“Kazakhstan is no dead zone for journalism”
For Kazakhstan’s journalism the close of 2012 was marked by the disappearance of Tokbergen Abiev, who extensively investigated corruption schemes in the country. He went missing one day before his announced press conference under the motto “Corruptionists belong in jail,” where he was supposed to reveal some sensational facts. As it turned out later, the journalist had arranged his own kidnapping in order to bring his activity and the announced event in the limelight. Adil Soz, the Kazakhstan’s Foundation for Freedom of Speech, denounced Abiev’s act as “ethically and professionally intolerable” and put him on its black list.
But the situation with freedom of speech indeed aggravated in Kazakhstan at the end of 2012. BBC reports that the Medeus District Court in Almaty has banned the publication of the newspaper Golos Respubliki (Voice of the Republic) and a number of associated print and online resources: a total of 8 newspapers and 23 Internet projects.
The Day met with Tamara KALEEVA, president of Adil Soz – International Foundation for Protection of Freedom of Speech, to discuss the current situation, the quality of mass media and professional training in Kazakhstan.
Can we say that today there are no mass media left that would voice opinions contrary to the government’s?
“No, it’s not that hopeless. There still are two minor newspapers. We refrain from naming them, just not to jinx it, or else they will get unwanted attention from the police and end up closed down, too.”
Journalism and society must keep abreast with each other. Often the audience defines the demand for a certain kind of materials. Do Kazakhstani journalists have the demand for quality oppositionist journalism?
“Such demand does exist. The closure of most of the oppositionist media outlets implies that the regime fears the society’s need for quality and unbiased information. However, it would be an exaggeration to say that journalists sense it and strive to meet the audience’s demand. Some 90 percent of Kazakhstan’s journalists consider their job just a means of sustenance. Many realize that they underperform as citizens. But a lot of people fail to understand even this little. The journalists you describe are very hard to come by.
“Given the quality and level of education, provided by numerous schools of journalism at universities, there is hardly any ground to speak of their graduates as professionals, or at least mature individuals with a civic standpoint. Many want to work for state-owned media, which provides a reliable income. This tells on the quality of their material. Pleasant exceptions, nevertheless, still exist.”
Do you think that this lack of quality journalism in Kazakhstan is only caused by inadequate training, or are there other factors at play?
“I had long worked for the newspaper Kazakhstanskaya Pravda, till 1998. My former colleagues are professional and talented, but they are suppressed by censorship on the part of the presidential administration office and the information ministry. Endless advisories on the subject and manner of writing can discourage anyone, and a journalist starts to consider yielding his principles in exchange for material welfare. This is not only a matter of the quality of professional training, but rather of the atmosphere in which most journalists have to work. This atmosphere deprives them of any incentives for professional improvement and achievement.”
In any case, is there at least a faint tendency towards a rise in the quality of Kazakhstan’s journalism?
“Unfortunately, I cannot see it. All good private media with creative, talented staff are very soon forced by their owners to replace their editors-in-chief and ideologists. Thus they gradually sink to the deplorable level of most media. Meanwhile, smaller outlets, private and virtually independent, grapple with the problem of professionalism.”
What is the situation with investigative journalism like in Kazakhstan?
“Investigative journalism, if considered in the full sense of the notion, is virtually non-existent here. Firstly, any journalist investigation entails trials, accusations of libel, defamation, and damage to professional reputation. All this means six-figure fines for the media which will have to pay the damages. I also mean this year’s processes of journalists. Investigation journalism always involves a danger of bankruptcy and imprisonment. For instance, our government officials have something known as the Code of Honor. If a civil servant becomes a subject of a critical publication in the press, this code orders them to rehabilitate their reputation via a court of law. In other words, if you want to keep your job, you are obliged to sue the author of the article. Let alone the fact that journalists risk assault and battery. All the investigations that are published in this country are nothing more than the leaking of information by competitors.
“My pessimism might be caused by the gloomy recent developments. But Kazakhstan is no dead zone for journalism. There are honest reporters and interesting private media outlets out there – unfortunately, only on the regional scale. However, they leave room for hope of reviving true journalism in Kazakhstan, true civil society, and true democracy.”
At the close of 2012, Kazakhstan’s government also closed down Golos Respubliki.
“They have also closed down the newspaper Vzgliad (Viewpoint) and a number of Internet portals, associated with these media. Besides, they have blocked the satellite channel K+ and banned the production studio Stan.tv. This means a virtual defeat of the oppositionist media outlets, accomplished in a most cynical way, with violating the law. At the process, the newspaper appeared as the defendant, instead of the legal entity, owner, or editor-in-chief. A newspaper is a means of communicating information. At all the trials the owners and lawyers insisted that a newspaper cannot be tried in a court of law, since it is not a natural person or legal entity. But the prosecution and judges did not give a damn. Besides, to make their task easier, they pooled together 8 newspapers and 23 websites, associated with Republic. Our legislation does not know of such a norm which would allow to forcibly pool individual legal entities into one newspaper. On top of all that, they were denounced as extremists. The selectively examined samples demonstrated in court were associated with a totally different, political process of the leaders of an unregistered Alga! political party. The lawsuits were based on some obscure examination. None of the journalists, lawyers, and owners of the media in question had taken part in this ‘expert examination,’ although it is stipulated by the law. The media were deprived of the right to defend themselves to the full extent.”
