Attacks on the Press - Committee to Protect Journalists

attacks on the press in 2009europe and central asia: uzbekistan“Hasty justice will only harm the investigation,” said Myroslava Gongadze, thejournalist’s widow, according to Ukraine General Newswire. She urged investigatorsto continue questioning Pukach and others about the plot.With much of the country’s influential broadcast media owned by politiciansand business people aligned with one of the country’s feuding political clans,journalists faced growing pressure from managers to censor themselves aheadof the presidential election, according to news accounts. In June, the Kyiv-basedNovy Kanal television station dismissed Volodymyr Pavlyuk, editor of the newsprogram “Reporter,” after he aired a clip that was politically embarrassing to Tymoshenko,according to local press reports. In the clip, Tymoshenko cried out“All is lost!” when the text of her speech disappeared from a teleprompter. Theclip became an online sensation because it was seen as a metaphor for the country’spolitical crisis. Novy Kanal executives said the editor was dismissed not inresponse to political pressure, but because the use of Internet video clips violatedpolicy, Ukrainska Pravda reported.Ownership of the country’s six private, national television channels was ofteneffectively hidden by principals who registered the outlets under companiesbased abroad, according to research by the International Research and ExchangesBoard. Given the bitter arguments between the country’s political factions, suchtightly held ownership prevented the public from understanding the motivationsbehind much of the televised political coverage.Journalists faced problems covering government agencies, a number of whichdenied access to public information and official meetings. In many instances, thelow level of transparency reflected an effort by politicians to hide conflicts of interest.On February 17, reporters from the local newspaper Rovenkovskiye Vestiand the television station RTV in the northwestern city of Rivne were barredfrom a city council meeting about the appropriation of local land, even thoughthe council was required to hold meetings that were open to the public, accordingto local press reports.The political squabbling in Kyiv and jockeying ahead of the 2010 presidentialelection left media regulatory agencies unreformed. Media analysts and lawyersreported that the National Television and Radio Broadcasting Council’s processfor issuing broadcast licenses and inspecting broadcast facilities was politicizedand secretive.Politicians around the country demanded loyalty from the local affiliates ofthe state-run National Television and Radio Company of Ukraine (NTU), retaliatingagainst them if they tried to report the news in an independent manner.In September, local authorities cut off funding for the Dnepropetrovsk branch ofNTU in southeastern Ukraine in retaliation for a perceived failure to sufficientlypraise the work of Gov. Viktor Bondar, according to local press reports.The years of political gridlock in Kyiv exacerbated the cultural divisions betweenthe pro-European, Ukrainian-speaking population in the northern and westernregions, and the pro-Moscow sympathies of the Russian-speaking population inthe southern and eastern regions. Political leaders in Moscow exploited the tensionby using Russia’s powerful state media to flood eastern Ukraine with propagandavilifying pro-Western politicians in Kyiv. Ukrainian authorities responded by makingstricter checks of Russian journalists entering the country and conducting closermonitoring of Russian-language television rebroadcasting within the country.Ukraine’s economy, which had been growing rapidly, was hit hard by theglobal recession. The economic free fall led to a drop in the value of the nationalcurrency and layoffs in the country’s steel and chemical industries. A significantdrop in advertising raised fears that media pluralism would decline because financialpressures and greater competition would force more of the country’s privatemedia outlets to seek government subsidies or come under the ownership of thecountry’s dominant political and business clans.UZBEKISTANPresident islam karimov’s authoritarian government heldat least seven journalists in prison, retaining its notorious distinction as theregion’s leading jailer of journalists. Authorities harassed independent journalists,blocked critical news Web sites, and retained their tight grip on traditionalmedia. Lawyers who defended journalists found themselves the targets of stateretaliation as the country’s judicial system grew more punitive. While authoritieskept a stranglehold on free expression at home, Uzbek diplomats insistedthat their country’s actions were consistent with democratic principles.Karimov, who rose to leadership in Uzbekistan under Soviet rule, markedtwo decades in power in June. While proclaiming himself a democrat after thedemise of the Soviet Union, his policies have consistently reflected authoritariantraditions. His regime has imprisoned its critics and forced them into exile,violated human rights, and brought the country’s once-vibrant independent pressto near extinction.Government figures show more than 1,100 domestic media outlets. Althoughmost are technically independent from the state, agents with the Uzbek securityservice, known as the SNB, censor print and broadcast reports before they reachthe public, CPJ research shows. In March, SNB representatives held a series ofmeetings with Uzbek editors in the capital, Tashkent, to direct them to endorsegovernment polices and to avoid critical reporting, the independent regional newsWeb site Voice of Freedom reported.192193