Promoting Independent Media in Russia · 2018. 11. 9. · PPC Evaluation Working Papers on Media...

Bureau for Policy and Program CoordinationAugust 2003

PN-ACR-757

Promoting Independent Media in Russia

An Assessment of USAID’s Media Assistance

PPC

EV

ALU

AT

ION

WO

RK

ING

PA

PER

NO

.7

PPC Evaluation Working Papers on MediaAssistance

Media Assistance: Best Practices and Priorities (PN-ACR-754)

Journalism Training and Institution Building in Central American Countries (PN-ACR-755)

Assessment of USAID Media Assistance in Bosnia andHerzegovina 1996–2002 (PN-ACR-756)

Promoting Independent Media in Russia: An Assessmentof USAID’s Media Assistance (PN-ACR-757)

U.S. Media Assistance Programs in Serbia, July 1997–June 2002 (PN-ACT-553)

PPC Evaluation Paper No. 3: USAID’s Media Assistance:Policy and Programmatic Lessons (PN-ACU-013)

RELATED PUBLICATIONS

Promoting Independent Media in RussiaAn Assessment of USAID’s Media Assistance

Krishna Kumar, Senior Social Scientist, USAID

Laura Randall Cooper, Media Specialist, Management Systems International

Bureau for Policy and Program Coordination

August 2003

Promoting Independent Media in Russia iii

ContentsAbbreviations and Acronyms v

Preface vi

Executive Summary vii

Promoting Independent Media in Russia 1

1. Introduction 1

2. The Media Scene in Russia 2

3. History and Focus of the Media Assistance Program 5

4. Contribution to Broadcast Media 8

5. USAID-Supported Print Media Program 14

6. Promoting the Media Sector 18

7. Lessons and Implications 25

Annex: Principal Contacts 29

Bibliography 33

Abbreviations and Acronyms

CTW Children’s Television Workshop

DCTV Downtown Community Television

EMAP Emergency Media Assistance Program

GDF Glasnost Defense Foundation

IFES International Foundation for Electoral Systems

IIL Institute for Information Laws

IREX International Research and Exchanges Board

ITV Independent Television Project

MDP Media Development Program

MLPC Media Law and Policy Center (Moscow)

MVF Media Viability Fund

NAT National Association of Teleradio Broadcasters

NPI National Press Institute

NYU New York University

PDI Press Development Institute

PPC Bureau for Policy and Program Coordination (USAID)

RAMED Russian-American Media Entrepreneurship Dialogue

RAMP Russian-American Media Project

RAPIC Russian-American Press and Information Center

UNC University of North Carolina

Promoting Independent Media in Russia v

Preface

USAID has supported a wide variety of media projects and programs for building viable democratic insti-tutions and reducing political tensions. The Agency gave technical and economic assistance to independentmedia outlets. It also assisted in the privatization of state-owned media, particularly television. Still moreimportantly, USAID has helped to build an enabling environment in which independent, professionalmedia can grow and survive.

The Bureau for Policy and Program Coordination undertook a global assessment of USAID media assis-tance programs to draw policy and operational lessons to improve both the effectiveness and relevance offuture media assistance initiatives. The assessment critically examined the nature and focus of media assis-tance programs. It undertook intensive fieldwork in Bosnia, Central America, Russia, and Serbia, and plansto do limited fieldwork in Indonesia.

This report presents the findings of a three-person team that conducted an assessment of USAID mediaassistance programs in Russia. During its fieldwork in October–November 2002, the team conducted in-depth discussions with the staff of USAID and its partners, journalists, managers of independent mediaoutlets, and the leaders of civil society organizations. The team also undertook a comprehensive examina-tion of project and program documents and academic literature on the Russian media scene.

Several colleagues, outside experts, and media persons assisted this assessment. Within USAID, JohnSimon, Deputy Assistant Administrator; Elaine Grigsby, Deputy Director, Office of DevelopmentEvaluation and Information; Woody Navin, Chief, Division of Evaluation Studies and PerformanceAssessment; and Peter Graves, Senior Media Advisor, Bureau for Europe and Eurasia, gave their full sup-port to the team. Mark Koenig, Senior Democracy Fellow, was a source of invaluable information andinsight on the history and working of the Russian media. In USAID/Russia, senior officials, particularlySusan Reichle, Director, Office of Democratic Initiatives; Mark Dillen, Director, Media Programs; KatyaDrozdova, Media Specialist; and German Abaev, Project Management Specialist, went out of their way tohelp the team. Stefan Medina helped in library research. Zoey Breslar and Chad Hespell from ManagementSystems International provided technical support to the assessment, and the staff of IBI–InternationalBusiness Initiatives edited this report with remarkable skill. I am grateful to all of them.

Krishna KumarSenior Social Scientist

vi PPC Evaluation Working Paper No. 7

Background

Since 1991, USAID has spent more than $44million to promote nonstate media inRussia—the largest recipient of USAID media

assistance. The program’s size and focus on broad-cast and print media led USAID’s Bureau for Policyand Program Coordination (PPC) to undertake anevaluation of the program’s achievements, impacts,and limitations to see if it offers lessons useful indeveloping new and innovative programs.

USAID media assistance strategies in Russiaevolved in response to rapidly changing conditionsand experimentation. In the earliest years, USAIDRussia focused on journalism training, the clearest,most obvious need to help overcome ingrainedhabits of seven decades of state-controlled media.Later, it also started giving attention to businessdevelopment and management training. USAIDalso supported media organizations and associationsthat promote the growth of independent, responsi-ble media. Only during the financial crisis of 1998did USAID provide limited direct economic andcommodity assistance to selected media outlets.

USAID AssistanceUSAID media-related assistance to Russia totaledover $44 million during the June 1992–September2002 period. Television-focused funding absorbed$22.4 million; projects focused mainly on the printmedia accounted for just over $7 million; andfunding for the media sector as a whole was over$14.5 million. In addition to direct institution-building activities, USAID provided assistance forusing media for special purposes, such as holdingelections and preventing domestic violence. Whilethese two projects may have increased local media

skills and capabilities, it was not their primaryintention.

Building Broadcast Media USAID Russia’s major partner in the broadcastmedia was Internews, which received $18.1 million.Although undertaking various activities to promoteindependent media in Russia, Internews’s primaryfocus was to assist emerging, independent regionaltelevision stations. With dynamic leadership andinnovative program strategies, Internews hasbecome one of the most prominent media NGOsin the Russian Federation. USAID’s activities with Internews covered various television-relatedprograms:

■ Training programs. Training television journal-ists has been a major initial and continuingactivity. Nearly 5,000 broadcast journalists—close to half the total of participants in allInternews instructional undertakings—havebeen trained.

■ Improving management and financial viability.Since the early 1990s, Internews has focused onimproving the management and financial viabil-ity of regional television stations by undertakingtraining seminars on management, marketingand advertisement, and design and technology.

■ Programming and dissemination. In addition totraining, Internews implemented innovativeprojects to produce and disseminate televisionprograms for regional television stations.

■ Promoting an enabling environment and otherassistance. With USAID support, Internews has undertaken activities and projects thatspurred the growth of independent media.Activities included computerization of regional

Executive Summary

Promoting Independent Media in Russia vii

newsrooms for greater ease of news sharing andsupport for the formation and growth of anational association of television and radiobroadcasters.

There is little doubt that USAID support hashelped Internews make a profound contribution to the growth and success of regional television stations. Although these stations have progressed atvarying rates—depending on local markets, politi-cal circumstances, and the commitment of man-agers—practically all have benefited from the pro-grams initiated and implemented by Internews.

Several factors contributed to this success. One isthat Internews focused on the relatively small seg-ment of the media eager to receive assistance.When it started its activities, only a few dozenindependent, regional television stations existed,although their number has gradually grown. As aresult, Internews could establish close and continu-ous relationships with these stations. Moreover, theentrepreneurs who started these stations, and thejournalists who joined them, were relatively youngand dynamic; they were eager to learn and profitfrom any assistance program from any quarter.When Internews launched training projects, they responded with enthusiasm and initiative.Internews has also succeeded because of its emphasis on practical projects. It has designed training and other assistance programs that addressthe day-to-day problems faced by the regional tele-vision stations.

Internews consciously appealed to the economicself-interest of the managers and journalists, andonly indirectly to the ideology of a free press. Therehas been a distinctly apolitical undertone inInternews’s strategy, which has made it acceptableto a wide spectrum of end-users, despite the factthat it was largely funded by USAID. The statedobjective of its projects is to make the trainees more professional and the television stations more profitable.

Another major factor behind Internews’s success is itsleadership and staff. The director is a dynamic andrespected figure in the broadcast community. The

staff is well trained, committed, and willing to learn.Managers are not afraid of changing course, evenduring the middle of a program. Once a project isimplemented, they receive feedback through variousmechanisms to assess progress as well as failure.

Last, it is important to note USAID’s flexibility inimplementing funding for Internews’s programs aswell as its approach of allowing maximum opera-tional freedom. When Internews demonstratedpositive results very early, USAID developed a rel-atively hands-off approach that gave Internewsmaximum freedom to implement “Russian solu-tions” where U.S. model might have failed. Thispolicy continues today.

USAID-Supported Print Media ProgramUSAID’s program aimed mainly at the press wasfunded at just over $7 million from September1996 through September 2002. The program iscurrently administered through a partnership withthe Press Development Institute (PDI). PDI has adistinguished ancestry. Its predecessors, theRussian-American Press and Information Center(RAPIC) and the National Press Institute (NPI),were pioneers in exposing Russian journalists,human rights activists, and proponents of westernliberal democracy to the role and responsibilities of the free press.

Registered as a Russian NGO with a Russianboard of directors and founders, PDI inheritedNPI’s offices, key staff, institutional “culture,” andcenters in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg,Novosibirsk, Samara, and Vladivostok. Since 1998,NPI/PDI have undertaken a variety of activities,including

■ Press briefings and conferences. NPI/PDI contin-ued operating press centers, which held brief-ings, press conferences, and meetings on topicsof national and international importance. Thesecenters promoted political openness andaccountability by facilitating the exchange ofideas and public discussions. NPI/PDI particu-larly focused on human rights and freedom ofpress issues.

viii PPC Evaluation Working Paper No. 7

■ Educational and training programs. NPI/PDIhave also mounted various training exercises—single presentations and short seminars—put-ting forward Western journalistic standards and techniques and adapting them to Russianconditions.

■ Legal services. PDI now operates the NPI-estab-lished commercial law consulting service, whichperforms critical functions essential for thegrowth of independent media in Russia’sregions by helping newspapers write andenforce contracts and other legal documents.

■ Information services. NPI/PDI supported educa-tional programs for training news media profes-sionals in the use of the internet. PDI has alsoestablished an interactive database listing allindependent, regional print media to helpmonitor newspaper quality and assess the effec-tiveness of PDI’s programs.

USAID’s support clearly allowed NDI/PDI toestablish venues in five major provincial cities andMoscow, where journalists interested in improvingtheir performance can compare notes and consultoutside experts. It has also an enabled it to keepwatch on the strivings, advances, and setbacks ofprint media in large and small cities across Russia,and maintain at least informal contact with themost promising enterprises, their editors, and staff.

Above all, USAID’s assistance to NDI/PDI hasexposed many more journalists and publishers towestern standards of accuracy and objectivity inreporting, ways to seek advertising revenues, andmanaging a publication as a business.

ChallengesDespite these accomplishments, NDI/PDI’s overallimpact on the regional print media scene has beenmodest. Regional print media have registered onlylimited progress toward editorial and financialindependence during the past five years. A sizableportion of the regional newspapers depends uponthe patronage of political leaders, public officials,businessmen, and other interested individuals and

groups. These papers cannot survive without helpthat compromises their editorial independence.

Several factors shed light on the limited impact ofUSAID’s assistance on the regional print mediaespecially when compared to its remarkable contri-bution to the regional television stations.NDI/PDI had to deal with a large number ofnewspapers. More than 12,000 regional newspa-pers are registered. Assuming that even half areregularly published, it is beyond the technical andphysical resources of a single organization to reachthem. Moreover, many regional papers lack themanagerial and economic resources to take advan-tage of the training and other services provided byNPI/PDI. Many editors and publishers representan old generation that finds it hard to adapt to thenew realities. Besides, many newspapers cannotafford to spare staff for training in Moscow or theregional centers. Many more have difficulty afford-ing travel and other costs (since PDI rightly insiststhat they should share costs).

NPI did not pay enough attention to the issue ofthe financial viability of newspapers. In direct con-trast to Internews’s approach, NPI’s early, primaryfocus was on press freedom, journalistic standards,access to information, and supporting civil societyorganizations. Although this focus undoubtedlyhad some value in the aftermath of a totalitarianregime, the bigger problem is that journalistic inde-pendence generally—though not always—requiresfinancial independence. Unless a media outlet gen-erates enough revenue, it is likely to remain at themercy of whichever interest group or individual isfinancing it. Recognizing this fundamental weak-ness in its earlier approach, PDI has taken steps topromote financial independence of the regionalprint media.

NPI suffered from many management and organiza-tional problems, and these were inherited by PDI.The leadership is deeply divided and each unit seeksvigorously to guard its territory. Although the situa-tion has slightly improved in recent years, NPI/PDIfailed to provide much needed autonomy to theirregional centers. They controlled all resources—

Promoting Independent Media in Russia ix

technical and monetary—leaving little room forlocal initiative. Consequently, enthusiastic and ener-getic staffers at some regional centers became frus-trated, and some left.

Promoting the Media SectorParallel and related USAID-backed efforts, fundedat $14.7 million, fostered the development of theRussian media sector. The Russian-American MediaPartnership Project (RAMP), renamed the MediaDevelopment Program (MDP), provided $10.5 mil-lion to promote independent media, and was jointlyimplemented by Internews and NDI/PDI.RAMP/MDP supported 31 projects involving 66Russian organizations, 61 U.S. groups, and 9 othersbased in Europe. These projects ranged from foster-ing commercial media enterprises to providinginfrastructure support and professional training. Thetwo journalism training institutes that received sup-port—Pozner School of Broadcase Journalism andUral State University Journalism School—are stillfunctioning. Many RAMP/MDP-supported mediaassociations and organizations have emerged as pow-erful entities, playing an important role in themedia scene. The Glasnost Defense Foundation andInstitute for Information Laws are good examples.

Despite some achievements in improving the insti-tutional environment for independent media inRussia, two limitations seem to have adverselyaffected RAMP/MDP. First, its focus on partnershiprather than on promoting independent media hin-dered success. Experience showed that the focus ofsuch projects was generally dictated by the interestsof the two parties rather than the needs of themedia sector. The goals and outcome of the pro-grams became muddied, showing that such collabo-rative projects were not the best mechanism for pro-moting an independent media sector. Second,RAMP/MDP lacked a coherent strategy for pro-moting independent media in Russia. Fundingprojects with differing focus and approaches failedto produce synergy; impacts were isolated and spas-modic.

LessonsFrom the analysis and conclusions above flow anumber of lessons derived from the analysis ofmedia support programs in Russia.

1. Even in a highly complex political transition,carefully planned media programs can make adifference by contributing to the growth ofnonstate media.

2. A comprehensive strategy for promoting inde-pendent media should focus on the economicviability of privatized or newly establishedmedia outlets, institutionalization of the normsof professional ethics, and enabling other voicesto reach wider audiences.

3. The term “independent media” can createunjustified complacency in policy circles: itgives the impression that privatized or newlyestablished nonstate media are essentially inde-pendent simply because they are not owned bythe state.

4. USAID’s policy of assisting only nonstatemedia is essentially sound, but program managers should enjoy flexibility in imple-menting it.

5. In transition societies, when concerns aboutmedia assistance from former adversaries exist,the prudent course is to focus on skills andtraining, not on content.

6. As a result of privatization and commercializa-tion, many educational and cultural programsformerly shown on state-owned television havebeen crowded out by entertainment program-ming. The designers of USAID media programsshould recognize this development and, whenpossible, take steps that widen access to andincrease the quantity of educational and cultur-al programs during transition.

x PPC Evaluation Working Paper No. 7

1. Introduction

For many years, USAID has supported a widevariety of media projects and programs forbuilding viable democratic institutions and

reducing political tensions in transition and devel-oping countries. In addition to generous fundingfor educational and training programs for journal-ists, the Agency has trained managers of mediaenterprises in accounting and business managementand given technical assistance to media outlets sothat they can become economically viable and sus-tainable. Still more importantly, USAID has helpedbuild an enabling environment in which independ-ent, professional media can grow and prosper. It isestimated that USAID has spent over $260 millionin media assistance since the mid-1980s.

The Bureau for Policy and Program Coordination(PPC) has undertaken a global assessment ofUSAID’s media assistance programs. The objectiveis to draw policy and operational lessons to improveboth the effectiveness and relevance of futureUSAID media assistance.

PPC selected the Russian Federation as one of thefieldwork countries for many reasons, not leastbecause it has been the largest recipient of USAID’smedia assistance. Over the past decade, USAID hasspent more than $44 million on promoting non-state media in the Russian Federation. The sheersize of the assistance necessitates an objective lookat its achievements, impacts, and limitations.Moreover, not only has the program been quitelarge, it has focused on both broadcast and printmedia. Consequently, it offers a wide range of les-sons that can be useful for the international donor

community in developing new and innovative programs in other parts of the world. Finally, Russia is a former superpower; the whole world hasa paramount interest in its transformation to a free,democratic society. The growth and maturation ofindependent and responsible media are integralparts of the democratization process.

As with other country assessments, PPC followed a multipronged strategy for data collection and analysis. It began with a systematic review of the program documents and interviews withUSAID’s partners, particularly Internews and theInternational Research and Exchanges Board(IREX), which run USAID media programs in thecountry. USAID’s Bureau for Democracy, Conflict,and Humanitarian Assistance also prepared a partialbackground paper for the assessment team and senta three-member team to Russia.

The team spent three weeks in Russia (September20–October 12, 2002), and individually or collectively met staff of USAID and its partnerorganizations, project managers, and program beneficiaries. In addition, team members also interviewed many leaders of NGOs involved inpromoting independent media. Finally, the teammet with many media experts and professionals.Team members visited program sites in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Nizhny Novgorod, Tomsk, andYekaterinburg. The annex lists the names and affiliations of persons met in Russia.

In presenting the main findings and conclusions of the assessment, this report seeks to answer thefollowing questions:

Promoting Independent Media in Russia


■ What has been the nature and focus ofUSAID’s media assistance program in Russia?How did the program evolve over time? Whatprogramming strategies did it follow?

■ What have been the achievements and short-comings of media interventions? What types ofresults did they achieve? What factors affectedthe effectiveness of media programs?

■ What has been the overall effectiveness ofUSAID media assistance on promoting independent, sustainable media?

■ What are the policy and programmatic lessonsfor future USAID media assistance programs?

The reminder of this report is organized as follows:Chapter 2 summarizes recent developments inRussian media. Chapter 3 explains the growth ofmedia assistance programs and gives brief detailsabout each of USAID’s major programs. Chapters4 and 5 examine in detail the nature of USAIDprogram achievements and shortcomings in broad-cast and print media. Chapter 6 discusses theUSAID-funded programs designed to assist themedia sector as a whole. Chapter 7 identifies criti-cal policy and operational lessons.

2. The Media Scene inRussia

The past 15 years have brought significantchange to the Russian media. Although thecountry has far to go in establishing inde-

pendent and responsive media, the sector has beenrapidly transformed. However, the change has notalways been linear, and apparent progress has beenfollowed by setbacks and regressions. This chapterlooks closely at those developments and the present situation to provide a backdrop for USAID-supported media interventions in Russia.

Under the communist regime that held powerfrom 1917 to 1991, the media came underabsolute governmental control. Soviet leadersunderstood the role of mass media in mobilizingpeople for revolutionary change, legitimizing their

tenuous hold over the vast and diverse country,and promoting communist ideology at home andabroad. Therefore, the regime controlled the mediaby promoting state and party ownership, enforcingstrict censorship, and, most importantly, institu-tionalizing a system that mandated self-censorshipby journalists. It allowed only trusted party loyal-ists to manage media outlets; edit newspapers,periodicals, and news bulletins on radio and television; manage the TASS news agency; andcontrol publication of books, films, and documen-taries. The regime also centralized the media;information flowed from Moscow to the union’sconsistuent republics and states. Obsessed with the destabilizing effects of information and ideasemanating from abroad, the regime took everypossible step to prevent their flow, although notalways successfully.

Winds of Change (1987–90)The situation began to change with the launch ofperestroika and glasnost in the 1980s. The newleadership under Mikhail Gorbachev (who came topower in 1985) sought the help of progressive sec-tions of the media in on-again, off-again efforts toopen the Soviet system. A number of Moscowjournalists responded to this opportunity with cautious enthusiasm. Such publications as theweeklies Ogonyok and Argumenty i Fakty and thenational dailies, Izvestia and Moscow News, becameenergetic in exposing embarrassing secrets from the past, though they were only rarely active ininvestigating current controversies. It was a para-doxical development: the communist regimeallowed journalists much-vaunted freedom, but ona small scale.

Two private news agencies—Postfactum andInterfax—were also founded during this period,delivering news not available through the officialnews agency. This first wave of free expression wasfueled by a desire to “recover” Soviet history and toadvance unofficial points of view and priorities.Given the public appetite for disclosures and con-tinuation of government financing, publicationsgave little or no attention to the economic viabilityof their enterprises.

2 PPC Evaluation Working Paper No. 7

A notable development during this period was the1990 adoption of the breakthrough law on thepress and other media. It guaranteed freedom ofpress, abolished censorship, and, in tandem withother measures to encourage privatization, recog-nized the right to establish privately owned media.The law also provided for the independence of edi-torial bodies and journalism collectives, but not forenforceable rights of access to information.

Growth of Commercial Media(1991–95)Under the presidency of Boris Yeltsin (1991–99),the government of the newly formed RussianFederation significantly reduced its control over themedia. The country witnessed increasing privatiza-tion and decentralization of the media system andthe emergence of independent voices in print andon the air.

The Communist Party press—notably the party’sflagship newspaper, Pravda—collapsed during thisperiod. Journalists and other groups outside thecapital launched thousands of newspapers and periodicals, opening a new era in the print media.Many newspapers were launched with the intent ofmaking money. A minority targeted at special audi-ences evolved into profitable or break-even businessenterprises, but a significant (even growing) share ofgeneral interest newspaper publishers invested inmedia for purposes of political influence rather thanprofits or public service. Powerful business interests,local politicians, or wealthy businessmen labeled as“oligarchs” increasingly supported these publica-tions. The unfortunate tradition of political andeconomic interests patronizing media tended togrow after the mid-1990s, at national as well asregional levels.

Some advertising circulars distributed for free wereintended to be a profitable business. High circula-tion and new forms of advertising also producedsubstantial earnings for some publications andbroadcast outlets—at least until sharp economicdownturns cut into disposable income.

Cost savings were not a major concern for all theold-school or upstart papers of the early 1990s.

Newspaper managers willing to echo official politi-cal views could tap state subsidies—from both fed-eration and regional budgets—that averaged $4,100a year as late as 2001, when 1,956 papers—morethan half the estimated total in the regions—received such help (RAMED 2002, 8).

However, as a result of a rapid rise in the prices ofnewsprint, inadequate advertising revenues, and thedecline of state subsidies, print media growth cameto a halt and actually reversed. For example, duringthe Soviet era, the combined circulation of the cen-tral newspapers amounted to 100 million copies.That number declined to 24 million in 1992, as broadcast media gained both audience and adver-tising income (Rantanen 2002, 30). As publichunger for revelations about the past diminished,free television provided entertainment.

The government allowed the partial privatization ofChannel 1, creating a new TV giant, ORT.Although the state still owned 51 percent of itsshares, the rest were passed to a consortium of banksand other industrial interests. The central govern-ment in Moscow retained control of Channel 2(RTR), and has recently recentralized management.Despite the endurance of state-owned television net-works, fundamental changes in the broadcast sectornevertheless occurred in the early to mid-1990s. Inparticular, several hundred independent regional tel-evision stations emerged and developed.

Rise and Fall of Media Empires(1996–2001)By the end of 1996, a few national media baronshad emerged to take control over most of thenational television networks and a number of influ-ential dailies and weeklies. Two men, in particular,accumulated vast resources by taking advantage ofprivatization of the state enterprises, financialmanipulation, and their proximity to power. BorisBerezovsky acquired control of some part of televi-sion channels ORT and TV-6 (particularly severalnews and editorial shows); newspapers NezavisimayaGazeta, Novye Izvesty, and Kommersant, and a num-ber of weekly political, business, and entertainmentmagazines (Fossato 2001, 345). Vladimir Guzinsky,who owned NTV, a private television network, also


acquired a national reach through his companyMedia Most. On a smaller scale, Vladimir Potanincreated Prof-Media by merging Russky Telegraph andIzvestia newspapers. These “barons,” like many oth-ers, saw the media more as a source of politicalpower enabling them to influence the governmentrather than as a direct source of profit.

After the 1996 elections, the media barons who hadjoined hands to elect President Yeltsin started feud-ing. These so-called media wars were not about pol-icy or ideology, but for privileged access to yet-to-be-privatized state property and influence over thegovernment. In this information war, “the opposingpositions of battling oligarchs were proclaimed ondifferent channels’ national news programs and onthe pages of the papers they owned” (InternewsNetwork 2002, 4).

The economic crisis of 1998 had negative effectson the media. First and foremost, it brought a70–90 percent decline in advertising revenues, arise in prices of imported commodities, high infla-tion, and a rapid decline in business activity, all ofwhich posed a major challenge to the survival ofemerging nonstate media enterprises. The decliningeconomic fortunes of “patrons” who had subsidizedfavorite media outlets made it difficult for them tocontinue their assistance at past levels. Ironically,the economic crisis pushed the media toward eco-nomic independence, as owners were forced tofocus on the business side of their media enterpris-es. Many independent broadcasters gave addedattention to business management. On the otherhand, many regional publishers forsook independ-ence for subsidization by local politicians or largeenterprises.

Since 1999, the Putin government has sought toincrease its influence over the media, particularlythe broadcast media. It engineered the downfall ofBerezovsky and Guzinsky and liquidated TV-6. Inits most recent act of intimidation, the Kremlinfired its own handpicked head of NTV after twoyears on the job, reportedly because of the net-work’s continuing attempts to assert some editorialindependence. It established a new Ministry ofPrint and Broadcast Media to play a more active

role in the media sector. The government has beenalso trying to improve the functioning of state-owned media enterprises. Such efforts—including apush to rewrite the media law—have created appre-hension among those who believe in free andresponsible media.

Current StatusSeveral publications such as Argumenti i Fakty,Komsomolskaya Pravda, and Izvestia have substantialnationwide audiences. Most of these newspapers areprinted in Moscow, often adding a small supple-ment to their different regional editions. The coun-try has about 33,000 officially registered publica-tions—most of them tiny, infrequent, and evennonpublishing. Of these, two-thirds are termednewspapers and the remainder magazines(Internews Network 2002, 12).

There is a general consensus among experts that amajority of the regional newspapers are not eco-nomically viable. They manage to survive only withpolitical or business underwriting. Their presenceposes a major problem for the growth of independ-ent regional print media. It also makes it difficultfor international donor agencies to provide assis-tance to regional newspapers in ways that discrimi-nate between publishers genuinely aspiring to inde-pendence and others who have become partisan toone degree or another.

Only four television companies—ORT, RTR,NTV, and Channel 6—have national reachthrough either direct relay transmission or affilia-tion rebroadcast agreements with individual region-al stations (Internews Russia and USA 2000, 2). Inaddition, many commercial networks such as REN-TV, TNT, and CTC and Russian MTV also broad-cast in multiple cities, as does Kultura, a highbrownoncommercial channel.

The most significant development in the broadcastmedia after the collapse of the Soviet Union hasbeen the growth of regional television stations.There are about 700 commercial regional televisionstations operating in the country. The profit mar-gins for the stations in large cities are encouragingbecause of growing advertising markets. The major-


ity of these regional stations produce news, andhave trained staff and steady advertising income(Internews Network 2002, 15). Most of them arerelated to various media groups or holding compa-nies in much the same way that local American sta-tions are affiliated to national networks.

Of the 534 radio stations operating in Russia, 391are commercial; the rest are owned by the state,municipal bodies, or NGOs (Internews Network2002, 12). Most of the commercial stations areaffiliates of such networks as Europa Plus andRuskoe Radio. Unaffiliated stations find it difficultto compete with network affiliates and have a limit-ed share of advertising revenues. Most commercialstations conform to the news and entertainmentformat. The audience of commercial radio has beenincreasing over time, reaching about 45 percent ofhouseholds. In addition, foreign radio broadcast-ers—such as Radio Liberty and the BBC, jammedin Soviet times—are increasingly regarded as reli-able sources of information the state seeks to spinor suppress.

3. History and Focus of theMedia Assistance Program

Against the backdrop of the precedingoverview of the emergence of the media sec-tor in postcommunist Russia, this chapter

describes the evolution of USAID’s media pro-grams, their substantive focus, and budgetary allo-cations. In addition to concentrating heavily on thedevelopment of regional media—on the groundsboth of the need for them and their seemingprospects for asserting and sustaining a measure ofpolitical independence—four general characteristicsregarding these programs should be noted.

First, media assistance strategies evolved over time,partly due to rapidly changing conditions, but alsodue in part to some trial-and-error experimenta-tion that tested new ideas under unprecedentedhistorical conditions. While other postauthoritari-an media transitions (including east-central Europe after 1989) provided some shared lessons,post-Soviet Russia and the Commonwealth ofIndependent States presented unique challenges.Neither the Russians nor the Western donor com-

munity had any experience with the attemptedtransition by such large, entrenched, centralizedeconomies toward market-oriented democratic systems.

Accordingly, USAID Russia in the earliest yearsfocused on the clearest, most obvious needs: jour-nalism training (often combined with productionassistance) to assist overcoming ingrained habits ofseven decades of state censorship. Business develop-ment and management training also began receiv-ing attention fairly early on. New and evolvingchallenges required ongoing observation and pro-grammatic shifts (with various levels of effective-ness) by USAID and its partners. Such challengesincluded the positive development of increasinglysophisticated media and advertising markets togeth-er with the entry of politically motivated invest-ment in the media sector by so-called “oligarchs”after the mid-1990s, the financial crisis of 1998,and a multitude of attempts over the years byregional and national authorities to reimpose statecontrols.

Second, USAID has largely focused on training andtechnical assistance. Only during the financial crisisof 1998 did the Agency provide limited economicand commodity assistance to selected media outlets.The Eurasia Foundation, which receives about halfits funding from USAID, and its offshoot, theMedia Viability Fund (MVF)—a recipient of signif-icant startup support—have also provided financialsupport for specific projects, including facilitatingloans. However, USAID has generally avoided directeconomic assistance, a strategy that proved to besensible. Russia is not a developing country lackingin economic and human resources. What it lackedin the past—and perhaps still does—is the technicaland organizational expertise in managing commer-cial media. USAID and its partners have tried to fillthis gap by undertaking a wide variety of training and educational programs. Absence ofdirect economic assistance has prevented mediadependence on external assistance and encouragedsome local media professionals to build and sustaineconomically viable enterprises.


Third, USAID has mostly worked with local part-ners. In the broadcast sector, USAID has collabo-rated exclusively with Internews/Russia, a localNGO registered under Russian law with an inde-pendent board and almost entirely Russian staffand management.1 However, for reasons of admin-istrative efficiency and improved security of bank-ing transactions (U.S. bank deposits are moresecure than those in the Russian system), USAID’sfunds are channeled through the parent InternewsNetwork, a U.S. NGO.

During the past decade, Internews has reduced itsfinancial dependence on USAID and has earned areputation as a premier media NGO in Russia. Ithas also trained local professionals who haveassumed practically all training and technical assis-tance responsibilities. USAID’s partner in the printmedia, the Press Development Institute (PDI), isthe successor to the Russian-American Press andInformation Center (RAPIC) and the NationalPress Institute (NPI), and is registered as an inde-pendent media NGO. As with Internews, USAIDassistance to PDI is channeled through IREX.

Partnership with local institutions has had manyadvantages. Many people did not view USAID-funded activities as the projects of a foreign powerbut rather of their own organizations. Such organi-zations have been more responsive to local needsand political realities. Moreover, such an approachhas been quite cost effective.

Finally, USAID has taken into consideration thegeopolitical realities of the country from the begin-ning. The Agency recognized Russia’s vast economicand educational resources and its status as a formersuperpower. Russia is unlike developing or othertransition countries that have received USAID assis-tance. Despite its economic problems, Russia isgradually emerging as a major economic power.Moreover, it has a vast reservoir of educated, trained manpower and its own cultural traditions.Consequently, USAID started with the premise thatit is up to Russians to shape the nature and focus oftheir media sector. The aim of USAID-supported

programs is not to reproduce the U.S. media sector,but to help the Russians develop their own institu-tions to promote and sustain independent media.

Level of USAID AssistanceTable 1 summarizes USAID media assistance toRussia. It classifies USAID’s funding under threecategories: mainly for television, mainly for press,and funding for the sector as a whole. The tableshows that, roughly speaking, television hasreceived three times as much assistance as the printmedia. It also indicates that, in addition to directinstitution-building activities, USAID has providedassistance for using media for special purposes suchas holding elections and preventing domestic vio-lence. Although these two projects may have hadpositive effects on increasing local media skills andcapabilities, that was not their primary intention.

Descriptions of USAID’s ProgramsA brief description of each program gives an idea ofthe range of USAID support.

■ Independent Television Project (ITV): $18.11million, June 1992–September 2002ITV represents USAID’s largest and most sus-tained media assistance activity in Russia.Although aimed primarily at developing inde-pendent, regional television, USAID also usedthis program to support other activities, including media sector association building and media law activities. Internews has beenmanaging this large program since the begin-ning and has made a remarkable contributionto the growth of regional, independent television stations (see Chapter 3).

■ Emergency Media Assistance Program (EMAP):$2.27 million, March 1999–August 2000This special project was implemented in part-nership with Internews in response to the eco-nomic and political crisis spawned by the rublecrash of August 1998. The instability of theeconomy posed a threat to the survival of inde-pendent television stations because advertisingrevenues dried up overnight. Internews used the1 Internews/Russia is referred to as Internews in the rest of this report.


grant to support broadcasters’ associations andlegal organizations, and to develop and distrib-ute television programs to participating televi-sion stations.

■ Children’s Television Workshop (CTW): $2.00million, September 1994–December 1996To produce the Russian version of SesameStreet, (Ulitsa Sezam), USAID and other cofun-ders supported CTW to work with VideoArt,at that time a leading Russian advertisingagency in Moscow. The program was adapted,designed, and developed by the Russian part-ners, though it built on the tradition of SesameStreet and its humanized puppet figures(Muppets). Under the direction of a Russian-speaking U.S. executive producer with previousexperience working in U.S. television networknews in Russia, more than 300 Russianresearchers, writers, directors, artists, and edu-cational specialists were employed to produceculturally sensitive, half-hour shows for a 52-episode series—sufficient for two annual sea-sons. The episodes were broadcast three days a

week for two years on Russia’s first nationalindependent network, NTV, and weekly onRussia’s largest network, ORT. Ulitsa Sezamhas enjoyed high popularity among youngaudiences. Research has demonstrated thatviewers received significant educational bene-fits, including improvement of skills in theareas of mathematics, communications, andconflict resolution. In 2002, production ofUlitsa Sezam became economically self-sustain-ing. With completely private funding, the program began production of a third season ofthe program to be aired on the STS network.

■ Press Development Institute (PDI): $6.3 million,September 1997–September 2002 This project focuses on the print media, andhas been supporting PDI and its predecessor,RAPIC and NPI. Together, PDI/NPI haveundertaken a wide variety of activities to support print media, particularly regional newspapers. They have held regular briefingsfor the press, conducted training programs forprint journalists, and provided on- and off-site

Table 1. USAID Media-Related Assistance to Russia(Budget in million dollars)

Jun 1992–Sep 2002 Budget

Mainly TelevisionIndependent Television Project (Internews) Jun 1992–Sep 2002 18.11*Emergency Media Assistance Program Mar 1999–Aug 2000 2.27Children’s Television Workshop Sep 1994–Dec 1996 2.00

Mainly PressPress Institute (RAPIC/NPI/PDI) Sep 1997–Sep 2002 6.30* Media Viability Fund (MVF) Sep 1996–Jul 1997 0.75

Media as a SectorMedia Development Program (MDP) Sep 1994–May 1998 10.50Eurasia Fund Small Grants 1999–2002 3.67 IFES Media and Elections Program Jun 1999–Sep 2002 0.50

Approximate Total Jun 1992–Sep 2002 44.12

* The grant of $1,082,000 to the Independent Television Project (Internews) to administer temporarily the Press Development Institute in2000–01 has been subtracted from the Internews “Mainly Television” entry and added to the Press Institute “Mainly Press” entry to avoid double counting.


management and legal consulting to printmedia enterprises. NPI also established a com-mercial law consulting service to help inde-pendent newspaper publishers fight harassmentfrom local and national authorities. The activi-ties of NPI/PDI are discussed in Chapter 5.

■ Media Viability Fund (MVF): $750,000($500,000 from USAID Russia and $250,000from USAID Washington), 1996–97 MVF facilitates loans to publishers in the former Soviet Union to purchase and installmodern printing presses. Since making its firstgrants in 1996–97, USAID has indirectly supported MVF through the EurasiaFoundation. MVF has provided managementand other training, and arranged loans for thepurchase of modern printing presses by fourRussian publishers. Chapter 5 describes itsactivities.

■ Media Development Program (MDP): $10.5million, September 1994–May 1998This project was established by USAID cooperative agreements with Internews andNPI/RAPIC, the predecessors of PDI. The program used grants to help NGOs supportingindependent media, assist independent televi-sion stations and newspapers become economi-cally viable, and promote the growth of anenabling environment for independent media.Its activities are discussed in Chapter 6.

■ Eurasia Foundation Small Grants: $3.67 million,1999–2002Eurasia Foundation is a privately managedgrantmaking body dedicated to funding initia-tives that build democratic and free marketinstitutions in the former Soviet Union.USAID provided this grant to the foundation’scivil society programs, which emphasize thefinancial sustainability of media organizationsand a favorable legal and regulatory environ-ment for the free press. Chapter 6 describes the media sector activities undertaken by thefoundation.

■ International Foundation for Electoral Systems(IFES) Media and Election Program: $500,000,June 1999–September 2000USAID provided this grant to IFES to promotetransparency in Russian elections by promotingbalanced and objective coverage in the media. Itworked with NPI and Internews to organize aseries of media seminars for broadcast and printmedia journalists to expose them to the estab-lished norms of press coverage of elections,their rights and obligations, and the problemsthat the media face during elections. It alsopublished a training package for distributionamong the participants. Although it is difficultto assess its impact on the freeness and fairnessof elections, it can be safely said that this proj-ect advanced Russian journalists’ understandingof free and competitive elections.

4. Contribution toBroadcast Media

As indicated in Chapter 3, Internews hasbeen USAID’s major partner in the broad-cast media and has received the largest

share of assistance. Although Internews has under-taken different kinds of activities to promote inde-pendent media in Russia, its primary focus hasbeen on assisting emerging, independent, regionaltelevision stations. With dynamic leadership andinnovative program strategies, Internews hasemerged as a major media NGO in the RussianFederation. This chapter focuses on the activitiescarried out by Internews during the past 10 yearswith USAID assistance, including funding underITV and EMAP.

Evolution of Programs andStrategiesWhen it started in 1992, the focus of Internews’straining programs was on broadcast journalism, asthe level of professionalism was extremely low inthe country. Even in Moscow, the journalistsstaffing the first independent stations lacked anunderstanding of the fundamentals of broadcastjournalism. Conditions were undoubtedly worse in


the regions. Under these circumstances, the focuson journalism training was appropriate and provedto be the first step toward the professionalizationof the broadcast media.

While reviewing the effectiveness of its training pro-grams, Internews found that its trainees were notable to make use of the skills and knowledge theyhad acquired. A major barrier was that the managersof the television stations did not understand thenorms and techniques of broadcast journalism. Tothem, some of the practices that their journalistswanted to introduce were almost “revolutionary.”Internews realized that the best solution to theproblem was to train the managers along with thejournalists. As a result, it launched training programs for managers.

Internews also recognized that the newly estab-lished television stations could not survive—muchless follow the norms of a free press—unless theywere financially viable, operating as profitablebusiness enterprises and using sound business andmanagement practices. Therefore, Internews start-ed a new series of training seminars covering sta-tion management, accounting, advertising, andsales. In addition to traditional training seminarsinvolving several dozen participants at once, broad-casting consultants in management and journalismbegan visiting stations on a much more focusedand intensive team basis. The goal was to create atwo-pronged plan to enable the news and stationmanagers to reach new levels of understanding.

After a base of stations with a clear understandingof news production, programming, and advertisingbegan to emerge, Internews broadened its focus toinclude more networking of stations throughshared programming and moved on to the nextstep of successful station growth—broadcast man-agement. It also helped in the production and dis-tribution of programs that could be used by region-al television stations. From early on, moreover,Internews worked to improve the enabling envi-ronment for the growth of independent broadcastmedia.

Activities

Training Programs for BroadcastJournalismA major activity of Internews has been the trainingof television journalists. It is estimated that nearly5,000 broadcast journalists have been trained—closeto half the total participants in all Internews instruc-tional undertakings. (The actual number might belower, as some journalists may have received multipletrainings in various journalism disciplines.)

The five-day seminars were designed to teach basicbroadcasting and journalism theory, skills, and tech-niques. Most are held outside Moscow, in differentregions. Although originally Internews dependedupon western trainers, it is now generally able tofind experienced Russian television professionals toconduct the seminars. The use of Russian profession-als has cut the cost of the training, thereby enablingInternews to provide training to a larger number ofjournalists within the same budget.

A typical broadcast training seminar includes ashort course in theory, followed by the basics oftelevision journalism—the power of pictures, writing text to pictures, interviewing techniques,camera and sound skills, and editing techniques.Classes number approximately 20 participants andare led by two trainers. Internews and the localhost station provide the equipment. Each coursepairs a reporter with a camera operator. During theseminar, participants work together or alone tofocus on specific skills. Trainees interact in a real-life newsroom atmosphere, looking for local storiesto cover, with trainers acting as executive produc-ers or news managers.

In addition to such seminars, Internews has devel-oped advanced training seminars on investigativejournalism, TV news magazine production, politi-cal reporting, election coverage, and legal issuesrelated to news gathering. Seminars on investigativereporting teach the trainees how to cover in-depthsuch sensitive issues as human trafficking, childpornography, offshore investment, and capital


flight. By working with Russian organizations suchas the Agency for Investigative Journalism and theGuild for Court Reporters, media professionals areable to practice investigative journalism.

Because of the varied forms of political pressure inRussia and a widespread unfamiliarity with themedia laws in the country, Internews has support-ed legal training seminars. They have been largelyconducted in conjunction with organizations suchas the Moscow Media Law and Policy Center(MLPC)—renamed the Institute for InformationLaw—and the Glasnost Defense Foundation(GDF). Internews has also organized seminars toteach broadcast journalists the norms and practiceof election coverage and reporting.

The short-term training programs have had short-comings. Some experts have questioned the con-tinuing need for these seminars, as regional televi-sion journalists have rapidly grown more sophisti-cated in basic news production techniques. Othershave expressed doubts about the qualifications ofthe trainees. As one educator familiar with the pro-gram told the team: “As a teacher, I could see thatthe background of some of the people wasn’t highenough. … The people for the program were notproperly chosen, and some were simply sent orchosen because they got to come for free.” Stillothers have stressed the need for longer trainingcourses. Both USAID and Internews are aware ofthe problem, and the training program was sched-uled to be reviewed in December 2002 to makeappropriate adjustments and determine its futuredirection.

Internews also operates a five-week journalismschool. The school goes beyond basic techniques,providing select groups of promising journalistswith in-depth instruction on broadcast journal-ism. The school brings practicing journalists fromall over Russia and abroad to teach courses inreporting, camerawork, and editing, as well assupplemental courses on journalistic ethics, legalissues, and investigative journalism. Each sessionof the journalism school has one primary trainer

and includes 10–15 guest lecturers speaking about specialized aspects of the television industry.2

There is little doubt that these journalism trainingprograms have upgraded the skills and expertise ofthe regional television stations. Moreover, the con-tacts established between participants have provenbeneficial to their professional development. Theshort-term seminars have also provided opportuni-ties for host stations to highlight the work of sisterstations on their newscasts on an informal basis,with fellow students often taking copies of storiesback home to air on their own stations.

Improving Management and FinancialViabilitySince the early 1990s, Internews has also focusedon improving the management and financial via-bility of regional television stations, undertakingtraining seminars on management, marketing andadvertisement, and design and technology. Themanagement seminars impart instruction on modern management techniques, newsroom management, and investing. These seminars areconducted in the same manner as the training seminars on broadcast journalism. Managers fromWestern or Russian stations of similar size andwith similar development issues spend several daysor weeks recreating real-life scenarios and usingcase studies from the stations to explore variousmanagement and financial issues.

In addition, Internews conducts training seminarson marketing and advertising. Such training hasproven essential, since the survival of a stationlargely depends upon its advertising revenues.These training programs have been extremely pop-ular, and, after broadcast journalism, have attractedthe largest number of trainees. Closely related tothese are training seminars on design and promo-tion, as the stations need to design commercialsthat attract attention.

2 The school is operated in cooperation with and under the name ofwell-known Russian broadcast journalist Vladimir Pozner.


Since technology changes very rapidly in broadcastmedia, Internews provides training to television sta-tions to upgrade skills and technology on a regularbasis. When an independent television station islaunched, it usually begins with the most inexpen-sive equipment it can obtain. The use of suchequipment does not require much training andexperience; however, once the station becomesmore established, it must upgrade its equipment.Therefore, professional technical training isrequired to help stations learn to use their new andexisting equipment as efficiently as possible. Suchtraining includes camera techniques, editing, light-ing, and shooting in difficult conditions.

Management training programs are prized by struggling and well-established regional televisionstations. Over the past decade, about 7,000 peoplehave attended these seminars (Tables 2 and 3).

Programming and DisseminationIn addition to training, Internews has implement-ed many projects to produce and disseminate television programs for regional television stations.

Local Time was designed as a horizontalnews exchange program with 20 participat-ing independent stations. They wererequired to produce a news spot, first once amonth, and then gradually progressing toonce a week. A story was produced andedited at the local regional station with theproviso that it must have broader interestoutside the region and for other towns andcities in Russia. Often the first pieces wereflawed—lengthy and lacking productionquality and objectivity. Internews’s Moscowstaff used the submissions as opportunitiesto confer with and critique the stations onboth journalistic and technical issues, creat-ing a kind of correspondence course in jour-nalism training. These stories were assem-bled in Moscow with a taped anchor seg-ment into a 30-minute program; the fin-ished program was returned to the con-tributing stations by satellite.

In many cases, this was the first original program-ming many of these stations had ever aired, andinformation-starved audiences responded over-whelmingly. This response provided the base the sta-tions needed to attract attention and sell advertising.Within months, some of the more energetic stationswere building on this success to begin producingtheir own news and analysis programs, most ofwhich were taped at first and aired only once aweek. Eventually, production of Local Time ended asthe regional stations learned to produce and sharestories without filtering them through Internews.

Open Skies was launched as a documentary distri-bution project to promote the broadcast of high-quality educational programming in 1994. Underthis project, stations received programs free ofcharge. During the first year, Open Skies providedseven hours per week of quality documentaries tointerested independent regional television stations,but the amount of programming was reduced tothree hours in 1996. When the program was con-ceived, the staff envisioned distributing moreWestern programming, but the focus graduallyshifted to domestically produced documentaries.

Table 2. Number of Internews Trainees, 1992–2002*

Seminars Trainees

Journalism seminars

Marketing and advertising

Management and investment seminars

Technical seminars

Promotion and design

Legal and elections seminars

Journalism school

* Figures may include returning students attending multiple seminars and do notinclude final year totals for 2002

4,661

3,313

1,546

1,040

651

354

328


USAID also funded the production of local docu-mentaries through a grant through the MDP. In1998, Internews moved Open Skies to the newlyestablished TNT network.

Since launching, more than 1,000 hours of this doc-umentary educational programming have beenshown on national commercial networks in hun-dreds of cities across Russia (Internews Network2002, 34). As Open Skies continues today, Internewsis also using the program as a vehicle to overcomewhat is described as “an alarming trend towards iso-lationism that has been emerging in Russia in recentyears” (Internews Network 2002, 34).

Open Skies was initially cofunded by the FordFoundation. In recent years, however, major changesin ownership of several independent national televi-sion networks resulted in subsequent changes intheir management. This affected previously agreed

to plans and schedules for airing and producingprograms by the stations, contributing to program-matic uncertainties. As a result, the FordFoundation cease, funding the program.

Provintsia was launched in 1999 by Internews as anew form of video exchange to provide cross-regional, human interest material for morningshows and other programs. Provintsia started with a “circle” of seven local stations exchangingmaterials. Each station sent “evergreen” stories toInternews and received in return a cassette with allthe other stations’ stories and the right to use themin their own broadcasts. By 2001, the number ofparticipating stations grew to 25; some editions ofthe cassettes regularly contained as many as 40news feature stories.

In 2001–02, a second circle of participating sta-tions was created, allowing two stations from the

Table 3. Internews Trainee Attendance by Year, 1992–2002

Journalism Technical Management Legal Journalism Marketing PromotionInvestment and Election School Advertising and Design Total

1992 134 0 10 0 0 0 0 144

1993 76 0 120 0 0 0 0 196

1994 98 0 108 0 0 0 31 237

1995 147 68 103 100 0 27 0 445

1996 69 7 39 0 46 25 0 186

1997 88 47 193 18 42 96 12 496

1998 239 157 54 78 20 52 0 600

1999 816 334 91 98 58 1,527 0 2,924

2000 821 84 57 29 46 1,250 290 2,577

2001 1,071 48 234 0 45 78 302 1,778

2002 (partial) 1,102 295 537 31 71 258 16 2,310

Total 4,661 1,040 1,546 354 328 3,313 651 11,893

Source: Internews Russia


same city to participate in Provintsia withoutreceiving the same material as a competitor.

SummaryThere is little doubt that USAID support hashelped Internews make a profound contribution to the growth and success of regional television stations. Although these stations have progressed atvarying rates—depending on local markets, politi-cal circumstances, and the commitment of man-agers—practically all have benefited from the pro-grams initiated and implemented by Internews.

Several factors contributed to this success. One isthat Internews focused on the relatively small seg-ment of the media eager to receive assistance. Whenit started its activities, only a few dozen independ-ent, regional television stations existed, althoughtheir number has gradually grown. As a result,Internews could establish close and continuous rela-tionships with these stations. Moreover, the entre-preneurs who started these stations, and the journal-ists who joined them, were relatively young anddynamic; they were eager to learn and profit fromany assistance program from any quarter. WhenInternews launched training projects, they respond-ed with enthusiasm and initiative. Internews hasalso succeeded because of its emphasis on practicalprojects. It has designed training and other assis-tance programs that address the day-to-day prob-lems faced by the regional television stations.3

Internews consciously appealed to the economicself-interest of the managers and journalists, andonly indirectly to the ideology of a free press. Therehas been a distinctly apolitical undertone inInternews’s strategy, which has made it acceptableto a wide spectrum of end-users, despite the factthat it was largely funded by USAID. The statedobjective of its projects is to make the trainees more professional and the television stations more profitable.

Another major factor behind Internews’s success isits leadership and staff. The director is a dynamicand respected figure in the broadcast community.The staff is well trained, committed, and willing tolearn. Managers are not afraid of changing course,even during the middle of a program. Once a proj-ect is implemented, they receive feedback throughvarious mechanisms to assess progress as well asfailure.

Last, it is important to note USAID’s flexibility inimplementing funding for Internews’s programs aswell as its approach of allowing maximum opera-tional freedom. When Internews demonstratedpositive results very early, USAID developed a rel-atively hands-off approach that gave Internewsmaximum freedom to implement “Russian solu-tions” where a U.S. model might have failed. Thispolicy continues today.

Challenges and Future Directions Some local observers expressed two concerns aboutInternews. First, although local media NGOsapplaud Internews’s contributions to the growth ofindependent media, they complain that its presenceoverwhelms the media development sector. Becauseof its prominent position, it has acquired an almostmonopolistic dominance. As a result, other NGOsare reluctant to offer similar services or undertakesimilar programs. They are afraid they will not beable to attract funds or capture the interest ofregional television stations.

Second, some media experts closely associated withthe present government have criticized Internews as anonindigenous organization because it primarilydepends on USAID funding. Such criticism is notjustified. Although it primarily depended on USAIDfor its programs during the 1990s, Internews isdiversifying its sources of funding. Moreover, it has amanagement board that prizes its independence.Both Internews and USAID are quite sensitive tothis concern.

One issue of concern about the future directions of USAID’s support to broadcast media relates tothe focus on assistance to television. Some experts

3 In an interview for this assessment, a manager of an independenttelevision station in Nizhny Novgorod cited Internews’ understandingof the technical limitations of the regional stations as an importantaspect of its training success. He stated that although the stations areshown the levels to which they can aspire, they are also shown howto work better with limited technical capacity.


suggest that USAID should move beyond mediaeducation and business development and look forways to support the development of more culturaland social programs. Because commercial stationsgive little play to programs on children, women,the disabled, the environment and conservation,and human rights, some critics say that Russian tel-evision is becoming too much like commercial tele-vision in the West and is abandoning the educa-tional aspect that characterized Russian televisionduring the Soviet era. To counter this criticism,some analysts have suggested that USAID focus onsocial programming and help develop local capaci-ties and interest in such programming. The SorosFoundation is looking for ways to support contentdevelopment on a very local level in order to sup-port more cultural and social programs.

Another issue is the shift from training to more for-mal education. Many analysts are now calling for aredirected focus on the education process in mediadevelopment—something more formalized thanseminars for midcareer professionals, perhapsorganized in conjunction with existing universityprograms. As one expert said with reference to thetraining programs conducted by Internews, “All ofthese schools and seminars are piecemeal and theyare not recognized in Russia as ‘real’ education butrather just teaching. We need to connect the com-munications schools somehow.”

Internews, aware of this concern, has taken steps to move beyond training seminars. It acquired aneducation license in 2001 from the Moscow CityEducational Committee that permits it to issue official diplomas and certificates to graduates of itsJournalism School and the School of Film andTelevision. Although this move upgrades Internews’seducational standing, it does not meet the stricterstandards of Russia’s conservative critics of inde-pendent television, who could implement new legalrequirements requiring journalists to have definededucational credentials. This would be a means ofcontrolling or shutting down many independentmedia outlets. Such a shift toward formalized jour-nalism education will require building cooperative

relationships with large and small regional state universities, a lengthy and difficult process.

5. USAID-Supported PrintMedia Program

This chapter briefly describes the activities ofUSAID-supported programs designed tofoster the development of independent,

regional print media and assesses their achieve-ments. Most such programs are being currentlyadministered through a partnership with PDI.Another program aimed primarily at the printmedia was the MVF, a joint project of the Eurasiaand Soros Foundations, which helped arrange loansto publishers to purchase and install modern print-ing presses.

Origin and DevelopmentPDI has a distinguished ancestry. Its predecessors,RAPIC and NPI, have been pioneers in exposingRussian journalists, human rights activists, and pro-ponents of Western liberal democracy to the rolesand responsibilities of the free press. RAPIC wasfounded in 1992 as a joint venture of New YorkUniversity’s (NYU) Center for War, Peace, and theNews Media, and the USA and Canada Institute ofthe Russian Academy of Science, a détente-erathinktank closely associated with the Soviet leader-ship. RAPIC’s original mission was to improveRussian media coverage (particularly of internation-al security issues) by providing journalists access toa wide range of information, thus contributing tomore balanced and accurate reporting.

In the mid-1990s, RAPIC changed its name toNPI, signifying its increased focus on promotingindependent and responsible print media in Russia.The institute embraced—but had a patchy record of implementing—a “sectoral” approach to mediadevelopment. Such an approach analyzes the differ-ent components of the media sector—print andbroadcast outlets, legal and regulatory regimes,advertising agencies, related industries that producecommunication machines and equipment, andtraining and educational facilities—as part of adynamic changing environment. The implication of


this approach is that international assistance shouldfocus not on a single element of the sector, but address major constraints to the development of theentire sector. Consequently, the institute focused onactivities designed not only to assist newspapers, butalso to facilitate the development of civil society andpublic participation.

USAID signed a cooperative agreement with NPIin 1997—after the expiry of a U.S. InformationAgency-RAPIC agreement—to provide a widerange of media assistance and services to independ-ent media. In 2000, after USAID ended its associa-tion with the NYU Center for War, Peace, and theNews Media, NPI was reborn as PDI, with a com-mitment to promote reliable, independent printmedia in Russia. Registered as a Russian NGOwith a Russian board of directors and founders,PDI inherited NPI’s offices, key staffers, institu-tional culture, and centers in Moscow, St.Petersburg, Yekaterinburg, Novosibirsk, Samara,and Vladivostok. A regional office in NizhnyNovgorod closed when USAID and NYU endedtheir relationship.

Activities Since 1998, NPI/PDI have undertaken the follow-ing categories of activities.

Press Briefings and ConferencesA major activity of NPI/PDI has been the operationof the press centers, which continue the RAPICpractice of holding briefings, press conferences, andmeetings on topics of national and internationalimportance. These centers facilitate the exchange ofideas and public discussions, thereby promotingpolitical openness and accountability, a centralRAPIC priority in its first years. Well-knownexperts, political leaders, visiting scholars, and pro-fessors hold briefings on economic and foreign poli-cy and on ecological, human rights, and nuclearissues. In many regions, NPI centers provide bothspace and facilities for opposition and civil societyactivists to hold press conferences and present theirviews to journalists.

NPI/PDI have particularly focused on human rightsand freedom of press issues. During 1997–2001,

they worked with at least 55 human rights organi-zations in Moscow and other regions, and wereinstrumental in highlighting numerous cases ofhuman rights violations. Some of the topics coveredin the briefings and conferences included the plightof Chechen refugees, torture and other violations bythe police, conditions in Russian prisons, and dis-crimination against non-Slavic Russian citizens.Nuclear safety issues and related environmentalconcerns have also been frequent subjects of pressbriefings.

The sheer number of briefings and press conferencesorganized by PDI and its predecessor is impressive.During its cooperative agreement with USAID(1997–2000), NPI organized over 2,300 briefingsand conferences, attended by 57,000 journalists(National Press Institute 2000a, 17). An additional222 such events were hosted by PDI betweenNovember 2000 and June 2001. It is estimated that“approximately 45,000 stories … appeared based onor informed by NPI Press Center events,” and thatpresenting those stories “helped to reduce thedependence of Russian journalists on official govern-ment sources, helping increase government account-ability to the public” (Internews Network 2001).

In the context of the public hunger for access topreviously forbidden information, the press centerfunction has been a valid means of advancing pressfreedom, especially in the first half of the 1990s. Ithelped improve the access of regional journalists tomany issues and topics vital to building an open,democratic order.

Educational and Training Programs NPI/PDI have also mounted various training exer-cises—single presentations and seminars rangingfrom one to five days in length. These sessions gen-erally put forward Western journalistic standardsand techniques and examined the possibility ofadapting them to Russian conditions. The topicsranged from investigative reporting to layout anddesign, basic newswriting, methods of generatingadvertising revenue and raising circulation, andmanagement, information technology, and onlineinternet journalism.


During 1998–2001, NPI/PDI organized 158 training seminars and roundtables on journalism,media management, and media technologies thatwere attended by 2,700 media professionals. Ofthese courses, 125 were held outside Moscow. Thecourses held in Moscow were targeted to regionalaudiences.

In the beginning, most trainers were foreign expertswho stayed in Russia for only a short time. Thoughwell established in their profession, they possessedlimited knowledge of the problems facing theRussian media. Often, they lectured rather thangave practical training. “Too much training I’veseen is not training,” commented a media consult-ant who has worked extensively in Russia. “It’s yapping. Lecturing. Crowing about the FirstAmendment. Western trainers talking about ‘how I did it.’ Not enough interactive training, notenough practice in seminars so that people getactual learning, not just theory.” Such training wasonly superficially useful. It even created tensionsbetween the trainers and the trainees, who resentedbeing lectured by foreigners with scant understand-ing of the local situations.4

Over time, however, qualified Russian instructorsbetter able to deal with the problems faced by theregional media have generally replaced visitingexperts. Although foreign consultants are still usedselectively when specialized knowledge is required,most now tend to be repeat visitors. They includespecialists who have remained as in-country resi-dents for months or years, and therefore applymuch more local knowledge of the Russian pressthan ever before.

Since its establishment in 2001, PDI has increasing-ly focused on the financial independence of regionalnewspapers. It has designed two- and three-dayseminars with significant practical content, and,with assistance from USAID, the World Bank, and

the Canadian International Development Agency,hired a small cadre of experts who combine techni-cal expertise with knowledge of the Russian printmedia and its needs. Its experts travel to regionaloffices to conduct training seminars.

Both the content and quality of the seminars haveimproved in recent years. The seminars are nowmore practical and less theoretical. The emphasis ison problem solving. A few enterprising regionalcenters have been able to tap the services of visitingexperts to give special seminars. The training pro-grams have been especially popular with smallnewspapers, which value the assistance they getfrom the institute.

Many media observers express a concern, however,that the skills and knowledge imparted duringtraining are not fully utilized. Often the journalistsare unable to put the advice they receive into prac-tice because of tight budgets and an unfavorablework environment. GDF President Alexei Simonovdescribed the daunting everyday reality: “You teacha journalist in the provinces how to improve hiswork, but he goes back to the newsroom, and he’sthe only one who knows. No one else there cares.”While there is some substance in the criticism, it should be noted that the utilization of anyknowledge occurs gradually; effects may not beimmediately visible.

Two weaknesses of the training seminars can be mentioned here. First, while coordinating scheduling and financing, PDI does not always survey its regional centers regarding the needs andinterests of local journalists. The training schedulesare often more tailored to the availability of instruc-tors and funding than to the needs of local editorsand publishers.

Second, there is little or no followup. PDI has notattempted to foster a network of its training gradu-ates, which would reinforce their commitment andpromote the utilization of newly acquired skills andinformation. In addition to training seminars, NPIand PDI have also arranged for onsite training at

4 A typical, early example of resistance came from a senior reporterin Moscow, who complained to a U.S. citizen preaching the virtue ofobjectivity in election coverage. “Let me get this right,” said theRussian. “For 70 years we have been waiting to say what we think.Now you’re telling us not to do this?”


newspapers. Local experts from an NPI/PDI rosterprovide such consulting. NPI arranged for 84 onsiteconsultations during its cooperative agreement withUSAID. Such onsite help has been useful to thesmall number of regional newspapers that receivedit. NPI/PDI published Russian translations of 10American journalism and management textbooks,which are increasingly being used in journalismtraining courses.

Legal ServicesBecause of a general shortage of lawyers specializingin media law, NPI established a commercial lawconsulting service in 1999. The service, now operat-ed by PDI, performs three critical functions essen-tial for the growth of independent media in Russia’sregions.

First, the legal service helps newspapers write andenforce contracts and other legal documents. Sincecommercial contracts are a recent innovation inRussia, this function is very important. Second, the service explains and clarifies for editors and publishers the often confusing rules and regulationsgoverning media ownership, management, and control. Such assistance also helps in ensuring newspapers’ compliance with legal requirements,especially on election campaign coverage and political advertising.

The service assists newspapers, albeit in a limitedfashion, to fight spurious lawsuits. This is importantbecause almost all Russian media enterprises share apotentially crippling vulnerability to legal pressuresarising from increasingly common defamation-of-character actions brought by political figures beforejudges who are often subject to political pressure.Aside from the cost of legal defense, the penalty insuch cases can be a forced retraction, or, if an editorrefuses to apologize, a fine.

In mid-2002, PDI began working with the GDF toencourage publishers to conduct an audit of all thedocumentation—as many as 300 separate legalforms—of their enterprise. The audit service, whichInternews and the Institute for Information Law(IIL) are offering to broadcasters, is intended as a

preventive measure against local political authoritiesmisusing the law to intimidate media owners.

The PDI legal service also responds to requests forassistance, including requests for second opinions toevaluate and support the work of local lawyersacross the country. Many questions are routine,involving labor relations, tax law, copyright andauthor rights, and advertising contracts. A significant number, however, concern the paper’sright to exist. During 2001 alone, “PDI lawyersprovided more than 200 individual consultations tothe representatives of the print media [editors, jour-nalists, accountants, and others]” (InternewsNetwork 2001, 77). In addition to providing indi-vidual consultations, PDI has also been organizingseminars on legal issues in the regions and hasdeveloped a database of lawyers in different regionswho work with newspapers on media law issues.

Information ServicesNPI/PDI have also supported educational pro-grams for training news media professionals in theuse of the internet. They developed a series ofcourses in cyberjournalism; the two most popularare “The ABCs of Online Newspapers: FromConcept to Implementation” and “The Internetand Online Journalism.” By June 2000, the centerhad held roughly 90 workshops to train more than1,500 journalists, journalism teachers, and stu-dents in methods of using the internet to gainaccess to information and disseminate it withgreater freedom. Most of the training occurred inMoscow, but 70 percent of the trainees came fromthe regions.

SummaryUSAID’s support clearly allowed NDI/PDI toestablish venues in five major provincial cities andMoscow, where journalists interested in improvingtheir performance can compare notes and consultoutside experts. It has also an enabled it to keepwatch on the strivings, advances, and setbacks ofprint media in large and small cities across Russia,and maintain at least informal contact with themost promising enterprises, their editors, and staff.


Above all, USAID’s assistance to NDI/PDI hasexposed many more journalists and publishers towestern standards of accuracy and objectivity inreporting, ways to seek advertising revenues, andmanaging a publication as a business.

ChallengesDespite these accomplishments, NDI/PDI’s overallimpact on the regional print media scene has beenmodest. Regional print media have registered onlylimited progress toward editorial and financialindependence during the past five years. A sizableportion of the regional newspapers depends uponthe patronage of political leaders, public officials,businessmen, and other interested individuals andgroups. These papers cannot survive without helpthat compromises their editorial independence.

Several factors shed light on the limited impact ofUSAID’s assistance on the regional print mediaespecially when compared to its remarkable contri-bution to the regional television stations.NDI/PDI had to deal with a large number ofnewspapers. More than 12,000 regional newspa-pers are registered. Assuming that even half areregularly published, it is beyond the technical andphysical resources of a single organization to reachthem. Moreover, many regional papers lack themanagerial and economic resources to take advan-tage of the training and other services provided byNPI/PDI. Many editors and publishers representan old generation that finds it hard to adapt to thenew realities. Besides, many newspapers cannotafford to spare staff for training in Moscow or theregional centers. Many more have difficulty afford-ing travel and other costs (since PDI rightly insiststhat they should share costs).5

NPI did not pay enough attention to the issue ofthe financial viability of newspapers. In direct con-trast to Internews’s approach, NPI’s early, primaryfocus was on press freedom, journalistic standards,

access to information, and supporting civil societyorganizations. Although this focus undoubtedlyhad some value in the aftermath of a totalitarianregime, the bigger problem is that journalistic inde-pendence generally—though not always—requiresfinancial independence. Unless a media outlet gen-erates enough revenue, it is likely to remain at themercy of whichever interest group or individual isfinancing it. Recognizing this fundamental weak-ness in its earlier approach, PDI has taken steps topromote financial independence of the regionalprint media.

NPI suffered from many management and organiza-tional problems, and these were inherited by PDI.The leadership is deeply divided and each unit seeksvigorously to guard its territory. Although the situa-tion has slightly improved in recent years, NPI/PDIfailed to provide much needed autonomy to theirregional centers. They controlled all resources—technical and monetary—leaving little room forlocal initiative. Consequently, enthusiastic and ener-getic staffers at some regional centers became frus-trated, and some left.

6. Promoting the MediaSector

Previous chapters examined USAID’s programsfor print and broadcast media implementedin partnership with Internews and NPI/PDI.

This chapter discusses three parallel and relatedUSAID-backed efforts to foster the development of the Russian media sector. The first, originallycalled the Russian-American Media PartnershipProject (RAMP), was later renamed the MediaDevelopment Program (MDP). Jointly implement-ed by Internews and the NDI, RAMP/MDP provided grants for a wide range of initiativesdesigned to promote independent media. USAIDalso supported the Eurasia Foundation’s SmallGrants program, which gives small grants to civilsociety organizations that aid independent media.Although focused primarily on the print media, the MVF, discussed above, had an impact on thedevelopment of the media sector as a whole

5 According to Ludmilla Shevchenko, director of the Yekaterinburgoffice, she has to underwrite even the smallest travel expenses ofnewspaper staffers around the Urals who are invited to PDI events. InSt. Petersburg, reported Anna Sharogradskaya, some papers are ableto contribute to seminar costs—a fairly recent improvement—butmost lack such resources.


RAMP/MDP-Supported ProjectsUSAID initiated the $10.5 million program to provide Russian media organizations access toWestern expertise and technical assistance, and withexposure to the norms of a free press through theirpartnership with U.S. organizations. As originallyconceived, the program was expected to identifyinterested partners and fund their promising proj-ects. It assumed that the U.S. organizations wouldalso benefit from the collaboration, as it wouldimprove their understanding of and contacts withthe growing media sector in Russia.

During the program’s first two years programmanagers realized that the focus on partnershipwas unrealistic. It was difficult and time consum-ing to find suitable partners. Even when programstaff could locate partners, their priorities wereoften different. The partners found it difficult toovercome organizational, cultural, and politicalbarriers. In many cases, a majority of projectresources were budgeted for use by the U.S. halfof the media partnership, whose contributionproved to be of dubious value. As a result, theprogram dropped the partnership emphasis andchanged its name to the Media DevelopmentProgram. The renamed operation was meant torespond directly to proposals from Russian mediaand “organizations capable of managing their owngrants.” In practice, the change meant that mostof MDP’s funds went to and through Internewsand RAPIC/NPI “for special training programs for which they were unquestionably the mostqualified administrators” (Media DevelopmentProgram 1998, 11).

The program consisted of 31 projects involving 66Russian organizations, 61 U.S. groups, and 9 othersbased in Europe. The projects ranged from fosteringcommercial media enterprises to providing infra-structure support and professional training. Projectscan be grouped under four categories: education andtraining, media associations and organizations, inno-vation and information sharing, and other support-ing activities. A representative sample of major proj-ects under each category is briefly mentioned here togive an indication of overall focus and achievements,as well as the challenges of the program.

Education and TrainingThe RAMP/MDP supported a number of organi-zations to enhance their institutional capacity orundertake training and educational programs.Some support went to Internews to develop newtraining activities. For example, a grant of$235,324 supported Internews for BroadcastEducational Residency Training to assist televisionstations in evaluating their properties for the pur-poses of sale or investment. RAMP/MDP gaveassistance to the following two journalism schoolsthat are still functioning.

■ Pozner School of Broadcast Journalism. With a grant from RAMP/MDP, the Pozner Schoolwas established in 1997 in Internews’s premisesin Moscow. Each year, the school conducts afive-week course, taught by some of the mostexperienced and recognized Russian media andacademic professionals. It recruits bright,young, experienced journalists as students. Theschool combines textbook study with intensivepractical newsroom experience. RAMP/MDPfunded three initial sessions of the school,including room, board, and tuition for stu-dents who came from regions outside ofMoscow. Since then, it has attracted fundsfrom different sources. It does not yet have apermanent premise, but the Moscow city gov-ernment has promised to provide one. ThePozner School, like the BBC School inYekaterinburg, is one of only a few commercialattempts to address the important market forbroadcast education, but so far it cannot existwithout long-term subsidies.

■ Ural State University Journalism School.RAMP/MDP funded a partnership betweenUral State University in Yekaterinburg and theUniversity of North Carolina (UNC) atChapel Hill to enhance Ural State’s trainingcapacities by developing two projects: a profes-sional journal for newspaper managers and anupgraded training studio and curriculum inbroadcast journalism. Each activity producedmixed results: there were some definite success-es, but results were not as great or as sustainedas hoped for.


The partner universities and the local SverdlovskUnion of Journalists did considerably improvethe format, usefulness, and readership of theprofessional journal Fax Magazine. This publica-tion evolved in its design and content “from aninitially fairly dull academic orientation to amore dynamic focus on legal, ethical and busi-ness issues” (Media Development Program1998, 52). Fax filled a new professional infor-mation niche and provided a forum for theexchange of practical knowledge among newspa-per publishing managers in the Urals region.Fax continued publication after the end of theMDP grant. Having thus tested the concept andmarket niche at the regional level of a self-sus-taining journal for media professionals, MDPstaff passed this knowledge to and cooperatedwith the Moscow-based launch of Zhurnalist, arevamped national professional magazine formedia managers that succeeded in the longterm.

The second component of the Ural State/UNCpartnership under MDP involved upgradingthe training studio and curriculum in broadcastjournalism. MDP purchased low-end SVHScameras and editing equipment; the Ural Statejournalism department fully remodeled its basement floors into a television training studio. Ural State journalism students receivedopportunities to get hands-on experience withtelevision reporting, camera work, and editing.

Curriculum development assistance from UNCalso helped modernize Ural State University’s tel-evision-teaching curriculum—thus improvingthe general professional level of media graduatesthroughout the Urals. However, Ural State facul-ty receptivity to UNC technical advice was lowerthan hoped for. Accordingly, despite some realachievements, both cultural and technical factorslimited the success of the project.

At the end of the grant, it was hoped that project-funded educational resources wouldcontinue to benefit Ural State students (MediaDevelopment Program 1998, 83), an expecta-

tion that was never fully realized. The educa-tional curriculum remains too focused on aca-demics rather than the craft of practicing mod-ern television journalism. Dean Boris Lozovskyhas recognized this limitation and is anxious toremedy it, not least through the acquisition ofmodern broadcast hardware.

Media Associations and OrganizationsRAMP/MDP gave financial and technical assis-tance to many associations and organizations thatcontinue to play an important role in the mediasector. Some examples follow.

■ The Glasnost Defense Foundation (GDF),founded in June 1991, has been a watchdog,educator, advocacy group, and continuing testament to the need in Russia—as in theSoviet Union—for defenders of basic civil andhuman rights. It has received two direct grantsfrom USAID, as well as other support fromUSAID-supported programs throughInternews and NPI/PDI. Over the years, andusing a network of media watchers acrossRussia, GDF built a reputation for accuracy inits reporting on the intimidation and abuse ofjournalists by the state. The foundation’s hand-books on media law, professional conduct, andeven safety issues have been popular enough tobe sold rather than given away.

■ Institute for Information Law (IIL) (formerlyknown as the Moscow Media Law and PolicyCenter) has now emerged as a respected train-ing and consulting institution. It received two MDP grants totaling $482,720 between1995 and 1997. Housed in Moscow StateUniversity’s journalism faculty, the institute is asource of legal expertise for institutions work-ing on media issues. It has attracted fundsfrom many international donor agencies andNGOs, a good indication of the contributionit is making in analyzing media legislation atall levels in Russia, assisting lawyers contestingassaults on press freedom, and collaboratingwith legal consultants employed by otherorganizations.


The director and staff of the institute have ledor taken part in numerous seminars and train-ing activities designed to make journalists andtheir employers aware of both the legal prob-lems they face and the legal weapons at theirdisposal, particularly in their efforts to gainaccess to information. Such issues are alsoimportant to advocacy NGOs. The institute’swork, extending beyond the media community,has contributed to a better appreciation of thevalue of the rule of law in Russian civil society.As a result of the IIL’s extensive training andpublishing activities during the late 1990s, acommunity of media law experts has developed.Again as a result of the institute’s efforts, theRussian state university system formally adapt-ed a media law component as part of its nation-al curriculum.

Within the media development community,the IIL has recently become the focus of amajor collaborative effort to help broadcastersand publishers shield themselves from assaultby local authorities (see Chapter 3). The proj-ect, known as the Legal Audit, is funded by aone-year Open Society Institute grant. It is ajoint effort of IIL, Internews, NPI/PDI, andGDF. The project seeks to enable media managers to examine and regularize the legal documents relating to their registration asenterprises: everything from the original priva-tization or incorporation papers to the certifi-cates attesting to their compliance with localhealth, fire, and labor-relations ordinances.The institute has published a number of scholarly documents that have been very wellreceived. The IIL is increasingly asked to helpother Eurasian countries in the field of medialaw and policy.

■ National Association of Teleradio Broadcasters(NAT) has emerged as an influential associa-tion. Established by Russian broadcast industryleaders, it received a grant of over $400,000from RAMP/MPD to support its mission ofrepresenting television and radio broadcasters

before Russian legislative and state institutionsand providing broadcasters with “technical,educational, and other practical support.” NATgrew from about 70 members in early 1996 toover 130 by the end of the two-year grant period. It now has 350 members, includingnational, state, and commercial channels andregional, state, and independent stations.

■ Russian Television Development Foundation’s(now the Academy of Russian TelevisionFoundation)TEFI Awards is an annual regionaland national event similar to the U.S. EmmyAwards. The foundation that organizes theawards is an NGO founded to promotestronger relationships between television pro-gram producers and consumers.

Broadcast industry professionals cite the TEFIAwards as a valuable contribution to the devel-opment of regional independent television.These awards, created under the guidance ofInternews, provide not only a standard towhich regional stations can hope to rise butsignificant opportunities for winners to pro-mote themselves within their own broadcastingmarkets. The awards signal to the viewingaudience that a station has achieved a standardof excellence that is recognized regionally andnationally. In addition to the awards, the foun-dation organizes seminars and forums and sup-ports the publication of industry textbooks.

In Chelyabinsk, the mayor attempted to take

ownership of the politically independent

Chelyabinskiy Rabochiy and the modern

printing press it acquired with help from

the MVF in 1998. That threat was beaten

back by an emergency response team of lawyers

dispatched from Moscow, who helped the

paper reorganize into the shelter of a new

and properly registered company.


USAID has also funded other media associationsthrough Internews, which has provided targetedfinancial support to the Advertising Federation ofthe Regions and the Guild of Eurasian TelevisionDesigners.

Innovative Initiatives Under this category come innovative initiativesdesigned to explore new ideas and approaches topromote independent media. MDP supportedmany such projects, though its record of success hasbeen mixed. In addition to the MVF, discussed earlier, other examples include the following:

■ Tomsk Community TV. Under this two-yearproject, conducted in collaboration withDowntown Community Television (DCTV) ofNew York, Russia’s first community televisioncenter was established at TV2 in Tomsk.Modeled after DCTV, the Tomsk Center wasdesigned to educate the local community inproducing television programs. DCTV provid-ed equipment and helped train the staff. It alsosolicited assistance from two corporatedonors—Panasonic and AVID. After overcom-ing significant physical and technical difficul-ties, the center evolved into a communityteaching facility. Tomsk was the only city inRussia at the time to have such high-end ran-dom access editing systems.

The center has undertaken many activities,such as holding seminars, producing weeklyprograms, and organizing Tomsk video festivals.An integral part of the project involved a stu-dent exchange: several Russian teenagers visitedDCTV in New York, and several students fromNew York traveled to Tomsk, producing storiesto take home for their own local stations. Suchexchanges, according to the director of DCTV,helped the U.S. youngsters as much as theRussians. The center still conducts seminars forlocal residents using an AVID editing systemfrom the program. More often, however, theseminars are conducted to train budding youngjournalists and television technicians. TV2 hashired five people trained by the center.

■ Electronic newspaper in Vladivostok. This projectsupported the publication of the first onlineelectronic newspaper in the Russian Far East. In1995, the Tacoma News Tribune and theVladivostok News started publishing an electron-ic version of the latter. This grant enabled theRussian newspaper to develop its own inde-pendent online newspaper. The News Tribunetrained the technical and journalistic staff,enabling them to transfer the production fromTacoma. This project also enabled the Russianpartner to create a local area network for broadinformation sharing. The online newspaper isstill being published.

■ In the Name of the Law. An experimental butfailed project was a collaborative effort betweenU.S. and Russian writers and producers todevelop and produce a pilot episode of aRussian weekly dramatic series. Moscow StudioTri-The and Yerosha Productions in New Yorkcooperated on this project, anticipating thatthe genre had strong commercial potential inRussia—just as LA Law and similar series hadin the West (Media Development Program1998, 28). The pilot was also intended for saleon the European television market. Nearly ayear and a half after launching the project, noagreement had been reached between the part-ners on story line or content. In the end, thepartners were unable to agree on a screenplayand the partnership was dissolved.

Other Supporting ProjectsRAMP/MDP also assisted a number of small andlarge projects designed to help individual mediaoutlets or support a general infrastructure for theirgrowth.

■ The Volgograd printing press. This projectlinked Gorodskiye Vesti—a daily paper—withan Alabama consulting firm to acquire andinstall a used printing press in Volgograd at atotal cost of $475,947. The funds were spentover 18 months, from mid-1996 to the end of1997. The project, intended to advance theVolgograd publishing company’s independ-


ence, has had unintended consequences. Thecompany has become profitable, largely due torevenues from contract printing jobs for out-siders, and the graphic quality of its publica-tions has noticeably improved. The Russianprinting technicians greatly impressed theirU.S. counterparts with their mastery of the new technology and creative technical adaptations to Russian operating conditions.Moreover, the printing press served as a train-ing ground for printers and technicians fromother Russian publications that were acquiringmodern equipment on their own or withMVF help. The printing press has remainedsecurely in the private hands of the grantee,who continues to print a broad range of inde-pendent newspapers. A significant setbackoccurred in 1999–2000, however, when sever-al of newspaper titles owned by the companyfell into the hands of the city government andlost some of their earlier independence.

■ International conferences. The program also sup-ported Russian participation in a number ofinternational conferences that exposed theRussian media to the nature, organization,technologies, and norms of the free press. Forexample, the program funded Russian partici-pation in conferences on new media in theUnited States, on post-Soviet media in transi-tion in Scotland, and a convention of theNational Association of Television ProgramExecutives in the United States.

Russian American MediaEntrepreneurship Dialogue(RAMED) Internews Russia and Internews Network played acentral role in facilitating an exercise announcedduring the November 2001 Bush-Putin summit asa forum for direct contacts between Russian andU.S. media executives. Their dialogue is meant tohelp foster conditions for the growth of a competi-tive media sector in Russia, one that is able todeliver a full range of services based on the latesttechnology and the highest journalistic standards.

The dialogue has included bilateral meetings andan intensive series of roundtable and workinggroup sessions within the Russian media industry.Participants from some of the most successfulmedia companies in both countries have been ableto develop new business connections and a morethorough understanding of each other’s industries.Internews’s organizational work on RAMED has been funded through a modification to theITV grant.

So far, the RAMED discussions and workinggroups have produced the draft of a “state of the

Views on the Contributions of the Press Institutes

“The overall contribution of RAPIC, NPI, andnow PDI has been limited but significant. Theprint media scene would have been worse with-out them. The predecessors of PDI played animportant role in the late nineties.”

A well-known observer of the media scene

“The situation of the regional media has deteri-orated over the 10 years of Russia’s independ-ence, but it would be nearly hopeless withoutthe help Americans brought. … The [pro-grams] have given some good people somegood ideas and some hope. They just have notbeen able to connect the isolated success storiesinto anything wider or deeper.”

A Russian expert

“If I were director of PDI, I would shut downall the regional centers altogether. If theyshould work, they should work well. Theyshould have strong leaders, normal budgets,and the ability to get things done. Right now,PDI is just a room with a director. ... If you’regoing to have centers, they need to work hori-zontally and this is much harder to do.”

Head of a prominent Russian media NGO


industry” report on the Russian media, an analyti-cal tool intended to serve as the basis for the devel-opment of recommendations for media reform.However, the study has already sparked tensionbetween the Putin government’s conservative mediasector and organizations such as Internews and theindustry trade associations it helped build. In fact,during a Russian industry meeting with PresidentPutin in May 2002 that grew out of RAMED,Putin stated openly that Internews is a propagandatool of the U.S. Government.

Until RAMED, Internews was viewed as anorganizing force in raising the level of profession-alism in the Russian media and had never beenpublicly castigated for bias by Russian leaders.Internews’s implementing partners, as well asmanagement its own have expressed concernabout this development and have been activelyseeking funding from non-U.S. sources.

Eurasia FoundationThe Washington-based Eurasia Foundation isactive in all the countries of the former SovietUnion, pursuing efforts to develop private enter-prise and civil society as well as strengthen publicadministration and policy. Its media support ispart of its engagement with efforts to promotecivil society.

Since its founding in 1992, the privately managedEurasia Foundation has made more than 6,500grants worth $130 million throughout the 12-nation Commonwealth of Independent States,nearly half of them in Russia. Three-quarters ofthe 1993–2002 funding came from USAID. Fromearly 1993 through September 2002, the founda-tion used $3,670,000 of USAID funding for various small (up to $35,000) media developmentgrants (Koenig 2002, Table 2).

With offices in Saratov, Vladivostok, and Moscow,and with half of its Russian grants going to recipi-ents outside Moscow, Eurasia has put money andadvice into the hands of regional editors and pub-lishers, especially to advance legal awareness amongjournalists. One grantee, an editor on Sakhalin

Island, received a grant in 1997 for computerequipment and a second in 1999 to organize seminars on the law, economics, and journalisticethics. These drew 350 journalists, jurists, andadministrative officials.

Most of the foundation’s recent media grants havefocused on improving the economic viability ofindependent media enterprises. Such grants, whichsupport training, seminars, and publications onmanagement, information sharing, sales and advertising, and audience research, have been made to both established and relatively new organizations. Some recent grantees include Sreda Center for Mass Media Research, Fund forIndependent Broadcasting, GDF, and Associationof Journalism Teachers and Researchers. The foundation has also funded distance learning andinternet initiatives for the benefit of print andbroadcast media in various regions.

Many of the small grants by the foundation for private enterprise development also indirectly helpindependent media outlets. Such grants promote apositive environment for the growth of the privatesector and seek to improve the skills and expertiseof the managers. For example, in 2001, the founda-tion gave a grant of about $35,000 to develop acourse on copyright management for the CopyrightHolders Association. Anecdotal evidence indicatesthat the grants have enabled emerging media out-lets, associations, and other organizations to launchor sustain existing activities.

Programs’ Contribution to theMedia SectorThe above programs have contributed to thegrowth of organizations, associations, and educa-tional institutions, thereby improving the institu-tional environment for the growth of independentmedia in Russia.

As indicated earlier, GDF and IIL, which receivedfunds from USAID, have focused on media lawsand their implementation—a major obstacle to thegrowth of independent media in Russia. Medialaws in Russia are ambiguous. There is in practice


a two-tiered system of media laws—federal andregional. The Law on Mass Media, which cameinto force in 1992, is outdated. A comprehensivemedia law is yet to be written. Moreover, imple-mentation of the existing laws affecting media hasbeen quite problematic. There is still a shortage oflawyers who can provide legal assistance to news-papers.

Two limitations have adversely affected the impactof these programs on the growth of independentmedia. First, the focus of RAMP/MDP on part-nership rather than the promotion of independentmedia hindered success. According to the initialplan, all projects had to be collaborative, involvingRussian and U.S. organizations. The programsounded quite innovative because it would facili-tate technology transfer while building media part-nerships between the two countries. The experi-ence showed, however, that such collaborativeprojects are not the best mechanism for promotingthe independent media sector. Because the focus ofsuch projects is generally dictated by the interestsof the two parties rather than the perceived needsof the media sector, the goals and outcome of theprograms became muddied. The problem withthese partnerships is that the goal was not clearlystated from the start. U.S. partners often lookedon them as moneymaking opportunities, whileRussian partners often perceived them as conduitsfor hardware—not for continuing, cooperativerelationships. Moreover, the very process of identi-fying suitable partners overwhelmed program man-agers. The program wasted resources and time inits quest for promoting partnerships.

Second, both RAMP/MDP lacked a coherent strat-egy to promote independent media in Russia. Theyfunded a number of projects with differing focusesand approaches. Such projects were generally inde-pendent of each other and produced no synergy.Their impacts have been isolated and spasmodic. In defense of these programs, however, it can beargued that MDP sowed a wide variety of seeds bysupporting diverse projects, thereby increasing thechance that some of them grow to nurture inde-pendent and responsible media in Russia. Early on

this was a good thing—it helped identify windowsof opportunity in a situation of great flux, and itdid so with great effectiveness. Moreover, it allowedUSAID and its partners to take cutting-edge risks.Some of that risktaking worked out very well; atother times, it failed. Quite often, the mixed resultsprovided media developers with rich experience.

The most successful projects were continued by follow-on USAID programs, other donors, andoutside investors.

7. Lessons and Implications

This paper has discussed the evolution ofUSAID media programs, their achieve-ments and limitations, and their impact on

the development of nonstate media in Russia. Thischapter seeks to identify a few important lessonsthat the Russian experience offers for internation-ally supported media interventions designed topromote independent, responsive media in devel-oping and transition societies. Given Russia’sunique circumstances—centuries of authoritarianCzarist and communist rule over a vast land massand an ethnically and socially diverse population—

Comments on Programs’Contributions

“We started with a wrong premise. ... but werealized our mistake. Certainly, we helped theRussian media at a critical stage. ... In retro-spect, we should have focused more on buildingsupporting organizations.”

USAID official

“RAMP/MDP was a modest success. It was alearning experience for us. ... One couldaccomplish more with $10 million.”

Consultant to RAMP/MDP

“Eurasia Foundation is doing some good work,but it lacks a focus.”

Russian expert


USAID media support programs there offer nomechanical models for easy application elsewhere.With that caveat, however, the relative successesand failures of USAID-supported programs dopoint to two broad conclusions. First, continuity indeveloping and nurturing program clients—as car-ried out by Internews Russia—pays higher divi-dends than episodic contacts with scattered participants. One significant dividend has been the development of a community of more or lessindependent regional television broadcasters,brought together by Internews and aided in forming associations with the potential of defend-ing their collective independence and improvingtheir professional standards and performance.

Second, indirect action—high-quality, focusedtraining in journalism, management, advertising,design, and technology use—may advance pressfreedom more effectively than attempts to fit Western models of media independence into a setting where economic difficulties and multiplepolitical pressures hinder such transplants. Again,Internews’s efforts to help broadcasters becometechnically and commercially stronger appear tohave bred stronger Russian practitioners of pressfreedom than did print media programs that gaveinitial priority to the dissemination of information(news) that had been off limits.

In addition to these broad conclusions, the follow-ing lessons can be mentioned.

Carefully planned media programs can makea difference, even in a highly complex politi-cal transition, by contributing to the growthof nonstate media.

In Russia, USAID media programs had somenotable achievements. USAID has been a majorcontributor to the growth of regional television sta-tions. A significant number are becoming increas-ingly independent and profitable. The Agency hasalso facilitated the growth of many organizationsthat have played useful roles in strengthening the

media sector. Although efforts in print media havebrought few deepseated improvements, there is ageneral consensus that regional newspaper and peri-odical journalists and managers might have beenworse off without USAID’s support. One obviouslesson is that international donor agencies who findthe right partners and fields of operation can for-mulate and implement programs to help thegrowth of nonstate media in transition societies,thereby contributing to their political growth.

A comprehensive strategy for promotingindependent media should focus on a) theeconomic viability of privatized or newlyestablished media outlets, b) the institution-alization of the norms of professional ethics,and c) enabling other voices to reach wideraudiences.

The Russian experience, though limited, points to along-term strategy that can be followed by USAIDand other donors in promoting independent media.The first element concerns the economic viabilityof media enterprises, helping them run as stablebusinesses that are equipped to break even or makea profit. Without such financial independence,owners and staff will be vulnerable to outside eco-nomic and political interests.

In Russia, USAID and other donors initiallyfocused on training journalists. The broadcast andprint media programs were designed to impartskills and knowledge that were neither taught injournalism institutions nor practiced in the media.However, USAID’s partners gradually realized thatthey should also support development of businessand management skills, as both are essential for thegrowth of independent media. Internews, for exam-ple, incorporated business development of regionaltelevision stations into training activities that hadprimarily targeted journalists. On the other hand,PDI and its earlier incarnations could not providemuch matching help to regional print media.

Economic realities meant that print outlets got farless advertising revenue than broadcasters; politicalrivalries diverted what there was of a print advertis-

1

2


ing stream into many small channels. NPI/PDI,moreover, had neither the technical and organiza-tional resources nor the will to reach about 2,000regional papers and periodicals that were attempt-ing to stay independent of state subsidies or powerful patrons.

The success of broadcasters who were helped andthe paucity of independent print media testify tothe vital importance of business developmentassistance for privatized or newly established com-mercial media. As Russia’s economy strengthens,USAID should focus on developing programs and strategies that focus on both journalism andbusiness training and education for enterprisescapable and willing to put such assistance to practical effect.

The second element is the institutionalization ofthe norms of journalism: fair and balanced cover-age of news, presentation of diverse viewpoints,and editorial independence. In Russia, financialindependence makes it more likely—but does notguarantee—that a media outlet will observe suchprofessionalism. Western experience demonstratingthat reliable reporting and clear, attractive presen-tation of information draw both readers and advertisers has guided the success of a number of specialized publications, but it has not proven asconvincing to regional editors and publishers seek-ing a general audience. However, since greater professionalism should, over time, pay dividends to its practitioners, donor-supported media programs should focus on training, professionalethics, and the establishment of professional associations that promote professional norms.

Training of this kind should be extended to man-agers of television stations, and Internews has beganto do so. By this means, their new understanding ofthe roles and obligations of journalists will encour-age the freedom and support necessary for profes-sional news operations. Internews’s short programsfor managers have already proved helpful.

The last element of a strategy should be a search forways to open media of all kinds to views and voices

other than official or commercially self-interestedones. The wider the variety of information andopinion to which citizens have access, the moreresponsibly they can form their own judgments.

This is not to argue that USAID or other agenciesinvolved in media assistance should simultaneouslyfocus on all these elements. Such a course mightnot be possible, given constraints of time andresources. What is important, however, is to recog-nize that the development of an independent mediais a long-term process and multipronged efforts arenecessary.

The term independent media can createunjustified complacency in policy circlesbecause it gives the impression that priva-tized or newly established nonstate media areessentially independent simply if they are notowned by the state.

USAID has widely used the term independentmedia to refer to nonstate media in its policy andprogram documents. The underlying assumption isthat such media are independent because they arenot controlled by governmental authorities. Theproblem is that a most of the privatized or newlyestablished media outlets in Russia are not inde-pendent, in the strict sense of the term. Politicaland economic interests have frequently gained own-ership of these outlets to pursue their business andpolitical agendas. Such outlets are not run as pri-vate businesses, much less as independent publica-tions. To characterize them as independent is, atbest, a misnomer and, at worst, can give the wrongimpression that all is well with the nonstate media.The implication is that the growth of nonstatemedia is a necessary, though not sufficient, condi-tion for the emergence of independent media.

USAID’s policy of assisting only nonstatemedia is essentially sound, but program managers should enjoy flexibility in implementing it.

In Russia as elsewhere, USAID has followed a poli-cy of assisting only nonstate media. As the primary

3

4


objective of the assistance is to promote commercialmedia, it makes little sense to provide assistance tostate-owned enterprises. While this policy is essen-tially sound, the Russian experience shows that twofactors warrant programmatic flexibility. First, anyassistance that helps institutionalize the norms ofprofessional journalism in state-owned media out-lets improves the enabling environment for inde-pendent media. For example, many state regionaltelevision stations in Russia have, at their ownexpense, sent journalists to Internews’s training pro-grams to improve their professional skills. It is rea-sonable to assume that the exposure to trainingimproved the quality of news coverage by these sta-tions. Second, in many cases, it is difficult to deter-mine the ownership of the enterprise. Althoughnominally commercial, a large number of regionalnewspapers get direct and indirect subsidies fromthe state. On the other hand, many state-ownedregional television stations are increasingly assertingtheir independence. Under these conditions, pro-grammatic flexibility, rather than a rigid adherenceto the stated policy, seems appropriate.

In transition societies, when concerns aboutmedia assistance from former adversariesexist, the prudent course is to focus on skillsand training, not on the content.

Internews’s programs are designed to improve jour-nalistic, managerial, and business skills and expert-ise. The underlying assumption is that both newscontent and coverage will improve as journalistsand managers become more professional. Such anapproach has been quite prudent. For example,experts agree that as a result of the training provid-ed by Internews, the quality of news reporting hasimproved in regional television stations. Newsdepartments are becoming more sensitive to issuesof accuracy, balance, and presentation of differingviewpoints. This is a valuable lesson that USAIDcan apply elsewhere.

As a result of privatization and commercial-ization, many educational and cultural programs formerly shown on state-ownedtelevision have been crowded out by enter-tainment programming. The designers ofUSAID media programs should recognizethis, and, when possible, take steps to widenaccess to and increase the quantity of suchprograms.

Under communism, state television in Russia ran awide variety of educational, social, and culturalprograms. Such programs often exposed the audi-ence to scientific and technological developments,social history, and the rich cultural heritage ofRussia. Because such programs do not generateadvertising revenues, they have largely disappearedfrom privatized television stations or even state-owned stations. They have been replaced by popu-lar entertainment programs. Although cable andsatellite television is available throughout much ofthe country, it is still financially out of reach for agreat many households. In the United States, thesealternatives, along with public television, provideaccess to many educational and news stations. The situation in Russia, however, is not likely toimprove in the near future. USAID should learnfrom this experience while promoting privatizationof the state-owned media enterprises in other tran-sition and developing countries. It can help suchcountries develop suitable strategies so that peoplecontinue to have access to high-quality alternativeeducational and cultural programs.

5

6


Evgeniy Abov, deputy general director, Prof Media,Moscow

Ludmila Alexeeva, chairman, Moscow HelsinkiGroup

Andrei Allakhverdov, editor, Radio Foundation ofRussia

Jon Alpert, director, DCTV and project managerfor MDP Tomsk Community Media Center

Manana Aslamazyan, president, Internews Russia

Nina Baliasnikova, coordinator, Russian MassMedia Support Program, Open Society Institute,Soros Foundation, Russia

Dr. Svetlana Balmaeva, dean, TV-RadioDepartment, Liberal Arts University, Yekaterinburg

Eugenia Benigni, Political Section, EU Delegationof the European Commission in Russia

Raisa Bespechnaya, general director, Academy ofRussian Television Foundation

Arina Borodina, media correspondent,Kommersant, Moscow

Arkadiy Borotilin, consultant, Interregional MediaConsulting Center, St. Petersburg

Lev Bruni, journalist, Vremya Novostey, Moscow

Sergei Chervach, deputy editor, Tomskaya Nedalya,Tomsk

Simon Cosgrove, European Initiative forDemocracy and Human Rights, EU Delegation ofthe European Commission in Russia

Elena Dubchenko, coordinator, Russian MassMedia Support Program, Open Society Institute,Soros Foundation, Russia

Yosif M. Dzyaloshinskiy, president, Commissionfor Free Access to Information

Alexandr Gorshkov, deputy director, InvestigativeJournalism Agency, St. Petersburg

Chris Hamilton, PDI/Freedom Forum Library, St. Petersburg

Anna Kachkaeva, training director, Internews

Mikhail Kaluzhsky, director of operations, IREX(Press Development Institute)

Olga Karabonova, executive director, PressDevelopment Institute

Boris Kirshin, editor-in-chief, ChelyabinskiRabochii, Chelyabinsk

Silvia Kofler, head of Press and InformationSection, EU Delegation of the EuropeanCommission in Russia

Svetlana Kolchenskaya, general director, VolgaIndependent TV, Nizhny Novgorod

Irma Kumylganova, senior lecturer, Faculty ofJournalism, M.V. Lomonosov State University,Moscow

Annex: Principal Contacts


Grigori Kunis, media consultant, St. Petersburg

Georgi Kuznetsov, professor of journalism, MoscowState University

Vladimir Lapreen, director and chief editor, Beerja(Newspaper)

Alexander Levinsky, business editor, Izvestiya,Moscow

Grigory Libergal, programming director, InternewsRussia

Masha Lipman, deputy editor, YezhenedelniyZhurnal, Moscow

Boris N. Lozovskiy, dean, Journalism Faculty, UralState University, Yekaterinburg

Ronan MacAongusa, second secretary, EUDelegation of the European Commission in Russia

Jeff Magness, art director, Press DevelopmentInstitute, St. Petersburg

Olga Makarova, director, Press DevelopmentInstitute Vladivostok

Drusilla Menaker, chief of party, IREX (PressDevelopment Institute)

Irina Mikhalova, secretary, National Public Radio,Moscow

Peter Morley, arts editor, St. Petersburg Times

Victor Muchnik, general eirector and Chief Editor,Tomsk TV2

Sergey Muratov, professor of journalism, MoscowState University

Dr. Irina Netchayeva, deputy dean, Faculty ofJournalism, M.V. Lomonosov State University,Moscow

Olga Noskova, director, NNTV, Nizhny Novgorod

Cathy Packer, professor, University of NorthCarolina School of Journalism, program director,UNCCH/Ural State University BroadcastJournalism School MDP Program

Oleg Panfilov, director, Center for Journalism inExtreme Situations, Russian Union of Journalists

Alexei Pankin, director, Russian Mass MediaSupport Program, Soros Foundation, Russia

Sam Patten, International Republican Institute,Moscow

Irina Pletneva, managing editor, Tomskaya Nedalya,Tomsk

Vladimir Pozner, president, Academy of RussianTelevision Foundation

Aleksandr Privalov, dean, Higher JournalismSchool, Higher School of Economics

Andrei Richter, director, Media Law and PolicyInstitute

Arseniy Roginski, chairman of the board,Memorial, Moscow

Andrey Safronov, PR Director, Russian NationalAssociation of Teleradio Broadcasters

Stephen Schmida, regional director, The EurasiaFoundation

Oxana Selekhova, program officer, The EurasiaFoundation

Anna Sharogradskaya, director, Press DevelopmentInstitute, St. Petersburg

Ludmila K. Shevchenko, Director, PressDevelopment Institute, Yekaterinburg


Victor Shmailov, project director, Novaya Rabota,Yekaterinburg

Grigori Shvedov, editor-in-chief, Memorial, Moscow

Alexei Simonov, president, Glasnost DefenseFoundation, Russian Union of Journalists

Vladislav Sinalitskiy, president, Interregional MediaConsulting Center, St. Petersburg

Yaroslav Skvortsov, deputy dean, InternationalJournalism Department, Moscow State Universityfor International Relations

Natalya Skvortsova, project director, Vedomosti;director of the Center of Journalism Technologies,Nizhny Novgorod

Irina Smirnova, manager, Praktika

Irene Stevenson, executive director, SolidarityCenter, Moscow

Dmitri Surnin, codirector, Media Viability Fund,Moscow

Lada Tikhonova, press assistant, USIS,Yekaterinburg

Oleg Tregyakov, editor-in-chief, Delovoy Peterburg,St. Petersburg

Irina Tsvetkova, director, Press DevelopmentInstitute, Volga Region

Aleksandr Verzilov, BBC School radio instructor,Rostov State Teleradiocompany, Rostov-on-Don

Tatiana Kondratskaya Vintizenko, editor-in-chief,Krasnoye Znamya, Tomsk

Natalya Vlasova, general director, RadioFoundation of Russia

Igor Yakovenko, general secretary, Russian Union ofJournalists, Moscow

Irina Yassina, project director, Open RussiaFoundation

Anastasia Yevdokimova, assistant to the director,Press Development Institute, St. Petersburg

Victor Yukechev, director, Press DevelopmentInstitute, Siberia Region

Irina Yurna, program officer, Ford Foundation,Moscow Office

Ravil Zagretdinov, first deputy editor-in-chief,Delovoy Peterburg, St. Petersburg

Yassen N. Zassourksky, dean, Faculty of Journalism,M.V. Lomonosov State University, Moscow

Yuliana Zhaboponkova, consultant, InterregionalMedia Consulting Center, St. Petersburg

Andrei Zinoviev, advertising director, ChelyabinskiRabochii (newspaper), Chelyabinsk

Elena Zlotnikova, deputy general director, Kultura;member of the Media Committee of Non-Commercial Partnerships; vice president of theRussian National Association of TeleradioBroadcasters

Nina Zvereva, director, Praktika School ofBroadcast Journalism, Nizhny Novgorod

Elena Zyrina, president, Dobraya Volya,Yekaterinburg


Bibliography

Fossato, Floriana. 2001. “The Russian Media:From Popularity to Distrust.” Current HistoryOctober 2001: 343–48.

Friendly, Alfred Jr., and Alexei Smyslov. 1996.“Russia’s Regional Newspapers: A Partial Surveyand Proposal for Graduated Support, A Report tothe Media Viability Fund.” Unpublished.

Internews Network. 1998. “Independent Televisionin Russia: Final Report (September 1 1995–August31, 1998).” Moscow: Internews Network.

Internews Network. 2001. “Independent Televisionin Russia Grant No.: 118-G-00-98-00124-00(August 1998–June 2001): InternewsNetwork/Internews Russia Final Report.” Arcata,CA: Internews.

Internews Network. 2002. “Independent Televisionin Russia Grant No.: 118-G-00-98-00124-00Performance Report June 2001–May 2002.”Arcata, CA: Internews.

Internews Russia. 2000. “Emergency Assistance tothe Russian Media, Grant No.: 1125 (April 1,1999–August 31, 2000) Internews Network/Internews Russia Final Report.” Moscow: InternewsRussia.

Internews Russia and USA. 2000. “Russian MediaOverview.” Prepared for RAMED, Moscow.

Johnson, Eric. 1993. “Television in the NIS–FirstEdition–November 1993.” Washington, DC.

Koenig, Mark. 2002. “Lessons Learned FromUSAID/Russia Independent Media Programs,1992–2002.” Draft Background Paper.

Maslow, Jonathan. 2002. “Nu, Chto? (What todo?) An Evaluation of the Russian RegionalMedia.” Knightline International 2 (Summer): 26–30.

Media Development Program. 1998. “MediaDevelopment Program: Final Report.” Moscow:MDP.

Media Viability Fund. 2002. “Final Report.”

Mellnick, Keith. 2002. Russia in the Internet Age:Balancing Freedom and Regulation. Washington,DC: IREX.

Mickiewicz, Ellen. 1995. “The Political Economy ofMedia Democratisation.” In David Stuart Lane, ed.,Russia in Transition: Politics, Privatisation andInequalities. London: Longman.

National Press Institute. 1999. “Promoting MediaDevelopment in Post-Crisis Russia: A Report onActivities Undertaken Under USAID CooperativeAgreement #118-A-00-97-00274-01.” WashingtonDC: USAID. PD-ABS-448.

National Press Institute. 2000a. “Mass Media andElections Project: Final Report (Report Period July,1999–May 2000).” Moscow: NPI.


National Press Institute. 2000b. “PreparingIndependent Russian Media for the 21st Century:The Work of the National Press Institute. A FinalReport on Activities Undertaken Under USAIDCooperative Agreement #118-A-00-97-00274-01.”Washington DC: USAID. PD-ABS-910.

Oates, Sarah, and Laura Roselle. 2000. “RussianElections and TV News: Comparison of CampaignNews on State-Controlled and CommercialTelevision Channels.” Harvard International Journalof Press Politics 5: 30–51.

Price, Monroe E., Andrei Richter, and Peter K. Yu,eds. 2002. Russian Media Law and Policy in theYeltsin Decade: Essays and Documents. The Hague:Kluwer Law International.

Price, Monroe, and Andre Richter. 2002. “RussianTelevision and the Russian Public: UneasyTransformations of Ideas of Public Service.”Oxford: Oxford University Programme inComparative Media Law and Policy Centre forSocio-Legal Studies.

RAMED. 2002. “Russian Media Industry Report,Draft for Commentary.” Moscow: Russian-American Media Enterpreneurship Dialogue.

Rantanen, Terhi. 2002. The Global and theNational: Media and Communications in Post-Communist Russia. Lanham, Md: Rowman &Littlefield.

Schoenberg, Cheryl, and Courtenay Dunn. 2000.The Media in Russia: New Roles, New Rules.Washington, DC: IREX.

Sigal, Ivan. 1997. A Survey of Russian Television.Moscow: Internews Network. <www.internews.ru/report/tv/>

USAID. 2002. “USAID/Russia: StrategyAmendment (1999–2005).” Moscow: USAID. PD-ABW-365.


This Evaluation Working Paper can be ordered from USAID’sDevelopment Experience Clearinghouse (DEC). To downloador order publications, go to www.dec.org and enter the document identification number in the search box. The DECmay also be contacted at 8403 Colesville Rd, Ste 210, SilverSpring, MD 20910; tel 301-562-0641; fax 301-588-7787;email [email protected]. IBI–International BusinessInitiatives, Inc., furnished editorial and production assistance.

For more information, contactU.S. Agency for International Development

Washington, D.C. 20523-1000

Telephone: 202-712-4810

Internet: www.usaid.gov

PN-ACR-757

Promoting Independent Media in Russia · 2018. 11. 9. · PPC Evaluation Working Papers on Media...

Documents

Transcript of Promoting Independent Media in Russia · 2018. 11. 9. · PPC Evaluation Working Papers on Media...