Moskovsky Komsomolets
Putin Considers Ban on Commercial Advertising on TV
Vladimir Putin called for “purging” state TV channels of commercial ads while at a conference on Wednesday. He did not deny that advertising is what keeps a channel on the air.
“Many Russian media outlets are entirely focused on their commercials,” he told a group of his election campaigners, People’s Front activists and political analysts. “This keeps them showing news stories about murder, rape or burglary.” At the same time, according to Putin, people are fed up with crime reports and are starved for quality programming.
Of course if television networks lose their advertising revenue, they would need a different source of funding. One option is government financing, in other words, taxpayer money. This isn’t a new idea. TV presenter Vladimir Pozner was the first to advance a “public television” project. President Dmitry Medvedev supported this idea and included a request to develop the concept in his state of the nation address in December.
In late February, two groups presented concepts. One group, led by Mikhail Fedotov, chairman of the Presidential Council on Human Rights, proposed combining government and private financing for “public” channels. Although advertising was listed as a private source, it was to be restricted to 10% of airtime. The other group, set up by the Communications Ministry, proposed financing such channels through endowments.
According to the Russian Television Academy, commercial advertising takes up 20 to 25 percent of all airtime, and yields total annual revenue in excess of $1.2 billion – an amount the two groups in fact suggested sourcing from taxpayers or from private sponsors.
It is worth noting that ad-free television is not a Russian invention. In Britain, TV channels are generally prohibited from airing commercials, but owners of TV sets pay a special TV tax. French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced plans to rid television of commercials by 2013. However, the parliament rejected the initiative, and advertising was merely restricted to 5% of airtime. In the United States, the amount of commercial content on some channels depends on individual state laws and differs across the country. Overall, international experience seems to support Putin’s proposal for some channels. However, Russia’s budget is not as large as those of the developed economies and would have difficulty financing national television.
According to TV journalist Nikolai Svanidze, the loss of advertising would ruin Russian television. “I think Mr. Putin was making another campaign statement. The two national channels that are controlled by the government cannot operate without advertising revenue which pays for equipment and content. Deprived of adequate financing, these channels would lose any competitive edge, compared with private channels. I don’t believe that advertising necessarily results in crime stories. Television shouldn’t show things as entirely black or white. It has to reflect reality. No one would believe the content, if relying entirely on government financing, television showed only blue skies and amber waves of grain. The Soviet news program, Vremya, always showed giant grain harvests, but that’s history now.”
Kommersant
Opposition Baffled by Putin’s Warnings
The opposition was baffled when Vladimir Putin said they planned to “stuff ballot boxes” and then declare the elections false, and they were especially worried by his reference to a “sacrificial lamb.” Analysts are hoping this is a vestige of the old election techniques, not a new direction.
Putin said at a meeting with his campaign team that the opposition would stuff ballot boxes to discredit individual polling stations. He also praised the opposition’s contribution to creating a normal, competitive political environment, but added that these advocates of stronger democratic institutes must respect the rules as well.
Opposition candidates share his views regarding the rules and strengthening democratic institutions. But they wonder where Putin got information that they “never talked about,” said Vadim Solovyov, a member of the Communist Party’s central committee and head of its legal department. He suspects that their offices may be bugged but is sure that any tapes would not contain incriminating evidence because the opposition is simply not planning any provocation.
On the contrary, state employees come to candidate campaign headquarters to request information on election observers. Valery Rashkin, a top administrative official in the Communist Party’s central committee, said they easily exposed this ruse: “They want to be observers but only at a polling station they choose.” The party has trained 5,400 observers in Moscow, and has identified about 700 impostors. Rashkin said none of them was sorry when their services were rejected.
“They told us honestly that they came on orders from their bosses,” said Igor Yakovlev, press secretary of the Yabloko party, which is training observers for Zyuganov and Prokhorov. Requests are accepted online, and 20 requests from the same address in one day raised a red flag. “We called these applicants and learned from the women, all them employees at social security agencies in the Fili- Davydkovo district, that their boss told them to apply, saying, “register with the election commission for March 4 and leave.”
In the past, exposed false ballot papers benefited the party in power during a State Duma election or the authorities’ candidate during a presidential election, said Oxana Dmitriyeva, deputy head of A Just Russia party in parliament. Solovyov said he expected two or three provocations on March 4 to discredit the observers.
The opposition was shocked by Putin’s suggestion of a “sacrificial lamb.” “They look for someone to sacrifice, someone conspicuous. Then they ‘bump him off,’ I beg your pardon, in order to blame the authorities for it,” he said.
“The authorities shouldn’t increase tensions with such accusations at this critical political moment,” said presidential candidate Mikhail Prokhorov. Boris Nemtsov, co-chairman of the non-registered Parnas party, said everyone in the opposition should consider Putin’s words very seriously.
“These words are not the result of a new strategy,” said Igor Yurgens, chief executive of the Institute for Contemporary Development (INSOR). “They were said in the heat of the moment.” He said the “sacrificial lamb” comment was one more mistake by Putin’s image handlers.
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
Gazprom Stumbles on its Way to China
Environmentalists urge alternatives for Altai pipeline routing.
Pressured by nature activists, Russia might alter plans for a gas pipeline through the Altai Mountains and the Ukok Plateau on its way to China. If not, the plateau could be bumped from UNESCO’s list of World Heritage Sites. Meanwhile, Moscow and Beijing are caught in a price dispute.
UNESCO could recategorize the Ukok Plateau as endangered should the pipeline be laid through the grasslands, Mikhail Kreindlin of Greenpeace Russia told Nezavisimaya Gazeta.
“We are only seeking a construction ban on the plateau,” he said. “There are good alternative routes that would bypass the protected area. Alternative routing could run through Mongolia or Kazakhstan. While it would be inadvisable to recruit a transit country, i.e. an economic mediatory like Mongolia, there should be no problem with Kazakhstan which is a member of the Customs Union.” The official position on this issue is unclear, but a decision is needed urgently. The UNESCO World Heritage Centre is meeting in St. Petersburg in June. If the planned route is not changed by then, the country’s reputation could be tarnished.
Any construction on the Ukok Plateau, which is part of the UNESCO World Heritage Site known as the Golden Mountains of Altai and the Ukok Quiet Area nature reserve, is prohibited or at least requires special approval and an environmental impact assessment. The Ministry of Natural Resources reports that there has been no such assessment.
Gazprom claims it has considered every feasible route for its 6,700 kilometer pipeline, worth over $10 billion, and based its final decision on both the financial and environmental implications of the project.
Expert opinions vary over the fate of the project. RusEnergy Partner Mikhail Krutikhin believes Russian officials will give the go-ahead regardless of Russia’s reputation and environmental issues. At the same time, he says Russia might only get another empty pipe unless China agrees on the price of the gas to be sent through it.
Univer Information Agency’s Chief Investment Analyst, Dmitry Alexandrov, says there is a chance the officials might back down. “They might change the route or suspend construction. It might still take time for Russia and China to make a deal.”
Investcafe analyst, Vitaly Mikhalchuk, argues that Gazprom is extremely interested in the Chinese market. So far, LNG makes up the majority of China’s gas imports (78%). But potential gas shortages in the future could be filled by imports from Turkmenistan and Russia. However, any gas distribution from Russia is not expected until 2015, Mikhalchuk says.
Altai Republic Head Alexander Berdnikov sees little risk for the environment while the republic needs the pipeline. According to Berdnikov, the Ukok Plateau is divided into three zones. The first is closed to any activity, and the second is available for tourism. The third one, where the pipeline would supposedly run, is open for economic activity. The pipeline would include three gas compressor stations that, Bedrnikov says, would secure gas distribution in their respective areas.
RIA Novosti is not responsible for the content of outside sources.
