Coverage of the Chechen War in the Russian press – a legal expert’s viewpointCoverage of the Chechen War in the Russian press – a legal expert’s viewpoint
Yelena Kandybina, Lawyer at the Center for Journalism in Extreme Situations
Special Report for Prague Watchdog
Since 1994, the Russian Federation territory of Chechnya has been experiencing a state of war, although this has been given different names by the authorities: re-establishment of constitutional order, liquidation of bandit units, and anti-terrorist operations. Over the six years there has been continuing coverage in the newspapers, on television and on the radio. Matters have been reported using varying approaches. Different elements of the media have assessed events in the republic in diametrically opposed ways, condemning or approving the actions of the state authorities, justifying the actions of their opponents or calling them bandits.
In discussing the coverage of the course of military operations in Chechnya, we will not make moral judgements on the conduct of those operations or of authors and their opinions. It appears to me that lawyers in particular are the most detached from moral assessment of actions, since any attempt to examine events from different standpoints but in accordance with law would inevitably lead, in the ultimate, to an attempt to judge from the point of view of “revolutionary justice.”
So in what manner can lawyers contribute on the subject of press coverage? Their interest will probably lie in the extent of compliance with or deviation from current legislation. Since law is a system of social regulations imposing obligations on everyone, the influence of government itself on media coverage is an appropriate topic for discussion.
Media treatment of the Chechen war can be provisionally classified as follows:
- Straightforward descriptive reporting of military operations, which do not contain personal assessments, avoid partisan judgements and record events in a clinical fashion. However, the information presented can apparently contribute to the formation of firm opinions in one direction or another. Certainly, the description of the same event will differ in media, which have divergent ideological emphases while retaining the nature of information material.
- Assessments of events in conflict zones and the actions of combatants. Here there is a range of information about events but the main emphasis is on analysis. Events are gathered and combined in such a way that the conclusions seem logical and obvious to the reader or listener.
- Assessment of opinions and viewpoints. This is material of an ideological kind, which not only provides a variety of information about events but also divides media sources into friends and foes. In this category could be placed material, which charts the course of propaganda campaigns and which identifies individuals and media with opinions that agree or diverge from those of the author.
In attempting to conduct a legal evaluation of those categories of media coverage we should first remember that the Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees freedom of ideas, speech and everyone’s right to seek, obtain, transmit, reproduce and disseminate information in any legal way (Clause 29). Only information to which access is restricted is excepted from this provision. According to Russian law exceptional arrangements apply to state, public service, commercial and other information protected by law, and personal data.
The conclusion from all of this is one that is distressing for many ideologists of the Chechen conflict: the spreading of selective or incomplete information is not in conflict with Russian law. The author of published material is supposed to define for himself, exactly what freely available information to report and how to arrange its presentation. The only thing considered to be an infringement of law and a punishable act is propaganda aimed at promoting ideas of social, racial, national, religious or lingual superiority. Regulations combining all these provisions together with some additional provision are defined in Clause 4 of the law “On Mass Media“ and in other legislation.
As for the gathering of information for publication, we need, in my opinion, to place the emphasis on two standard acts restricting the spread of certain information. First we should note Clause 30 of the Federal Law “On Internal Armed Forces of MVD (Ministry of Internal Affairs)“. In particular this states that “in order to safeguard personal safety of internal armed forces personnel and members of their families it is not permitted to communicate information about a location or deployment of the internal armed forces or military units at public gatherings or through the mass media. In addition, the confidentiality of information relating to internal armed forces personnel involved in the suppression of armed criminals, illegal armed groups and other organised criminal groups is ensured; this provision on confidentiality also extends to the families of these servicemen. Information concerning the activities of military groups and units, military training organisations and the institutions of internal armed forces can be provided only with the authority of the commander of the relevant group or unit, military training organisation or the institution of internal armed forces as determined by the Minister of internal affairs.“ Thus, this law regulates access to information and precise kind of information that can be disseminated. When mentioning an individual serviceman, the reporter is to remember that confidentiality means withholding his name and avoiding mentioning anything that could lead to his identification.
The second document is the Federal Law “On the Fight against Terrorism“, Clause 15 of which is better known to journalists and their readers under the title “Informing the Public of an Act of Terrorism.“ The duty to provide such kinds of information is not regulated at all. There are, on the contrary, some restrictions. For Instance, when conducting an anti-terrorist operation, the public are informed of such activities in form and to the extent determined by the commander of the operational headquarters directing anti-terrorist operations or by a representative of the appointed public relations headquarters.
Of course, Russian law in general requires state organisations, public associations and their officials to inform the media of their activities when so requested by news agencies by means of press conferences, press releases, statistics, mailings and in other ways (Clause 38, Law “On Mass Media“). But in fact there is no effective mechanism, which would force officials to provide adequate information or prosecute them for supplying with incomplete or false information. For example, the Federal Law “On the State Service“ provides for the duty of public employees to “keep state and other secrets protected by law and not divulge information relating to the private life, honour and dignity of citizens acquired in the exercise of their public duties; it makes, however, no provision in relation to the duty to provide information.
The “Rules of Accreditation of Representatives of Mass Media” by the Department of the Russian Presidential Assistant S.V. Jastrzhembsky, have been repeatedly cited by the mass media as being in conflict with the law. They also tend to limit journalistic access to information and to the scene of an incident or conflict. Attempts to use accreditation to limit the entry of journalists into areas of armed conflict discredit this legal institution, originally designed to provide a favourable working environment for media personnel.
However, the strongest press reaction was caused by the second part of Clause 15 of the Federal Law “On the Fight against Terrorism,“ which even produced some materials devoted solely to this topic. At this point in our analysis of media coverage of the Chechen conflict we move from the area of information to that of analysis. In accordance with part two of the Clause 15, it is prohibited to disseminate information
- revealing special technical methods and tactics used in the conduct of anti-terrorist operations;
- which could hamper the conduct of an anti-terrorist operation and cause a threat to the life or health of those who are either inside or outside the area of conduct of an anti-terrorist operation;
- serving as propaganda or justifying terrorism and extremism;
- concerning members of special units or operational headquarters responsible for directing an anti-terrorist operation or its conduct or concerning auxiliary personnel.
In the area of journalistic activity, the press reacts most strongly to restrictions on the spread of information serving as propaganda or justifying terrorism or extremism. According to the interpretation placed on this by the Press Ministry, propaganda in favour of extremist points of view includes granting media time to Chechen field commanders. Moreover, the authorities view such broadcasts as “an abetment to terrorism.”
This regulation and its interpretation is also of interest in connection with the following: Firstly, it’s not unclear exactly what information (of a kind likely to be freely accessible and restricted in other ways) can serve to propaganda or as a justification for terrorism. Here I would like to note that we are concerned in particular with the spread of information, i.e. data on people, things, facts, events, and processes (Clause 2 of the Federal Law “On Information, Information Provision and the Protection of Information“). As a lawyer, I am afraid that I cannot imagine how spreading reliable information, containing no secrets protected by law and acquired from public sources can serve unlawful purposes such as propaganda or justification of terrorism. A writer’s summary based on such information could well be unlawful but not information in itself concerning facts.
The second feature which seems doubtful to me is the use of the term “abetment“ as this word has a quite concrete juridical meaning. As defined in Clause 32 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, “an abettor is a person abetting a crime by providing advice, instructions, information, means or implements of crime or removing obstacles to a crime; and a person who had in advance promised to conceal criminal means or implements of crime, evidence of crime or goods illegally obtained; and a person who had in advance promised to carry or dispose of such things.“ Thus one of the main characteristics of abetment is help which has been provided in advance. So it is quite difficult to imagine in which way infringement of Clause 15 of the Law “On the Fight against Terrorism“ can be regarded as an abetment to an act of terrorism.
In spite of the lack of clarity surrounding the regulation, the Press Ministry has already referred to it when issuing repeated warnings to a number of newspapers.
However, despite the current situation, violations of journalists’ rights receive infrequent and disproportionately small amounts of media coverage, usually involving the most scandalous instances of murder, assault or arrest. Even in the face of unlawful acts by state employees and evident government interference the journalist community rarely promotes ideas or joint co-operation by way of opposition. The “Rules of Accreditation of Representatives of Mass Media” by the Department of the Russian Presidential Assistant S.V. Jastrzhembsky serve as a glaring example of the problem. In spite of a quite evident conflict with current law, no attempt at active protest (in legal or other similar form) has been registered by the journalist community. Materials appearing in the press have not contributed to unity in the profession.
There is a significant emphasis on the theme of “information war.” In attempting to decide the meaning of this term, based on what appears in the press, we can conclude that the “information war” is a collision between two different (often not even opposed or alternative) points of view, which are based on particular facts. Quite frequently these two opinions are able to co-exist due to the fact that they reflect views on different problems. The authorities have been happy to grapple with this term which receives so much media use and which is soon likely to acquire legal status. And where the war is waged, there are “enemies” and “defenders of the motherland”, those “working for a just cause” and “abettors of the enemy.” Thus published material on the Chechen conflict divides the journalistic community itself on the one hand and on the other, allows the government to divide the media as a whole into “good” and “bad” using the arguments of the mass media themselves.
Unfortunately, categorising journalists and other commentators on the Chechen conflict into “friend” and “foe” has been continuing in the press for some time now. All too often the view that “he who is not for us is against us” is evident, creating additional obstacles on the way to press unity. If, at some point in the future, someone were to suggest a friendly handshake as a gesture of solidarity, the proposal would probably fall in deaf ears.
|
