences significantly their respec19

tive situations with regard to press freedom. In

those countries that have historical memories of
market economy and democracy, like the Baltic
StatesEstonia, Latvia, Lithuaniaboth economic development and press freedom situations
are similar today to those in the old democracies.
According to the press freedom ranking for
2004 by Reporters Without Borders, there is
more press freedom in Estonia, Latvia and
Lithuania than in Austria, Canada, France, the
United Kingdom, Italy, Spain and, I am sorry to
say, in the United States. Latvia occupies the
10th place, Estonia the 11th, Lithuania the 16th
and the United Statesthe 22nd. There are still
islands of paradise for press freedom. They can
be found in Northern Europe, in Denmark,
Finland, Ireland, Iceland, the Netherlands and
Norway. By the way, these countries are rated as
having the lowest levels of corruption in the
world. Since the European Unions decision to
accept new members from the so-called postcommunist countries, the debate has been going
already for 15 years about the old and new
democracies. In this debate, for the traditional
West, new are those who do not have historical
experience of democracy, do not understand what
a market economy is, and therefore are to be
taught and, if necessary, reprimanded.
You may remember how President Chirac reprimanded Poland, Lithuania and others because
of their good relations with the United States.
One has a tendency to forget that Poland, the
Czech Republic, Slovakia, even Lithuania, historically have more ancient experience in democracy than France or Germany, not to mention
Spain, Portugal or Greece. Of course, I should
say that the new democracies very often are not
fair to the West and I wouldnt like to agree with
them, but I have to admit that there exist such
opinions. There are politicians in those countries
who claim that their nations do not owe anything
to the West because its assistance to their fight
20

for freedom was only the correction of the

Western betrayals of the democrats to the Soviets
at Yalta in 1945, Budapest in 1956 and Prague in
1968.
Still, the majority of the people, especially
young ones are enthusiastic about the political
changes. There are many young journalists who
are eager to learn from the best examples of the
professional and free press in the West. They
know foreign languages, they read your newspapers, and they trust you, as we, the older generation, trusted you from behind the Iron Curtain.
Maybe sometimes we were over-idealizing you.
These young people will not allow the rebuilding
of jamming stations in their countries, and they
will fight against any restrictions on the Internet,
for whatever reasons. Let us hope that one day all
political leaders will understand that although
both freedom of speech and press freedom do
often provoke public and political controversy, as
experience shows us again and again, when freedom is sick the only cure is more freedom.
Thank you.

21

Questions and Answers

MR. OTTAWAY: Thank you, Henrikas, for a
very crystal clear speech about the problem of
press freedom in former communist countries
and some of our own. The text of his speech with
color slides are available on the table as you go
out and I urge you to take them and use them if
youre in the news business to report this as
widely as possible. He said some very important
things that are not said often enough in the
United States, about how we do not always call
press freedom a major priority in our foreign policy and should. We have time for some questions.
If there are those who would like to ask a question, could you speak into a microphone and state
your name clearly. Our tradition is that the first
question comes from Mr. Andersen. So, Andy, do
you have a question to get us started?
MR. ANDERSEN: Well, first a brief comment, Im glad to be here today, especially glad
because of Yushs presence with us. In fact, at my
advancing age, Im glad to be anywhere today.
But, among good friends in the audience and of
course up here at the head table, with people with
whom I have worked and who are performing so
capably, remember that we expect another 15
years from Jim as chairman of WPFC. Hes
doing a fine job. We first became acquainted
with Yush when we were battling UNESCOs
new world and communication order, which
could be summarized by saying that the propaganda minister in each country could control the
flow of information both in and out. Thats a capsule description, I think, of what people were trying to achieve. I think we, with your help,
blocked that movement from UNESCOs spon22

sorship, but that sort of thinking persists today.

Would you care to say how is it manifesting
itself? Im thinking not so much of the individual
suppression of journalistsof freedom within
countries, which I think was your primary focus
today, but this idea of suppressing the flow of
information in and out of the country except
under government sponsorship. Where is that
movement focused today and how is it doing? I
think its no longer in UNESCO.
MR.YUSHKIAVITSHUS: Today, for many
countries, and especially for young people, it is
very important to have access to the Internet.
And, it was already clear during the Geneva
meeting of the World Summit on the Information
Society that the main battle will be about the
Internet. There are many attempts to limit possibilities on access to the Internet. You know for
example, Chinas already closed access to
Google news. In some countries, web sites are
completely blocked, just as radio stations were
jammed in the past. The Internet developed so
successfully because governments have not
understood what is happening. When they understood it, it was already a bit too late. Now they
are trying to catch up. I am very happy that
UNESCO has taken a strong position on the governance of the Internet, including several declarations which were accepted by all member states
including China. The Sofia Declaration sponsored by UNESCO refers very clearly to the need
for news media using Internet to enjoy the same
freedoms as traditional media. I must say that it
was Rony Koven, who in Sofia very skillfully
succeeded to put it into the Declaration.
MR. OTTAWAY: Any other questions? Please
come to a microphone, if you can? And tell us
who you are, please, so we can give you credit in
the record.
MR. WOLFSON: Im Lewis Wolfson from
American University. Its probably premature to
ask you this, but do you think what is happening
23

in Ukraine now would have an effect on other

governments in the former Soviet Union and
others that are in that group that youre talking
about?
MR.YUSHKIAVITSHUS: I am sure that it
will have an impact. I am not sure what impact
because you have, of course, after 1968 events in
Czechoslovakia and Prague, the Brezhnev
regime kept fighting, and it made the situation
worse. I have met Gorbachev personally many
times, and I have met President Putin a couple of
times in UNESCO meetings. Hes learning very
rapidly. Hes speaking, saying very correct things
as he did at a recent meeting of world news agencies. He answered in a very correct way, respectful of press freedom. What is disturbing is that
his statements and reality in Russian media are
different. I cant say why. People sometimes say
he is surrounded by wrong advisers or there can
be other influences. When you think objectively,
he has to be interested in free press because the
number one problem today in Russia is corruption, and corruption is really feeding terrorism.
Nobody can believe that terrorists could go to
Nord-Ost Theater, or to Beslan school without
somebody being corrupted. So, I hope he will
understand. You know, I would like to be an optimist, but you know what the difference between
optimist and pessimist? The pessimist is the same
as the same optimist, only better informed.
MR. OTTAWAY: I hope some good will come
of that struggle for freedom in Ukraine. Terry.
MR. MAGUIRE: Terry Maguire with the
Mediterranean Media Center. You drew some
comparison between the situation in Russia today
and in Italy with Silvio Berlusconi. Im wondering in terms of the way the situation in Italy,
whether it be the trials in which Silvio
Berlusconi finds himself at the moment or
whether it be his situation in the media marketplace in Italy, Im wondering how those are covered today in Russia, and how Russians are
24

seeing those developments. Is he held out as a

hero? Is he held out as someone who is to be condemned for what he has done?
MR.YUSHKIAVITSHUS: I must say that
there is not a lot of information in Russia about
this process in Italy. But, better informed journalists tell us, especially those who know foreign
languages and who know about personal relationships, that there are three very good friends,
Bush, Berlusconi and Putin. Sometimes they are
saying that if these good friends could only tell
President Putin, Look, it is not good to follow
this line. But on the other hand they are saying,
But look what Berlusconi is doing. Whatever
Berlusconi is doing, we in Russia are in some
ways, making a carbon copy of it. Well, maybe
not exactly. But the principle is more and more
the same in this marriage of television and the
state. Today, fifty per cent of all television information in Russia is coming from the state.
Seventy per cent of TV outlets are state organizations. And fifty per cent of revenues are from
state agencies. So, television is becoming practically some sort of state monopoly. This is not so
much yet true of the printed press. There are still
newspapers that are expressing quite independent
news. But the problem is that their distribution is
very limited40,000, maybe 50,000, and mostly
confined within the Moscow area.
MR. OTTAWAY: Okay. Any more questions?
MS. JEDRZEJCZAK: My name is Sarah
Jedrzejczak, and I wanted to ask a question relating to the situation in the Ukraine. As you may
have heard, there was some type of courageous
television reporters, on state-owned television,
who came out and decided they would not lie for
the regime anymore. There was a deaf interpreter, for example, who was written about in the
Wall Street Journal. Could you comment on how
that may be transforming the state-run television
in the Ukraine and what effect it might have in
other parts of neighboring countries?
25

MR.YUSHKIAVITSHUS: Its good for those

courageous journalists to say that they are changing sides. Sometimes people ask me, Where were
you before? Because when you see that the opposition is winning, to switch to the oppositions
side is easier than before. But it is easy to say,
you know. It is much more difficult to do it, to be
in their place. You must also know that many
journalists, even in the state organizations, find
the way to state the truth between the lines. That
was also very important during the Soviet time.
For example, in the Soviet Union, it was theater
that was doing a lot to express this hope for freedom. Everybody had heard about the Taganka
Theater in Moscow. There were also some newspapers whose talented journalists were finding
the way to say things in a very interesting way
that those who wanted to understand, understood
it. I can tell you myself, it was I who proposed to
the chairman of Soviet Television and Radio to
show, live, the Brezhnev visit to the United
States. Do you think the people in Russia were
looking at Brezhnev? They were looking what
was behind Brezhnev. They were looking how the
American people look, how their streets look,
how their homes look. When during Soviet time,
we also succeeded, for example, in putting the
Wimbledon tennis tournament on the air live.
Many people who dont know anything about
tennis were looking at the Wimbledon competition to see how the people looked, how they were
dressed, to see their faces. It was an open window. After Wimbledon, this competition transmission, I was elected vice president of the
Tennis Federation in spite of my not playing
tennis very well.
MR. OTTAWAY: Obie, will you state your
name, please?
MR. OBERMAYER: Herman Obermayer. I
have a conceptual question. You established that
there is a direct relationship between market
economy and a free press and then you said,
26

Market society, no. And I would like to ask

whether thats not a conflict of terms, conflict of
concept, conflict of values, which ultimately is
self-defeating. The first, the second defeats the
first, because you cant advocate free economy
without advocating, market economy without
advocating market society.
MR.YUSHKIAVITSHUS: Yes. You know,
before you said this, I had thought about it. The
market economy is a very powerful mechanism
and, of course, without a market economy there
cant be any progress. You have in the United
States a market economy, but I cant say that you
have a totally market society. Your society values
are absolutely different. Your family values are
absolutely different. In your religious families,
market economy is important because you know
people are earning money and pushing the economy ahead, but in these families, money is not
the most important thing. For them, its other
spiritual values which are most important. And
what is the problem? In Russia today, I think that
there is distortion of real human values. Russia
has natural resources, maybe the most in the
world, and they have the most educated people.
So, whats the problem? The problem is a distorted scale of moral values.
MR. OTTAWAY: Thats a powerful answer.
Question?
MR. SEGOV: My name is Juri Segov. Im the
bureau chief of Business in Russia magazine, so
I understand various things that youre talking
about. Would you share with us what the West,
the United States, Western European countries,
can really do to influence or interact with the
Russian government to change the situation?
We see participation of many representatives of
the media business in Russia who have been
fighting against the government, one way or
another, who have been suppressed, expelled
from the country or jailed. What can the West
really do, in practical terms, to bring this point
27

not only to discussion but to a practical solution

of the problem?
MR.YUSHKIAVITSHUS: As they have been
told, everything depends on priorities in international relations. You remember that these priorities were different some years ago, and today
human rights, freedom of the press and freedom
of expression are very low on the agenda. Its
practically mere lip service. I spoke about
Russia. But when was the last time you heard
about anything wrong in China? Does it mean
that China is a free country? Of course, its now
developing. Everybodys admiring. Theyre using
thirty percent or a bit less of the world steel production. Of course, I understand the United
States is interested in business with China.
Everybodys interested. So, business is first and
human rights is second. When was the last time
you read anything about some human rights
problem somewhere? You remember there was a
time when every day we were reading about
Sakharov, about Solzhenitsyn, heroes of our
time, heroes in the West and heroes, by the way,
behind the Iron Curtain for those people who
were thinking.
Not so long ago, we considered Gao Yu a hero,
a Chinese journalist who was jailed in China and
received the UNESCO prize, given to one person
per year. And why was she jailed? She was jailed
because she wouldnt disclose the sources of her
information. You know whats going on in the
United States on this same topic now. Its a problem that in the whole world, the priority of freedom of expression is not in first place. So, when
you ask, what to do?
We all of us together have to remember that
this is the thing which is most important,
because without it, there cant exist a free
world. What was won can be lost, and there will
be no freedom of expression for which many
people fought so hard and so long. How to do
this? The press itself must do it. There was the
28

World Summit on the Information Society in

Geneva. It was a very dangerous moment and
still is. Why? Because this World Summit on the
Information Society attempted to throw out, for
example, Article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, and significant
effort had to be made so that it would remain.
And there was not very much discussed about
media during this Summit. There was a parallel
Forum meeting for broadcasters at the same
time. But it didnt influence them at all because
parallel lines cross only in Lobochevskys
geometry, not in Euclids. So, you know, we
have to think also about Tunis where the second
portion of the Summit is being held in
November 2005. But what has the press been
writing about it? How many articles have you
seen? I have seen two articles in The Herald
Tribune about the World Summit on the
Information Society. We ourselves have to be
more dynamic on these things.
MR. OTTAWAY: Very good statement. Thats
exactly the problem, and we hope youll help us
carry on this battle through your generous contributions to the World Press Freedom Committee.
One more question, okay?
SPEAKER: Could you please just comment
about why the Western press doesnt dig a little
bit more to point out the real truth about whats
been happening in Ukraine?
MR. YUSHKIAVITSHUS: I live in Paris.
I follow Gusinsky* television. You cannot
expect this kind of coverage from state media in
Russia. I am sure Yanukovich** will not be
elected. But it will be interesting to see after the
Orange Revolution wins in Ukraine how it will
*A Russian-language satellite TV service for Russians abroad,
based in New York and Israel and founded by exiled multimillionaire Vladimir Gusinsky after he was forced to give up his
Russian-based media.
**Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Victor Yanukovich, the
official candidate in the presidential election.

29

treat press freedom. Personally, I am disappointed with what is happening in Georgia. We are
not very happy with press freedom in Armenia.
It is a big test. It takes a very courageous politician to respect press freedom. Even the best of
politicians sometimes hesitate. I respect very
much the balance of former Czech President
Havel. Even Havel, at one moment began to
hesitate. Of course, its very unpleasant when
the press is criticizing you, and you really have
to overcome all this domestic conflict. I spoke
with Lithuanian politicians; my origin is from
Lithuania, you know, and I spoke with President
Adamkus***, we have very good relations.
President Adamkus came back to Lithuania
from the United States, so he understands these
traditional values. When there is criticism in the
press about himand there is criticismhe
said to me, Henrikas, its very unpleasant, but
it has to be. For other politicians without that
background, it is more difficult. But I am very
happy that in the Lithuanian press, written press
and radio and television, now freedom is
absolute.
What is also important for press freedom is
professionalism of journalism. We sometimes
forget about it, but ethics of journalism is
extremely important. When the theory of journalists being the Fourth Power came to Russia
from the United States, where it is so popular, it
created a lot of damage because journalists in
Russia took it very literally. Many professional
journalists also became members of Parliament.
They thought, I am in power, so the more
power, the better. I never could imagine that in
the United States, journalists would put themselves in such a position. They would have to
choose one or the other. So, you know, profes***Lithuanian President Valdus Adamkus, born in Lithuania. His
family emigrated to the United States after WWII, where he
became a regional director of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency before returning to Lithuania.

30

sionalism is also important. And, by the way,

the World Press Freedom Committee for years
helped journalists in Eastern Europe and Russia
very much by arranging seminars on political
and professional issues.
MR. OTTAWAY: Thank you. One last
question.
MS. ASSENOVA: Thank you. Margarita
Assenova, with Freedom House. My question is
somehow related and similar to a previous question. What is the role of the Russian media in
support of the new Russian imperialism? Is there
a clear division between the state media and the
private media? Is there support for expanding the
influence of Russia over the former Soviet
states? Im not talking just of the Soviet Union.
What are the dangers to press freedom in countries that achieve a level of democracy? Is it
economic policy, or...
MR. YUSHKIAVITSHUS: First, about
Russian imperialism, I wouldnt use such a term
because of what Russia is trying to do, trying to
have its place in the world. It is clear that its
importance was lost in the last years. Many people in Russia blame Gorbachev for this because
their standard of living for the majority of people is lower than it was before. So, some politicians, not having any other arguments like, for
example, Zhirinovsky*, try to play on this
Russian nationalism and talk about Russias
famous past during Stalins era, etc. But I think
that clever politicians, and I think that includes
Putin, understand that this argument goes
nowhere. In Moscow, by the way, only forty per
cent of inhabitants are Slavs. You have living in
Moscow and Moscow district, about two million
Azerbaijanis and about one million Armenians.
You cant build a multi-national society playing
only this nationalistic theme, and most politicians understand this.
*Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Russian Liberal Democratic (ultranationalist) Party leader

31

I was telling my friends in Russia that in the

United States you have learned this. When I
take taxis in Washington, D.C., I have never
heard English spoken. Ive heard a number of
other languages, but never English. I am sure if
you ask them, the drivers will say that they are
proud to be U.S. citizens. At the same time,
they will say that I am Russian, Chinese, or
Lithuanian, and I think its a tremendous experience in your country and your societya
tremendous experience. Even in France I saw
during the Olympic Games, a nice black lady
that was crying while the Marseillaise was
playing for the Gold Medal she was receiving.
And I told my Russian friends, it would be a
big achievement for Russia if a Chechen young
person would cry with joy when the Russian
flag is raised.
Of course, Russia seeks its place in the world.
I talk about that very often with Primakov**, and
he once told me that hes not anti-American, that
he only wants it to be recognized that Russia also
has its own legitimate interests in places like the
Middle East and Central Asia.
Regarding once again the independence of
media, there will happen in other countries what
has happened in Russia, unless there is economic
independence of media. Probably, everybody
knows Adam Michnik***. He said that journalism without ideas is cynicism and journalism
without money, without business, is bankruptcy.
So you have to do both. Thank you.
MR. OTTAWAY: Thank you, Henrikas, that
was a wonderful talk and very interesting question period. Its 2:00, I declare the meeting over
and thank you all for coming and I urge you
again to take a look at copies of the speech on the
**Former Prime Minister Evgeni Primakov, also former Director
of the Soviet Foreign Intelligence Service
***Editor-in-Chief of Gazeta Wyborcza, Polands leading
newspaper and Eastern Europes most successful publication to
emerge from political dissidence to Communism.

32

way out and some of the books that we have produced on press freedom issues. Im very pleased
you were able to come today. Thank you.

33

About The Andersen Lecture

This lecture was the 18th in the Harold
W. Andersen series on global media issues.
It was sponsored by the World Press Freedom
Committee. The lectures are intended to focus
attention on international communication and
press freedom issues.
A listing of the previous lecturers, including
noted journalists, the secretary general of the
United Nations and the director general of
UNESCO, is set out on the inside back cover
of this booklet.
The lectures honor Harold W. Andersen,
chairman of the World Press Freedom
Committee from 19791996. Mr. Andersen was
chairman of the Omaha World-Herald Company,
president of the American Newspaper Publishers
Association, and president of the International
Federation of Newspaper Publishers in Paris.
Mr. Ottaway is present chairman of the World
Press Freedom Committee, director of Dow
Jones & Co., and of Ottaway Newspapers.
The World Press Freedom Committee is
headquartered in Reston, Virginia, near
Washington, D.C., and unites under its banner
45 journalistic organizations on six continents to
provide a strong global voice in support of the
freedom of news media in all countries.

34