The first stages of our ‘campaign' - which at the beginning we did not even think of as a campaign - were astonishingly easy. Most British academics, journalists, diplomats and politicians with an interest in Russia have at one time or another contributed to the BBC Russian Service, and they are all concerned about the fate of Russian Features. Many of them travel regularly to Russia. Most have received feedback about programmes to which they have contributed, and the value of these programmes seemed entirely obvious to them. One signatory of our draft letter forwarded it to another, and before long we had 64 signatories, many of them eminent, and on 7 November our letter was published in the Times, together with a supportive editorial and an article by the Times Media correspondent.
What seems obvious to us - and to the Times - has, however, been surprisingly hard to convey to the senior management of the World Service, which seems unable to grasp the nature of Putin's Russia. It seems likely that they are being poorly advised, either by the FCO or by senior editors in the Russian Service itself.
The 2007 World Service ‘Operational Agreement' divides countries into three categories: ‘developed media markets, such as the United States and Western Europe'; ‘developing markets, such as China and Russia', where the BBC should be targeting ‘opinion formers and decision makers'; and the ‘least developed markets, such as Sub-Saharan Africa, where BBC World Service news operations may serve as substitutes for national broadcasters, where relevant, for example in countries where there is an absence of free and independent media' (I quote verbatim). It is clear from these categories that the World Service management is under the delusion that both China and Russia - which has one of the highest death rates among journalists of any country in the world - are countries with ‘free and independent media'. The ‘Operational Agreement' then goes on to say that ‘mass audiences' are to be targeted only in countries belonging to the third category, i.e. the ‘least developed markets'. The World Service management evidently sees no need to address a mass audience in Russia, even though this audience is now constantly exposed to dangerously nationalist propaganda.
Lord Reith saw the BBC's mission as being to inform, to educate and to entertain. Today's management sees it as the provision of ‘rolling news coverage'. They do not seem to understand that what Russian listeners need - even more than reliable news - are fresh perspectives from which to view this news. The question of the status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia provides a convenient example. Most Russians believe that the West has adopted one standard for Kosovo - and another for these two regions. This kind of issue - far too complex to be dealt with in a 3-minute ‘package' slotted into a news programme - has for many years been the staple material of the pre-recorded ‘features' that are about to be axed.
The range and depth of its ‘features' has long been a successful trademark formula of the BBC's broadcasting to the rest of the world. The format allows the setting up of a dialogue between people whom it might be impossible to bring together in any other way - because they do not share a common language, because they would refuse to speak to each other on principle, or simply because they live in different time zones. A ‘feature' can achieve a depth, and a variety of viewpoint, that is impossible to achieve in a news programme.
Once ‘features' are gone, a tradition is lost and a significant audience worldwide (not only in Russia but also in the West and in other parts of the former Soviet Union) will turn elsewhere. It is hard to understand why, when other language services get additional funding for the development of their television, the Russian service should be told that in order to develop its web-site it has to get rid of its most unique (and far cheaper) product. It is also alarming that Nigel Chapman, in his responses to our 7 November letter in the Times, should have referred to ‘light features with little analysis' and ‘programmes that have ... little connection with cultural and political themes'. We have already mentioned (in our 12 November letter to the Times) the huge variety of serious topics covered by features: ‘from the work of Doris Lessing to the closure of the British Council ... and the analysis of judgments made by the European Court of Human Rights'. Nigel Chapman's dismissal of these programmes is alarming, above all, because it indicates that he is being poorly advised not only about the situation in contemporary Russia but also with regard to the quality of the output of his own service.
The proposed axing is still harder to understand in view of the fact that the English-language World Service still produces excellent ‘features'; it is only foreign-language features that are to be axed. The most likely explanation for this divergence of policy is that the management looks on foreign-language ‘features' and their producers as awkward and uncontrollable. The best ‘features' are often the ones that address the most controversial topics, and the World Service management want, above all, to avoid controversy in their language services. Standardizing the output makes this easier.
The Russian Service - and, probably, many other of the language services - has good reason to want to avoid controversy. By moving half of its staff and much of its production to Moscow, it has placed itself in a highly vulnerable position. Its staff are vulnerable both to direct pressure from the Russian authorities and to the influence of a Russian media environment in which self-censorship has become the norm.
In Putin's Russia - as in the Soviet Union - everyone is vulnerable to pressure from the authorities. Any BBC employee with relatives in Russia is vulnerable. Anyone who has ever made even the very slightest compromise - even if only in the Soviet past - with the Russian security services is especially vulnerable. Even British employees may exercise self-censorship because they are afraid of being denied a visa.
That the Russian Service is terrified of offending the Kremlin has become only too obvious. Their declared reason for refusing to publish on their website the Russian text of Anna Politkovskaya's Putin's Russia was that there was no available pro-Kremlin material with which to ‘balance' the book. This is absurd. If the Russian Service in the 1970s had carried the idea of impartiality to such an amoral extreme, they would not have allowed Solzhenitsyn to broadcast The Gulag Archipelago - or they would have done so only if the Kremlin had supplied them with material of equal weight in praise of the Gulag.
It is perhaps not surprising that pro-Kremlin bias is most evident in the handling of matters relating to the security services. We have already written several times about the one-sided coverage of the murder of Aleksandr Litvinenko. Another example of Russian Service sensitivities with regard to the KGB is their one-sided coverage of the recent death of the Orthodox Patriarch. Western media outlets, including BBC English-language programmes, discussed his past as a KGB collaborator at length; the Russian Service barely mentioned it.
The Russian Service has to deal with many questions. Some are technical: how best to deliver a signal; how best to balance resources between radio and the Internet. Here the only prudent course is to explore as many options as possible. Some are political: how best to deal with demands made by the Russian authorities. Most serious of all is the question of the Russian Service's purpose. This, at least, is easy to answer. The only possible purpose of any of the foreign-language services is to disseminate views that cannot easily be heard in the target country. The role of the World Service is to educate - and the BBC should not be ashamed to proclaim this.
The political situation in Russia is deteriorating fast. The economic crisis has already led to popular protests. These are likely to increase, and the authorities will probably respond with violence. The need for an independent-minded BBC Russian Service may soon be greater than ever. At the end of this month Nigel Chapman will be stepping down as Head of the World Service. We very much hope that he will not wish to be remembered as the man who closed down the Russian Service's most valuable programmes just when there is a greater need for them than at any time in the last twenty years.
(Robert Chandler is the translator of Vasily Grossman's novel Life and Fate and an intermittent contributor to the BBC Russian Service for 30 years)
5 January Letter from the BBC Director General, Mark Thompson to Robert Chandler
Dear Mr Chandler
Thank you for your letter of 4 December regarding your concerns about the Russian Service.
I understand that you have been in direct correspondence with Nigel Chapman, Director World Service, about this issue (in addition of course to recent exchanges in the press) and that Nigel has outlined in some detail the reasons for the changes to the service. I believe he has also offered you a meeting to explain the thinking behind them, and I hope that if it is convenient for you to do so you will feel able to take him up on this offer.
There are a number of new points in your letter, and I have therefore asked Nigel Chapman for his input into this response. I hope that you will feel it answers your concerns.
I should say first that I am sorry to learn that you do not agree with the changes to the service. However I hope you will accept that it is the BBC's responsibility to make what changes it believes to be necessary for the benefit of its audiences. These changes were approved by the BBC Trust and fully discussed with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who I understand firmly support them. Like the BBC, they believe that they offer the best means of serving our audiences.
Your letter refers to the BBC's Royal Charter, which you believe specifies that the BBC must "offer thoughtful programmes that allow for genuine discussion of political and cultural matters from a number of points of view". We firmly believe that the World Service offers precisely the programmes which you describe. I think the most relevant part of the Charter on this point is in the Agreement (CM 6872). This says (para 1O.b) that the BBC Trust must ensure that the BBC "brings high quality international news coverage to international audiences", and (para 64.6.a) that the World Service objectives must include "the provision of an accurate, unbiased and independent news service, covering international and national developments".
We believe that the changes will deliver a service that meets these and other objectives, and will continue to offer programmes of the kind your letter describes.
I note that you are particularly concerned over the strengthening of our multimedia offer, in relation to our plans for radio. As you will know, the World Service aims to reach people on platforms appropriate to their needs. Radio of course remains important, and in recognition of this the Russian Service will retain 58 hours a week of radio programming - the second highest amount of all language services. However I hope you will appreciate why, in a media environment in which short wave listening overall is in decline, and in which the internet and other platforms (such as mobile delivery) are growing rapidly, the World Service must position itself for the future.
I am told that independent research predicts that Russia will be the second largest internet market in Europe and the fifth largest in the world by the end of this year. Broadband penetration is expected to increase dramatically over the next five years and, by 2012, 21.2 million households in Russia are expected to have access. I appreciate that you do not agree with these plans but it is inarguably the case that for many people, listening online will indeed offer an alternative to radio. I am assured that the World Service will however continue to try to improve radio delivery where it can.
Your letter refers to attempts to establish an FM prsence in Russian as "disastrous." You will appreciate that this is not a view which is shared by my colleagues in the World Service. Given that most people in Russia would prefer to listen via better-quality FM they felt that they owed it to their listeners to seek to go down this route. They are of course disappointed that they have been unable to maintain FM partnerships. You link this question to the BBC's editorial independence, and I would stress that at no time has the BBC compromised that fundamental principle. Nor would it do so in the future. Indeed, and as you will be aware, it was the BBC's robust, independent news programmes to which the authorities appeared to take exception when they were transmitted on partner FM stations.
I appreciate that you believe that the most effective means of reaching our audiences would be further research into means of strengthening radio relays, and I can confirm that World Service does continue to consider all options for distribution within the frameworks of editorial independence and the need to provide value for money. However, I am sure you will understand why we have to be realistic about the difficulties and sensitivities of acquiring transmission facilities in countries adjacent to Russia. The authorities will not award such licences to the BBC as their spectrum is targeted for their own use. DRM has so far obtained a very limited take-up in Russia, or indeed anywhere.
Your letter expresses your fear that moving language services closer to their audiences puts BBC journalists at risk, in particular to intimidation and other forms of pressure. I can assure you that this is a matter that the BBC takes extremely seriously. The safety of our staff is of the utmost importance to us.
As you know, the BBC Russian Service has been operating in Moscow since the early 1990s and if at any point its staff should feel themselves to be at risk, immediate action would be taken. The World Service feels that once the changes have been made, the balance between staff in Moscow and London will be the right one. Nigel has stressed that financial imperatives were not the drivers for the changes. Like parts of the World Service (and many other publicly-funded bodies) the Russian Service has had to make efficiency savings. However the motivating forces for change were in fact the need to strengthen the BBC's position in a highly competitive market, through maximising its presence on all platforms, and to continue to provide high-quality programming at key times of day.
I am sorry that you are not happy with these plans, and I appreciate that you are motivated out of concern for the quality and effectiveness of our output. I recognise too that many people have strong personal loyalty to the BBC, and to the Russian Service, and we are very proud of that unique relationship. I understand why, therefore, against that background, and the importance of the service to so many, change may not be particularly welcome. I can assure you however that these changes were made only after considerable thought and discussion. My colleagues in the World Service are confident that if you listen to the new output, you will be reassured that it will continue to cover areas about which you have concerns and will be marked by the same high standards that have always distinguished the output of the Russian Service.
Lastly, I would urge you again to take up Nigel Chapman's offer of a briefing - Nigel is obviously in a position to go into much more detail.
I would be grateful if you could share this letter with the other signatories to your own.
15 January Letter from Richard Hainsworth, President of Russia's Chartered Financial Analysts, to BBC Director General Mark Thompson:
Dear Mr. Thompson,
In response to points made in a letter you wrote to Mr. Chandler, who kindly shared its contents with me, I would respond as follows.My concern is this: at a time when the BBC's historic role - giving wide coverage to uncomfortable truths - is again badly needed, its voice is being muted. Explanations grounded in a welter of technical and financial issues lead to the unfortunate perception that the BBC's leadership is weak and caving in to political pressure. Either that, or the British state is no longer willing to fund the BBC to perform its historic role.
Both of these perceptions - however false you may consider them to be - will increase the current Russian leadership's propensity to add pressure on any British interest here in order to stifle those views it dislikes. It is not in Britain's best interests for its citizens or diplomats to be subject to unwonted pressure, or to be perceived to be weak and so susceptible to pressure.
It is especially distressing to see a decline in balanced BBC coverage of controversial topics when the tabloid British media takes a stridently irrational and anti-Russian stance. The tabloid media, for all its bad points, cannot be silenced. Yet, if the BBC is silenced, ordinary Russians will only see a "British" point of view that can be easily refuted. And that is to the advantage of those who wish to bend opinion in the way they perceive to be "correct".
The BBC should not allow even the perception of being silenced, its editorial content removed, or the scope of its transmissions decreased.
In defending some of its policy decisions, technical issues have been raised, such as a statistical decline in the use of short-wave, forecast increases in internet usage, and the relative merits of FM radio. The contradictions inherent in the arguments provided in your letter indicate that indeed the British state no longer wishes to fund the BBC to maintain its historic role. If the funding were present, then any new channel of communication (such as the internet) would be built up via investment. If an old channel (such as short-wave) was no longer reaching an important audience, it should be wound down because it does not serve a need. To present an investment in the new as justifying a cut in spending in the old demonstrates that funding not mission is highest in the minds of the BBC's leadership.
Mr. Thompson, in your letter you discuss both the advantages of FM over short-wave, but also the problems being faced in getting FM redistribution. Taken together, namely, a policy to move from short-wave to FM, and the inability to make FM transmissions, it would appear that the BBC's radio transmissions have declined absolutely, even though this may not have been the policy intent. The perception is thereby fostered that the BBC is in retreat.
Regarding marketing research that the internet will be an increasingly important communications channel in the medium-term, several responses spring to mind. First, marketing research almost by definition tends to be over-optimistic. It is also a prediction of what may be, not an assessment of what is. My 26 years of living in Russia has amply demonstrated to me that very rarely do predictions come true, whether in the predicted time-frame, or at the volume forecast. I trust that the BBC will not fall prey to a modern-day version of Churchill's taunt: using market research as a drunk uses a lamp post - for support rather than illumination.
Secondly, the internet is a young technology. We do not yet know its limitations or controllability. Is the BBC aware that both the Estonian and the Georgian governments believe that the Russian state has deployed internet software to attack their networks? The Russian state has, moreover, instituted a wide-ranging set of laws and instructions covering the internet. In China, there are very significant controls over the internet - as reporters covering the Olympics discovered. Russian computer scientists are amongst the best in the world; indeed the BBC's 'click online' used an entire programme to consider the effect of Russian hackers on the internet. What about the ordinary person's desire to use the internet to obtain information frowned on by the State when every IP number and message packet can be traced? There is nothing like a passive receiver picking up invisible waves to engender confidence that the act of listening cannot be traced.
It would seem unwise to put too heavy a reliance on the internet given these risks.
Finally, there is the repeated mantra about the BBC in a competitive global market. If the world were comprised solely of nations and states that universally upheld the freedom of the press, the mantra would sustain belief. Yet in such a situation no government should be funding or running a major broadcasting network!
Yet freedom of speech, truth, balance, reliable information are simply not products universally available today. The BBC's World Service does not exist in a competitive global market. As a beacon of truth and balanced opinion it would be unique, and demonstrate that the values of truthfulness and trustworthiness can be associated with Britain, thus enhancing its interests in the world. It behoves the British government to fund the BBC's World Service adequately, and the BBC's leadership to aspire to a moral mission that transcends financial constraints. The peoples of the world will thank them if they do.
(Richard Hainsworth, a financial analyst, has lived in Moscow since 1982. In 2001 he founded Global Rating International. RusRating was set up later the same year. He is President of the CFA (Chartered Financial Analysts) in Russia. A leading expert in the field, he writes and lectures on the banking sector in Russia.)
Comments
From William Horsley:-
I urge the BBC to re-consider its decision to narrow the range of its programme coverage on the Russian Service and to further reduce the opportunities in its broadcasts for airing robust analysis and criticism of the blatant suppression of political rights and legitimate media freedoms in today's Russia. The effects of the internal suppression of free media and free politics in Russia have become acute, as was made abundantly clear at the conference last week at Chatham House on "What became of press and political freedoms?" twenty years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall. The BBC must not disappoint those who look to its historical record of telling the truth to audiences even in the face of pressures or threats. I urge the BBC and the British government to heed the words of Jens Reich, a leader of the civic movement which helped bring about the demise of the communist regime in East Germany in 1989. In London on February 3rd he spoke of his bitterness over the deaths of Anna Politkovskaya, Anastasia Baburova and other brave journalists and human rights defenders in Russia. He said : "The state authorities feign helplessness and non-involvement and do not act energetically against this scandalous state of open terror. What can we do to help? ...I would like to see journalists and intellectuals everywhere exert pressure on “their” diplomats and politicians, to ensure that they remind their partners over there at every opportunity about the broken promise to allow freedom of the media. Even if they hear such complaints with a poker face, and repeat the excuse that it is not their responsibility, it will be hard for them to listen to this sermon repeated time after time. And it may in time succeed in changing attitudes for the better. That at least is what we finally experienced in the Eighties and in the Year of Revolutions."
Jens Reich's words deserve to be acted on by the BBC in its decisions on broadcasting at home and abroad. The BBC's editorial decisions must be seen to arise from a commitment to telling the truth, not from bending to any kind of political pressure at home or abroad.
William Horsley, journalist and international director of CFOM, the Centre for Freedom of the Media at Sheffield University
I have been an avid follower of the BBC Russian Service since I learned Russian at Cambridge during National Service in the 1950s. As soon as I was able I listened in wonder to the programmes on various topics, delivered in faultless Russian, to those under the Soviet lash lucky enough to be able to hear them. The Service made an invaluable contribution to glasnost long before the term came into common use. To reduce the scope of this programme now, when it is as important as it has ever been, would be yet another act of vandalism by Auntie, fascinated as she seems to be by the charms of yobs such as Woss and Clarkson.
Over the years, I have spent considerable periods of time not so much in Russia itself as in countries directly under its control in the former Soviet bloc. I have only too vivid a recollection of radio programmes dealing with a political issue in the West suddenly fading out at a crucial point in the report to be replaced by some bland bit of "patriotic" music! I used to offer up a prayer for the BBC's World Service and would certainly urge the BBC to do all in its power not only to maintain its Russian service, but to increase its output. I also earnestly urge it not to put ALL its investment into its website, which may prove to be still more vulnerable than radio.
From Anna Pilkington:
I could not agree more with Robert Chandler's and Richard Hainsworth's view of the disastrous changes the BBC are indroducing by getting rid of highly respected and much loved feature programmes and rolling out a blanket news coverage with a few sprinklings of 'culture' here and there. Most of today's radio and TV coverage already consists of fragmentary collection of snippets of news and other information, a framework where no issue could be properly covered and debated. Russian listeners, of which I was (and still am) one, appreciated not only the news reporting, but perhaps even more so the longer programmes where issues were debated at length, offering different perspectives - something still rare, and getting squeezed out altogether, in today's Russia.
The idea that Russia is going to be one of the biggest users of the internet by the end of this year is utterly utopian. Moreoever, internet is easy to control, and we have had a number of examples of Russia's current regime doing precisely that.
One really begins to wonder whose advice the BBC are listening to, and why they are so deaf to the voices of those who genuinely care and have been the Russian Service's genuine supporters and admirers?
Anna Pilkington
BBC in Russian was, and I hope, will still be a part of our cultural universe! MIkhail Sobolevski, InterLingua Ltd. Minsk, Belarus
From Alessandro Gallenzi:
I'm writing to express my sympathy with the views expressed by Robert Chandler in his article.
As a publisher and propagator of Russian classics and new fiction, I feel that axing the BBC's Russian feature programmes would be a major mistake which we would soon come to regret. I would like to voice my strongest opposition to the plans, and hope that the campaigners will be successful in stopping them.
Yours sincerely
Alessandro Gallenzi
Publisher
Alma Books Ltd / Oneworld Classics Ltd
agallenzi@almabooks.com
--
The section of society in Russia which currently enjoys access to the internet is the one least likely to encounter difficulties in finding alternative information sources. It is primarily the younger generation who are technically savvy, while the older generation continues to listen to the radio. My father-in-law lives in Russia and regularly relies on the radio for unbiased news coverage.
Moreover, the Russian authorities are increasing their attempts to block internet sites and impose online censorship.
Given the recent killing -- while in police custody -- of Magomed Yevloyev, owner of Ingushetia's only uncensored news portal, following the authorities' successful attempts to block access to his site, the BBC's decision comes at a strange time.
Anna Pilkington has clearly articulated the concerns I share; I wholeheartedly support her comments.
Jane Henderson
I would like to add my voice to those protesting the treat to the BBC Russian service. At this crucial time when there is less and less media freedom in the Russian federation and when nationalist and fascist political terror is able to attack the forces of Russian democracy and human rights with apparent impunity, it is every more important for Russians to have access to reliable information.
Richard Greeman, Ph.D. Translator
Submitted by Olga Meerson:
A short note on the BBC closing of its Russian and related programs:
Is it possible that people really think that the Soviet guise was the only remaining relevant form of Russian imperial oppression? It is enough to simply look around to see that that is not true. Admittedly, the world is not as bi-polar as it seemed to be during the years of Cold War--but all the more reason to protect those who now no longer know who should be addressed for protection. If there is any sense in the Western world that it may promote or even merely legitimately defend freedom, this is the time to prove such things. If the world is no longer bi-polar, let us at least make sure that it is not uni-polar, as far as freedom--or rather the lack thereof--is concerned!
Olga Meerson, PhD in Russian Language and Literature, Columbia University 1991; emigrated from the Soviet Union, 1974.
I want strongly to support Robert Chandler's well-expressed views and add my concern about the reduction in BBC Russian Service feature programmes. In this present climate of mistrust it is hardly the time to water down the BBC's offerings of many sided, intelligent debate in Russia. I have been involved in training psychotherapists in Russia for eleven years and have witnessed their eagerness for the broad and tolerant understanding of different perspectives and the encouragement to form individual, reasoned opinions that the BBC has always promoted. A mere cut-down, 'rolling news' provision is not going to provide this vital service, and I hope the campaigners will persuade the World Service to reverse their decision.
Catherine Crowther, Russian Revival Project
Balance between pro-Kremlin position and real situation in Russia means now the same as policy of appeasement by Mr. Chamberlain in 1938. It leads only to Putin's regim reinforcement, it contributes to renewal of Stalin's Empire and it's very dangerous way. On the contrary, unambiguous sign that can be sent by BBC to russian people and government maybe can stop collapce of the democracy in Russia.
I live in Russia and rely on the BBC to provide in-depth coverage of news events. Curtailing the service now would be one more nail in the coffin of intellgient and informed discussion here. Under the influence of Russian media news coverage, most of my friends have begun to pick up overly simplified and often erroneous views of events in Russia and the world. The BBC features provided an alternative. I hope they will continue.
As one who has listened to the World Service, both in English and in other languages, over many years, I would support Robert Chandler's point of view very wholeheartedly. Adequate provision of features with nuanced, intelligent comment, unafraid to engage with controversial issues, has always been seen as the essential contribution of the BBC worldwide, and there is certainly a perception among foreign friends (which I share) that this kind of intelligent coverage is in retreat.
If the BBC does not tell the truth to the Russian people about the abuse of the legal system, and the travesty of due process, in the forthcoming trial of Mikhail Khodorkovsky on trumped-up charges intended to ensure that he remains in prison, as one of the new generation of political prisoners in Russia today, who will? For this reason among many others, I support Robert Chandler's position.
Suppression of political rights and freedoms in Russia calls for immediate attention!
BBC played an important role in establishing democracy in Russia in the past.
It should not betray its loyalty to the principles of freedom of speech now.
My respect and support to Mr. Chandler.
As writers committed to exploring contemporary eastern Europe in our work (and in particular Russia), we are struck by the esteem with which BBC broadcasts are held by so many of our Russian contacts.
Rolling news is one thing, and keen analysis quite another. Well might one argue that we already have too much of the former and not enough of the latter. The BBC is uniquely well placed to offer good length cultural features and programmes that thoroughly explore political ideas and incorporate a variety of perspectives. Such programming should not be given up lightly.
Good radio (like effective cultural diplomacy) requires time. We fully support the views advanced by Robert Chandler in his thoughtful article and very much hope that the BBC will reconsider its plans.
Nicky Gardner & Susanne Kries
editors
hidden europe magazine, Berlin, Germany
Growing up in the former Soviet Union, those letters stood for integrity in the face of pressure and threats, an example of real journalism. Please don't cave in and swap political reportage for "light features with little analysis" - there is plenty of that on the Russian airwaves aready. With journalists being murdered in broad daylight, how much greater is the need for the BBC not to abandon its original remit.
From Gina Medcalf and Charles Hewlings:
The range and depth of the BBC’s Russian Service features should not be axed. The BBC’s World Service needs to provide the fresh perspectives from which to view news coverage that the pre-recorded features provide. We are in support of the views expressed by Richard Hainsworth and Robert Chandler published on the Open Democracy website and urge Mark Thompson, Director General of the BBC to heed these important arguments against the BBC’s plans to change the service.
First of all, quite apart from the control issues associated with the internet which Richard Hainsworth has so clearly articulated, I wonder at the BBC's decision essentially to withdraw its services from that significant proportion of its listeners in Russia who do not necessarily have internet access and who in the current climate are forced to rely on the BBC more than ever for a counter balance to Russia's domestic media.
Secondly, I sympathise with the BBC's desire to improve its service by offering its listeners FM coverage. However, that seems to have backfired. Mark Thompson has expressed regret at the BBC's inability to maintain FM partnerships in Russia. I wonder to what extent that is thanks to pressure being put on potential partners by a regime which is determined to manipulate the media for its own ends. The BBC (which we still like to think of as a "beacon of truth and balanced opinion") should not allow itself to be muzzled as a result, whether wittingly or not.
Siriol Hugh-Jones
Russian legal translator
From Lesley Chamberlain
I was horrifed to read the BBC's classification of Russia as a growing market rather than a country where domestic news coverage is biased and insufficient. Mark Thompson's reply to Robert Chandler only clarified that the Corporation is incapable of thinking in any other terms than markets. They have swallowed in to the teaching of UK and US governments for the last quarter century that economic liberty means political liberty, even though it has been clear for years that the Russian state is regressing to old standards of repression and that its membership of the G8 is no guarantee of political decency. A recent article in the Financial Times by one of our most senior and respected journalists, and a longstanding Rusian expert, John Lloyd, filed after a trip to Moscow, ended in dismay at the degree of Soviet-style mistrust towards the West holding sway over an informed audience invited to debate world issues. Post-Soviet Russia has no ideology that the BBC and the Foreign Office can name, so they think no truth-bending ideology hostile to the West exists. But Putin's Russia is driven by a chauvinistic Eurasianism - by Soviet-style self-aggrandisement and tight control over domestic criticism of the state. The Communist veneer has been dropped and a different economic system adopted, but the official essence remains the same. If the World Service still believes in freedom it probably should be expanding its Russian service, not contracting it, and making contingency plans for re-basing it in London too.
Lesley Chamberlain
This couldn't be more important, given the nature of Russian language media today. It's a matter of foreign policy, and it's a matter of democracy. Whether it accepts it or not, the role of the media is to educate and provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and attitudes. A broad variety of ideas and attitudes are not available to Russian audiences today by their media. Therefore, it is essential that the BBC's Russian voice be supported fully at any cost. Thanks to all those that are at the forefront of this effort.
As a former BBC programme-maker, I am consistently frustrated by the corporation's growing susceptibility to political and economic poressures. I talked recently to a colleague who is likely to lose her job when the Russian features are chopped. She wasn't angry but just terribly sad that she would no longer be able to relate to an audience that patently needed as well as enjoyed the programmes so carefully-crafted by a group of the BBC's most dedicated producers. It's clear that her bureacratic masters have not recently laboured at the coal face of broadcasting but have had their minds addled by too much number-crunching and soul-destroying discussions with their near-neighbours in Westminster. In the Russian context, what is needed more than anything else is a little soulfulness. Is there no sould left at Bush House?
Jock Gallagher, Director, Centre for Freedom of the Media, Sheffield University.
This seems an exceptionally short-sighted decision by the BBC in the light of the current situation in Russia.
From Prof.Stanley Mitchell
I have recently been involved in a programme discussing my new translation of Pushkin's Eugene Onegin and Donald Rayfield's recent version of Gogol's Dead Souls. The quality of the programme was extremely high, well-prepared
and informative. I'm sure Russian listeners would have enjoyed it. To axe such programmes in favour of some market-driven policy is to cut us off from just such an audience and to impoverish our relations with Russia.
From Prof.Rosalind Marsh:
I am appalled to hear that the BBC is thinking of axing some of the best programmes on the BBC Russian Service, at a time when this is one of the few sources of real information about Russia now that the Russian media are subject to such strict controls.
I hope that this will not make any difference to the website, which I use constantly to provide interesting translation material for my students at all levels.
Professor Rosalind Marsh
Professor of Russian Studies, Department of European Studies and Modern
Languages, University of Bath, BA2 7AY, U.K.
Former President, British Association of Slavonic and East European Studies
First of all, quite apart from the control issues associated with the internet which Richard Hainsworth has so clearly articulated, I wonder at the BBC's decision essentially to withdraw its services from that significant proportion of its listeners in Russia who do not necessarily have internet access and who in the current climate are forced to rely on the BBC more than ever for a counter balance to Russia's domestic media.
Secondly, I sympathise with the BBC's desire to improve its service by offering its Russian listeners FM coverage. However, that seems to have backfired. Mark Thompson has expressed regret at the BBC's inability to maintain FM partnerships in Russia. I wonder to what extent that is thanks to pressure being put on the BBC's potential FM partners by a regime which is determined to manipulate the media for its own ends. The BBC (which we still like to think of as a "beacon of truth and balanced opinion") should not allow itself to be muzzled as a result, whether wittingly or not.
Siriol Hugh-Jones
Russian legal translator
It is with sadness and disappointment that I learn of the changes to the Russian Service.
In this time of global financial and economic turbulence, which historically has provided a platform for fundamentalist elements, why is the BBC reducing the channels of communication which offer an opportunity for fair and balanced comment?
It is also worth consideration, that as English is being replaced by the oriental languages in many of the former USSR states, the BBC has a role to play in promoting cultural exchange, a vital component in building friendship and trust between the ordinary people of the world.
If I have understood Mark Thompson correctly, the best way of addressing the Russian "market" is to reduce the range and quality of a cheap service that is already being provided (on short wave) in favour of one that is not available (FM), and one - broadband - whose availability the BBC usually limits to the UK because it is too expensive. As others have pointed out, broadband accessibility is notoriously subject to state control which means that those for whom the BBC is a critical source of information and informed comment may well find themselves cut off, or possibly worse, have their access "monitored". This is yet another retreat by the Corporation from its responsibilities and from the mission that we, the public, expect it to fulfil.
jf
All of our colleagues are very disappointed to hear of the BBC Russian Service decision to stop producing feature programmes. Unfortunately, this now becomes a trend. A year and a half ago Danish radio closed their features department and other European radio stations are rumored to be following suit. This is very sad, for several reasons. Foremost of those - the BBC Russian Service is our long-time partner. We started working together 17 years ago when news broadcasting in Russia was in its infancy. The BBC Marshal Plan for Russia was not connected to its Russian Service directly, but without contact with the Service this project would not be so successful. Talent and professionalism of the BBC Russian Service journalists was the major input and a beacon for us, then budding journalists. Secondly, we - and other journalists - were learning a lot from the colleagues in the Russian Service. From going to internships in London to making joint programmes - everything was contributing to our learning. From basics of holding a microphone to more complex science of computer editing. Our radio festivals in Russia were attended by the BBC colleagues with very interesting lectures. Thirdly, we are depressed by the tendency to limit all broadcasting to news reports. Bizzarely, just as we teach our colleagues in provincial radio stations in Russia how to produce feature programmes, just as we master to do it ourselves, the outlet which became an expert in the genre is giving up on this priceless heritage. Thanks to the radio features, the BBC Russian Service listeners were able not only to learn the news, but to understand the very essence of what is happening, dig deeper into the origins of events. Moreover, radio features were supporting a certain culture of consuming the radio. The BBC was supporting this culture. And another point. There is quite a lot of suspicion towards Britain in nowadays Russia. Links between the countries are cut down to the minimum and in this setting disappearance of features and shrinking of BBC Russian broadcasts will add nothing to restoring the normal perception of Britain. We are not talking of propaganda, but of dialogue and reflection, of looking deeper in the roots of news and of open discussion in the society. Naturally, radio evolves and it's clear that modern media can not exist without Internet. But radio across the airwaves is an amazing and incomparable medium which is not replaced by Internet in its modern form and essence. There is place for radio broadcasts on the web but adapting and transforming radio for such output takes time to find the best formula in the world of communication. We do understand that in the times of financial crisis the costs need to be cut. But it is also very obvious to us that along with the savings all radio stations are trying to safeguard their brand qualities, something which distinguishes them from the rest in the eyes, or rather ears, of their audience. Feature programmes are without doubt the strongest selling point of BBC Russian Service. Their disappearance will be an irreplaceable loss for its listeners. All of our colleagues are convinced that these programmes need to be retained and we hope that they will be preserved for the airwaves. Natalia Vlasova Andrey Alakhverdov Independent Radio Foundation, Russia
We have just been to the stunning Tate Modern Rodchenko and Popova exhibition, a masterpiece of scholarship - so poignant in the retrieval of every piece on display in terms of the vicissitudes of Russia's past. Prominent Russian artists made the trip to be there - both Russian-based and emigres. Tonight Anya Stonelake's White Space opened a neo-Malevich exhibition. Intellectual links and camaraderie have never been stronger, - including the research fostered by the Courtauld Institute of Art, University of London
The situation Rober Chandler describes shows a gross lack of foresight by the BBC.
Sarah Wilson, Courtauld Institute
I support Robert Chandler's position and also Victor Klokov's point of view : " Balance between pro-Kremlin position and real life in Russia means at this period of history the same as policy of appeasement by Chamberlain in 1938".
During the last two weeks I have been closely monitoring the new programmes that the BBC Russian Service is introducing to take the place of the Features its management has decided to axe.
I found the new presentation style bordering on vulgarity. The content is shallow. There is no clear expression of British values. There was, sadly, little that gave me food for thought, new information, an alternative point of view or even just an interesting story. To me, they were merely irritating.
The Features were very different indeed. Although of varying quality (hardly surprising, since they were produced on a shoe-string budget), they were not, as the Director of the World Service recently put it “light features with little analysis”. Here are a few of the subjects they covered: Racism among Russian Youth, Juvenile Justice in Russia, Chechens Abroad, History and Memory in Russia and Germany, Children in Prison in Britain and Russia, New Antiterrorist Laws, The Debate about Identity cards, Media in Georgia Today. To me they indicated profound journalism.
Over several decades, World Service Features have been remarkable for their diversity, their interest and the depth of their analysis. These qualities make them more needed than ever in today’s Russia.
Irina Shumovitch, producer, Russian Service 1989-2001.
The communication between Robert Chandler and Mark Thompson is like a conversation between foreigners. They are speaking two different languages: the questions are about discussions, the answer - about news coverage only. This is surely the main problem!
“Your letter refers to the BBC's Royal Charter, which you believe specifies that the BBC must "offer thoughtful programmes that allow for genuine discussion of political and cultural matters from a number of points of view". We firmly believe that the World Service offers precisely the programmes which you describe. I think the most relevant part of the Charter on this point is in the Agreement (CM 6872). This says (para 1O.b) that the BBC Trust must ensure that the BBC "brings high quality international news coverage to international audiences", and (para 64.6.a) that the World Service objectives must include "the provision of an accurate, unbiased and independent news service, covering international and national developments. We believe that the changes will deliver a service that meets these and other objectives, and will continue to offer programmes of the kind your letter describes.”
When the situation in Russia is getting worse, BBC Russian Service must increase its efforts, not to decrease them. It must not abandon its respected history and values.
Will the BBC Russian web site be limited in analysis and criticism too? If not, how is the management of BBC is going to provide this if it gets rid of the journalists. Who will be left to create programs of this kind?
Why at least not use these high quality radio programs on the web-site as well, so that the Russian audience can choose whether to listen to it or to read it?
If Internet is more popular than radio, then TV is still the most popular media. It is really does reach every household there. Why does the BBC not to explore the possibilities of translating its TV programs to Russia? When other language services are getting additional funding for the development of their television, why is the Russian service – a service for a huge, unstable, but “developing market” – being discriminated against and destroyed?
Marina Jakobsen, Russian journalist
I think it would be a great blow to relations between two important countries to dispense with the BBC Russian Service, which has established itself over the years as a unique forum and bridge with Russians and the current situation in Russia, and informer of Russians about the British and what is happening in the UK.
Antony Wood
Publisher, Angel Books, London
Please do NOT AXE BBC Russian service. it is so important
In an interview with Ian Burrell in The Independent (TV & Radio, 2nd March), Nigel Chapman, the outgoing Director of the BBC World Service complained:
“I totally reject, in any sense at all, that there's any evidence whatsoever, that there was some sort of compromise about the editorial standards of the Russian service, this is a wild allegation put around by people frankly who have got axes to grind and it does not stand up to analysis".
I am afraid Mr. Chapman has not been entirely honest. Only last month, the BBC upheld my complaint about the Russian Service’s fully moderated online forum about Oleg Gordievsky, who was decorated by the Queen for his services to the security of this country.
Mr Gordievsky, the highest ranking KGB officer to have ever worked for the British, provided vital information to the West in the final years of the Cold War. There is still a death sentence for him in Russia.
Following Mr Gordievsky’s investiture, the BBC World Service’s website published hate messages calling for his execution. However, following a review lasting for about a year, BBC Online ordered for about thirty messages to be removed. The World Service has yet to issue an apology to Mr. Gordievsky.
Sergei Cristo, Radio journalist, BBC (1994-2000)
From Helen Goodway
As an avid listener to, and as someone who understands the unique value and importance of the BBC World Service, I wish to add my voice to the protest against any axing of the Russian Service. In the circumstances of a world in crisis, it is utterly imperative to maintain all channels of communication and information.
Yours,
Helen Goodway (English Editor, 'Tadeeb International')
Please put your name to the following petition to the Prime Minister:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/BBCWorldService/
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to launch a full and independent investigation into the BBC World Service.
The Government has ignored recent calls by MPs from both sidesof the House and members of the public for an investigationinto the BBC World Service. There are several serious concerns about the way taxpayers’ money is being spent by the BBC.
The government has increased its Grant-in-Aid funding of the BBC World Service by about 20% over the past five years.
Despite this, the BBC axed much of its quality feature andcultural programming in favour of cheap news coverage across the World Service, significantly reduced its funding forRussian broadcasts and is in the process of offshoring South Asian language services “closer to their audiences”, to countries where intimidation of journalists is widespread.
Therefore, we call on the Prime Minister to launch a full and independent investigation into the BBC World Service.
From Martin Dewhirst: a Wreath for Reith?
Barring a last-minute intervention, the Features Department of the BBC’s Russian Service (RS) will be closed down in the middle of March, 2009 – a fortnight after the departure of the previous Head of the BBC’s World Service (WS), halfway through the period of responsibility of the Acting Head, and a month before the incoming Head of the WS takes up his post. When questioned in the future about this lamentable decision, the latter two gentlemen could presumably claim that they might have wanted to put the matter on hold for a month or two and asked some new, competent advisers for their views, but unfortunately it was too late, for operational reasons, to do so. Thus it is likely that the previous Head of the WS, together with his advisers on broadcasting in Russian, will have to accept most of the blame.
Clearly, the RS in the future will be run without its most distinguished and distinguishing component – its feature programming. The WS in English is still carrying numerous really excellent features every week, and why WS listeners in Russian (and in other languages as well) are to be totally deprived of such broadcasts (snippets within other shows are not Features) is something that has still not been satisfactorily explained. Of course, the RS has been degenerating and going downmarket for quite some time, but why concentrate almost entirely on news and current affairs when, as the advisers to the Head of the WS must know, there are several other excellent Russian-language news and current affairs outlets which are not financially supported by the British tax-payer and with which the BBC RS, however much it expands its coverage, has little chance of competing?
Naturally, a small number of people in the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) will also have to share the blame for this disastrous decision. The FCO rightly keeps its distance from the BBC WS, but the decision to liquidate the RS’s Features Department must have been known to, and approved by, these hapless officials long before March 2009. Their non-resistance to this calamity is not only incomprehensible but astonishing, not least because of the excellent idea to run a regular blog by David Miliband on the website of the radio station Ekho Moskvy. Moreover, they must be aware that many of the anti-Western comments by ‘ordinary people’ on this blog may well have been written by the notorious Komanda G (those with a reading knowledge of Russian should go to
http://www.expertiza.ru/expertiza.phtml?id=671, continued in 672 and 674), one (or more than one?) group of hacks who falsely claim to be representative of Russian public opinion. But at least these people are paid by the Russian, not the British, taxpayer. The interactive programmes that the BBC RS plans to expand at the expense of Features will provide further opportunities for Komanda G personnel, but now the U.K. taxpayer will be helping to support them.
I keep on wondering why some employees of the BBC are so blatantly betraying and perverting the ideals and legacy of Lord Reith. So that their strategy becomes completely clear, perhaps they should be advised to invite Ramzan Kadyrov or Vladimir Putin to give this year’s Reith Lectures?
Martin Dewhirst, University of Glasgow
Dear all,Please consider signing the following petition, created by Sergei Cristo (a former Russian Service producer). Please also, if possible, forward the link pasted below to as many people as possible. http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/BBCWorldService/ <http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/BBCWorldService/> This will only take a couple of minutes. In order to get an official response, we need at least 200 signatories. All of them have to be UK residents. We have a month.When the French government recently decided to stop their own Russian-language broadcasting service, 900 people signed a petition against this. Copies were sent to every deputy in the French parliament, and the broadcasts were reprieved! Many thanks, Robert Chandler
Thanks for the very interesting article indeed. I am studying Russian political system at the university at the moment so such great articles like this will definitely help me in my studies. What about political system in Russia, I think that maybe they are trying to open the gates to the democracy, but it will have to wait some time to fully incorporate it in the system of the country. I don't have anything against Putin or Medvedev because I think they are cool guys. I mean from the political side they are doing a great job. Oh I am finishing right now. Thanks one more time for the great article. I will be waiting for other great ones from you in the future too.
Sincerely,
Mark Bronson from application development services
Post new comment