Andrei Naletov, an expert from the For Human Rights movement, and a representative of the Fund for the Defense of Prisoner’s Rights said the result was promising, but was hesitant to call it a victory. He spoke with the Gazeta.ru online newspaper:

“The administration decided to make concessions,” Naletov said. “Agreements were reached on improving incarceration conditions and passing on the inmate’s complaints to the public prosecutors at various levels [of power].” He added that prison officials went for a compromise only after the media reported on the hunger strike.

“According to relatives of the inmates, the situation is ambiguous for the moment,” he continued. “Those who declared they were going on hunger strike and those who sent out complaints of living in poor conditions, will be taken out of the facility, and [the authorities] will attempt to get rid of them.”

Officials had earlier denied that there were any problems at the prison colony, and said that no hunger strike was taking place. Valery Zaitsev, a representative of Russian prison service, told Ekho Moskvy radio on May 9th that he had “gotten in touch with the management of the correctional colony,” and that “there was nothing there.”

It later became clear that inmates had started the protest on May 9th as a last resort after weeks of unanswered calls for help. Attempts to make contact with higher authorities were apparently dismissed by prison staff.

One group of prisoners had written letters describing their inhumane conditions to the public prosecutor’s office of the Samara oblast and the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia. Prison administrators, however, refused to forward the complaints, and began punishing the convicts that wrote them, according to a prisoner’s rights group called In Defense of Inmates. The group reported that the convicts who wrote letters were put into punitive isolation for non-existent violations. On May 8th, one of the initial complainants, Vladimir Yelbakiev, approached the prison authorities and asked about the status of the grievances. In response, Yelbakiev was brutally beaten by guards.

Penal colony number 6 has seen similar incidents before. In October 2007, an inmate was killed by prison staff under circumstances similar to those described by Yelbakiev. In that case, In Defense of Inmates was able to launch a criminal case.

–

Read “Putin’s Torture Colonies,” an examination of prisons in modern-day Russia (Wall Street Journal)

While many spectators came out to watch the military parade and listen to speeches, a large contingent of supporters of the Communist Party (KPRF) marched through central Moscow and expressed outrage at the Kremlin, the Sobkor®ru news agency reports.

An estimated 9 thousand Communist demonstrators took to the streets, chanting “Beat this authority!” “We cannot be broken!” “Down with modern fascism!” “We took the Reichstag, and we’ll take the Kremlin!” “Down with densifying construction!” “Luzhkov, densify yourself!” “The Federation Council will be ours!” “Bears [Medvedi, a play on Medvedev] into the woods!” and “Freedom for political prisoners!”

Gennady Zyuganov, the leader of the Communists, led the procession. Speaking before the crowd at the Teatralnaya ploschad, Zyuganov said that for this holiday, the authorities had only given one present to veterans – higher prices for consumer products and public services. Zyuganov added that all the military gear rolling through Red Square was created during Soviet times, and that no new technology was being created. He went on to say that not one new factory had been opened in recent memory.

The Communist leader then accused Russia’s Finance Minister, Aleksei Kudrin, of letting capital flow out the country at a time when funds should be allocated for the country’s social services. Zyuganov also thanked supporters who voted for him during presidential elections, and who cast ballots to bring the KPRF into the Parliament.

It should be noted that before the event began, 20 members of the Council of Orthodox Banner-bearers who tried to join the Communists, were arrested. The group was charged with breaking the picketing rules.

Arrests also took place at other demonstrations in the city. Four youth activists trying to unfurl a banned reading “No to fascism of all stripes,” were nabbed by OMON riot police, as was a nearby photographer. Another opposition activist, Suren Yedigarov of the United Civil Front, was leading a solitary picket against President Dmitri Medvedev when the militsiya tried to grab his sign, and then detained him when he resisted.

–

A photo-report of the Communist march, courtesy of Kasparov.ru

A report by Al Jazeera covering the military parade:

Militsiya officers, who did not have any formal authorization to confiscate the publication, told shop owners that the magazine contained unlawful obscene content.

Sellers of the magazine were also being called in for questioning, and were told they would have criminal responsibility if they continued carrying the publication.

It is worth noting that the Russian edition of Maxim was officially registered with the necessary federal agencies on February 18th 2002. Officials in Bashkortostan, however, said they were not subject to the Russian ministries. “We have a Bashkiria Ministry of Culture, which believes that this pornography cannot be sold everywhere,” one of the magazine’s sellers was reportedly told.

The currently active law “On Mass Media” forbids the production and trafficking of materials that promote pornography. However, the Ministry of Culture and Mass Communications recently prepared draft legislation that would allow the sale of erotic and pornographic products, excluding pornography that involves violence, minors, the deceased, symbols and architecture of the state, and animals.

Still, punishment for creating and selling pornography is mild, and sentences are light. Furthermore, the laws see little distinction between pornography involving children versus that involving adults, and this has led to an international reputation for Russia as a haven for child pornography.

Maxim, by some estimated that most popular men’s magazine in Russia, features images of scantily clad celebrities and models.  In the Russian edition, a very small portion of those photos portray nudity.

Regency?
May 8, 2008
Anton Orekh
Yezhednevny Zhurnal

An astonishing time awaits us. The time of Medvedev’s rule will without a doubt be astonishing. Astonishing not because the astonishment will be pleasant, although, who knows, what if! It’s just that something simple and ordinary cannot come out of this whole contrived plan.

The grandiose inauguration against the background of the thievishly modest hand-over of presidential credentials, that is to say, the effective takeover of the full [presidential] powers. Will his rule henceforth be the same: a bright outer shell and the absence of any inside filling? If Medvedev is going to rule on his own –it will be astonishing. Because now, no one is expecting it.

They are waiting for regency. Something like it existed in our history, but it was long ago, and no one now living caught it. If Medvedev rules in name only, cutting ribbons, sending facsimile telegrams on the anniversaries of his favorite actors and accepting the credentials of ambassadors – it would be logical, but unfamiliar and incomprehensible in a country where the tsar must be the Head. And Russia’s president is indeed her tsar.

If the tendency of the presidential post gradually becoming formality continues, wherein all the actual powers are in practice transferred to the prime minister – it will violate all established traditions. But still, how perfectly did the renowned Putin political analyst put it: as in, who said that the president is the head of the Executive Branch? This is a misconception! The prime minister was always the head of the Executive Branch! And if you thought this wasn’t the case, then it was merely a temporary and necessary deviation and error.

Which means, we are already being prepared to regard the prime minister as the state’s chief executive. And as for his boss, the president… I don’t even know what [to call him].

But imagine that Medvedev, having received the “Card” and having sworn on the Constitution, suddenly decides that he’s the head and really does become the head? Then it will be quite an astonishing rule, with the dethronement of the all-people’s idol-prime minister.

But imagine how delightful it will be, if both immediately start administrating, which is also possible up to a point. Although, this would not be as much astonishing as fraught with consequences. Already, unrest has started among the civil servants, since they can’t grasp who to resolve matters with, who to brown nose, who to follow. And when the two-voiced cacophony sounds from the Kremlin! The bureaucrats will finally go haywire, and serve two masters, like Truffaldino.

But the main danger for the new epoch doesn’t even lie in all this. Up until now, after all, the times have not been less astonishing. At no time before did such a golden rain pour down upon our country. Nearly eight years of a continuous stream of oil and oil dollars. Like any freebie, the hydrocarbon one will also cease sooner or later (likely sooner!). But holding on to it is our whole economy, and all of our prosperity – which is like winning after putting [all your money] on “zero” out of desperation. But it isn’t possible to keep winning on “zero” forever.

Medvedev will find it necessary to struggle with falling revenues from the sale of resources –against a background of out-of-control inflation. And it has already gone out-of-control. 18% per year is what we’re heading toward– such a hole can’t be filled with promises and cheerful segments on the news. And who will blame who? Will the president dismiss the premier, or will the premier say the president has failed?

And how long will this astonishing time extend? One term, two terms? Or maybe, until the first scandal with a planned switch-up?

Predictions, as is known, are a foolish and unrewarding thing. Furthermore, the way you make a prediction is precisely how it probably won’t happen. But, on the other hand, for all the cartwheels of Putin’s rule, his appointment of Medvedev as successor was one of the most evident and oldest of the discussed versions [of events]. And that means that there are still some things in this life we can predict.

translated by theotherrussia.org

Lev Ponomarev, the leader of the For Human Rights movement, told Interfax on May 6th that a number of other museum-workers were also summoned for questioning.

The exhibit was created by Andrei Yerofeyev, an art expert who sought out works that were banned by Moscow art galleries and museums in 2006. Part of the exhibit’s intention, according to Samodurov, was “to discuss the problem as to what should and what should not be banned.”

In fact, much of the artwork on display was decidedly mild by international standards. One piece depicted Mickey Mouse and Lenin. Another showed scrawled obscenities with a background of a crucifix and other religious imagery. Others featured pornographic images. To see the art, viewers had to peek through a bed sheet with holes cut out of it.

A criminal case on grounds of “inciting hatred or enmity” was first launched against organizers of the event last year, after complaints from a movement called the “People’s Convocation.” The group, comprised of over 200 various organizations, believes the exhibit offends the sensibilities of religious believers.

The Russian Orthodox Church and Orthodox organizations have also been staunch critics of religious-themed modern art. A 2003 exhibit titled “Caution: Religion!” was damaged by six members of a religious group, who threw black paint on featured artwork. Organizers of that exhibit (including Samodurov), which was also held at the Sakharov Center, were convicted of inciting hatred.

Samodurov is being indicted and criminally charged under the Russian Code of Administrative Offenses, which covers the insult of religious feelings and the desecration of religious objects.

Other non-religious artwork has also been banned by authorities. Several works were pulled by the Culture ministry from an exhibit of political satire as it moved out of Russia on an international tour.

Still, Samodurov and the Russian art world were unapologetic for what they see as their right to free expression. Responding to criticism from religious groups, Samodurov spoke his mind:

“I personally like only a few of the works displayed. There are some that I in fact strongly dislike. But what strikes me is that, if people do not like something, they immediately say that this fuels various kinds of discord, such as ethnic, religious, and so on. If you do not like this, do not come here.”

–

Read more about controversial art in Russia, with images, from Russia! magazine.

Denis Bilunov, the executive director of the United Civil Front party, was at the Chistye Prudy metro station, near the rally’s planned gathering spot, telling activists to leave the area. Speaking with a Sobkor®ru reporter, he said that the unlawful rejection of the demonstration by Moscow officials would be challenged in court.

Hundreds of riot police and militsiya troops were already at the scene well before the planned start of the March. Eye-witnesses said that most of the expected route, including the Slavyanskaya Ploschad (Slavonic Square) and the Chistoprudny Boulevard, were already surrounded by police and blocked off.

Reports are also coming in that activists were being arrested on their way to the location. According to initial counts, at least 50 people were arrested as they walked in small groups toward the assembly point.

Earlier in the day, The Other Russia press-service reported that they had received information suggesting two of the coalition’s leaders, Garry Kasparov and Eduard Limonov, would be arrested at the protest. The pair decided not take part in the event, for fear that they would be behind bars during May 17th and 18th meetings of the National Assembly, an alternative parliament organized by the opposition.

Organizers of the March of Dissent had attempted to negotiate with city officials until the last minute. The Other Russia press-service reported that there was no response from City Hall to the conclusions of a May 5th round-table between opposition leaders and local law enforcement. Participants of the round-table reached a compromise to limit the March of Dissent to a rally at one set location, and were waiting for the mayor to approve the deal.

The opposition initially filed paperwork for the demonstration on April 21st. City Hall responded 8 days later, rejecting the proposed gathering without providing any alternate routes.

Demonstrators were planning to protest the inauguration of President-elect Dmitri Medvedev, which will take place on May 7th 2008.

Bilunov said that a group representing the opposition had met with representatives of the local law enforcement at a round-table to negotiate the protest’s location.

As The Other Russia press-service reported, a final decision by City Hall will only be released on May 6th at 12:00 PM Moscow time. The press-service denied reports by the RIA Novosti and Interfax news agencies that the March of Dissent was being cancelled.

The initial paperwork to hold the March was filed on April 21st. City Hall, required to respond to a notice of demonstration within 3 days, waited 8 days to issue a statement saying that another gathering by the pro-Kremlin Young Russia movement was already planned for the proposed location. The officials did not offer an alternate route for the demonstration, which is also required by law.

Organizers have complained about similar treatment of previous Marches of Dissent, when city authorities refused to register protests planned weeks in advance. Commonly, officials reply to every proposed location by claiming that another group, almost always a youth movement friendly with authorities, has already planned a rally there. On March 3rd 2008, police charged the unsanctioned Moscow demonstration with batons, arresting over 200 picketers.

Eduard Limonov and Garry Kasparov, two leaders of The Other Russia, reported on May 4th that they were being continuously followed by unknown individuals. The two said they were concerned that provocateurs were planning to interfere with the upcoming demonstration.

The Moscow March of Dissent is set to start at 18:00 local time by the Chistiye Prudy metro station. Protesters will then walk a fixed route to the Slavyanskaya Ploschad (Slavonic Square).

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a law that puts caps on foreign ownership of companies in dozens of Russian industries, Reuters reports, citing the Kremlin press-agency.

The legislation first passed the State Duma, Russia’s lower house on April 2nd. It was adopted by the Federation Council, the upper house, on April 16th.

The new law has defined 42 sectors of the economy as “strategic,” and will require foreign investors to obtain permission from a government commission if they wish to obtain a certain stake of a Russian company. A foreign individual or firm will need approval before becoming a majority (over 50%) shareholder in most of the sectors. In companies that are involved in areas important for national defense, such as federally important mineral resources (including oil fields or other valuable subsoil resources), permission will be needed if more than a 10% share is desired.

Foreign governments wishing to invest in any of the industries face even stricter oversight, and need approval before obtaining more than a 25% share in any sector, or more than 5% in a sector using federally important resources.

Some investors are concerned about the new rules, and what they see as a re-nationalization of energy and mineral resources under Putin. Notably, Gazprom, Russia’s natural gas monopoly, has been accused of pressuring foreign investors into giving up majority shares in major development projects.

In total, 42 industries have been termed “strategic,” including mining, fishing, television and radio broadcasting, publishing and typesetting production, the manufacture of metals and alloys used in armaments and military technology, space technology, the production and testing of aviation technology, and the nuclear industry. Companies that hold a dominant position in providing internet and telephone service are also included.

In order to receive permission, foreign investors will need to file an application with a new commission comprised of officials from the government and security organs. Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) will then decide whether the ownership poses a threat to national security and will investigate the entities involved. The whole process is expected to take from 90 to 180 days.

Read the full details of the new law from the Prime-Tass News Agency (RUS).

For the moment, domestic and international criticism of the legal project is mounting, as even the staunchest Kremlin supporters begin to question its validity. Celebrity lawyer Pavel Astakhov, a leader of the movement asking President Vladimir Putin to stay in power, explained that under the proposed changes, “freedom of speech would turn into an empty declaration.” A number of prominent figures in Russia’s Public Chamber, which advises lawmakers, also voiced their outrage, as did journalists and media workers.

Democratic US Senator Benjamin Cardin, the Co-Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, similarly expressed regret for the new rules, calling on Russia’s new president to do something about them. “It is unfortunate that the Russian Federation created legislative penalties for anyone who fails to shape the news to their liking,” he said in a statement on May 3rd. “I urge President-elect Medvedev to lift the restraints on journalists and allow for a greater freedom of expression by the media and to put stronger measures in place to protect the rights of journalists.”

In Russia, many journalists take a grim view of the May 3rd World Press Freedom Day, and the holiday is not commonly celebrated. Victoria Rabotnova, a widely published and respected reporter, explains that the Russian media has little reason to celebrate freedom for just one day of the year (below). Her article, published one year ago today, remains as relevant as ever, as freedom of the press continues to come under fire.

World Press Freedom Day was started by the United Nations in 1993.

Plummeting Downward
Victoria Rabotnova
Published May 4, 2007
Kasparov.ru

Long ago, when I first started working at a newspaper, relatives would constantly congratulate me with our professional holiday. Now they don’t offer congratulations: they simply don’t know when, and most importantly, for what.

As to May 5th –the Day of the Soviet Press—I personally have fond memories. The relaxed editorial get-togethers and the inevitable bonuses truly made the day festive for all the journalists and newspaper-writers (employees of radio and TV had their own special holiday on May 7th). During the years of Perestroika, a significant part of newspapers came out of the control of the [Communist] party organs, but this didn’t affect attitudes toward May 5th. The jokesters, truth be told, did suggest renaming it to the Day of the Anti-Soviet Press, but no one wanted to break traditions and renounce the favorite holiday. Yet as a bit more time passed, the traditions broke on their own.

Understandably, after the putsch happened, it became sort of indecent to celebrate the day of the first issue of the Pravda newspaper. So May 5th was changed to January 13th, which took root slowly and with grumbling. But this is beside the point.

Honestly, I don’t remember if we marked the Day of the Press in 1991. This was a time when all the standing journalists wrote much and earned enough to not depend on the holiday’s bonuses. And we sat in the editorial offices well into the night every day, because the newspapers went to print late at night: there was simply no time to sit around a festive table, because we needed to monitor the news, finish writing or rewrite articles, create pages… in short, to work. And the work seemed so much more interesting than some holiday sit-arounds.

The May 3rd Day of the Free Press was definitely never celebrated. This seemed pointless during times when [the Press] was indeed free every day. Today, when the space for freedom has contracted like pebbled skin, this isn’t just pointless, but even cynical –the same as celebrating innocence in a brothel. According to a Freedom House rating, Russia is in 164th place for the degree of media freedom, letting not only Moldova and Kyrgyzstan pass by, but even Iran and Afghanistan. In the previous year, I’ll note, we were slightly higher – in 158th place. [note: The most recent 2008 assessment by Freedom House ranks Russia as 170th.] How is it that [Vladimir] Vysotsky put it? “You can’t hold on at the top – you’re plummeting down”?

Obviously, the Russian press did not become restricted immediately – we are speaking of a protracted process, spanning a decade, the start of which was rooted as far back as [Boris] Yeltsin’s times.

Of course, economic reasons played an important role in this. In the 90s, printed publications, sent floating into a liberal economic voyage, ran into serious troubles. Prices for paper, typographical services and mailings were mushrooming, while the number of subscribers was falling. Those people that had formerly subscribed to three or four newspapers could no longer afford such a luxury. In substance, many publications ended up on the brink of closing, and their leadership, clutching at straws, grabbed at the offers of collaboration coming from the business structures.

The businessmen were willing to finance the newspapers, but under the condition that the controlling stake of shares ended up in their hands. Naturally, they assured the editors and journalistic collectives that they wouldn’t interfere with editorial policy. And as a rule, they actually didn’t interfere… at the start. But afterwards, it turned out that the esteemed shareholder was interested in keeping up nice relations with the authorities, and categorically didn’t want to support a publication that kept him from doing so. That’s why critical materials about bureaucrat A (B, C, D – make your selection) must be removed from the newspaper’s sheets. And instead of them, write and print a different, praiseful article.

The need to keep earning funds quickly increased the role of advertising departments, who were searching for and finding clients. The interests of these clients, if they were looking for a long-term campaign, would also have an affect on editorial policy: It was clearly explained to the journalists, that you can’t bite the hand that feeds you, and so no critical speech regarding businessman or politician A (B, C, D – make your selection) were allowed at the moment. But to write something positive about them is actually very needed. It’s worth noting that orders from the advertising department (just like the special assignments of shareholder), were paid with a special rate, and that those willing to write them were always easy to find. And those, who categorically did not want to do this, sooner or later started to feel like “superfluous people” in the editorial offices.

Of course, you could stand by your principles, refusing to write “as needed” and continuing to write what you were thinking. But more and more frequently, such principled behavior would lead to a simple result: articles were lain on the editorial “table” and remained there forever. And then it came time to receive your wages – and involuntarily, many thought: isn’t it worth the sacrifice? That is, isn’t the income (necessary to live yourself, and often to feed your family) worth enough to assuage your commitment to your principles and go for the compromise? Ultimately, there are more than enough topics which you’re allowed to cover –and you can always choose less biting ones, or simply don’t walk out “past the flags.”

Truth be told, there was another choice –to try to change one newspaper for another, where the editorial policy was different. At first, many did just that –since different media depended on different commercial structures, which had different interests. But afterwards, a growing number of these structures began to themselves depend more and more on the authorities. And critical overtones in their corresponding media became less and less frequent. The number of newspapers where you could freely state your opinions was rapidly melting away — and consequently, so did the number of work-places where you could transfer when it became completely odious…

And afterwards… afterwards a news generation of journalists grew up. And those, who didn’t go to a PR-service or a political consulting structure directly after college, but stayed in journalism, already perceived “the air of non-freedom” as the only one they were used to breathing. Many journalists of the previous generation came to peace with [the situation] as well – some grew older, some became tired, some decided that it was impossible to spit against the wind their whole lives, some changed their topic –for instance, to cover sports, where it is still possible to speak absolutely freely, where, as-yet, no teams, sportsmen or trainers exist that are closed off from criticism. Possibly, however, this omission will soon be corrected.

And what’s left in the outcome? Well, that people believe less and less what the majority of newspapers (and television all the more so) [are telling them]. The reader-viewer is not quite so stupid and naïve as they possibly assume in the power structures, where they are so interested in narrowing the “extent of freedom.” [The reader] sees that one life is happening around him, while much of the media are telling him of a completely different one, as if they’re speaking of some parallel world. He takes the Peterburgsky Dnevnik (the St. Petersburg Journal) newspaper, published by the St. Petersburg administration with a circulation of 200 thousand, out of his mailbox and sees, for instance, that “the news of the week” from the 9th to the 15th of April 2007 is the approval of a new draft law by the city government, which bans gambling machines starting in July 2008. The violent crackdown of the “March of Dissent” on April 15th, which proved to be at the center of attention of the majority of the world media, isn’t considered as news of the week by the paper. It isn’t even mentioned. This event just didn’t happen…

At one time, in the distant Soviet past, there was a popular joke about a person who visited a psychiatrist with a complaint. He says, “I see one thing around me, but on the television – it’s completely different.” “We don’t cure socialism,” the doctor replies to the poor fellow. Can it be that we’re reverting?

Altogether, we have nothing to commemorate on May 3rd, because you cannot be free only one day of the year. You are either free all the time—or constrained every day…

Victoria Vladimirovna Rabotnova is a St. Petersburg based journalist. She completed the Journalist Faculty of the Leningrad State University in 1984. Since then, she has worked for a number of publications, and has been widely published around Russia. From 1991 to 2005, she was the parliamentary commentator for the Nevskoe Vremya newspaper. At the present moment, she serves as a columnist for the Novaya Gazeta, and is a staff writer for the Rossiyskaya Federatsiya Segodnya (Russian Federation Today) magazine.

translated by theotherrussia.org

Lebedev, who calls the story a “personal vendetta” meant to discredit him, gives different reasons which may shed light on other difficult issues facing media in Russia. These includes constant pressure from local authorities over critical reporting, which targeted not only the Moskovsky Korrespondent, but also its advertisers and distributors. Other Russian papers have also complained of the same kind of harassment.

While Lebedev may have personal reasons for leaving the federal authorities blameless in his paper’s demise, the Putin article is having far-reaching consequences. New amendments to the media law, which redefine slander and libel, and give authorities powers to shut media outlets that print “false facts” have breezed through Russia’s lower house, the State Duma. The amendments, if signed into law, would give the Justice department the right to issue warnings to publications over libelous materials and then close them. One critic, Yelena Zelinskaya, a member of Russia’s Public Chamber, said it was absurd to close a publication for a single error: “If a doctor makes a mistake, do we have to close the entire hospital,” she asked?

Lebedev’s statement was published in the Novaya Gazeta, an independent publication often critical of authorities. Lebedev is a majority shareholder of the Novaya Gazeta.

“The lessons of Moskovskiy Korrespondent: Opinion of the founder of the suspended newspaper”
Aleksandr Lebedev
April 28, 2008
Novaya Gazeta
[translated by BBC Monitoring]

The termination of the publication of Moskovskiy Korrespondent, the Moscow city newspaper that had been coming out since last September, gave rise to various rumours and interpretations. With this response, I want to dot the “i’s” and cross the “t’s” and make an attempt to explain the implications of all of these events for the development of the news media in Russia.

The managing company said the main reason for the closure of the newspaper was its economic insolvency. This statement is completely true. The experience with this newspaper proved how much the Russian market for printed publications depends on the goodwill of the authorities - not federal, but local.

Moskovskiy Korrespondent criticized the policies of the local government in the capital, revealed the many problems Muscovites face and thereby created numerous uncomfortable situations for the “city fathers” [the Moscow authorities]. The result was the newspaper’s circulation problems, which are known to everyone and which were caused by retail chains breaking contracts for the sale of publications displeasing the municipal government. They lost money doing this and they never explained the reasons. The possibility of advertising, especially outdoors, which is of vital importance to a new newspaper, was also squelched. We know of the secret pressure that was exerted on potential advertisers, who “unexpectedly” had to stop working with Moskovskiy Korrespondent. They had to stop because it was too “dicey”.

Under these conditions, any further publication of the newspaper would have been a futile endeavour from the business standpoint. We do not want to mislead anyone, however: this was only part of the reason for shutting down the newspaper. Moskovskiy Korrespondent had a chance of overcoming its objective economic difficulties and winning a mass readership. This, however, would have required the newspaper to become a standard of objective information, a model of something commonly referred to as “journalistic integrity”.

Regrettably, this did not happen. The newspaper sank to the level of publishing rumours, “sensational” news stories backed up by nothing at all and of the lowest calibre. Furthermore, I now know that one of the most controversial pieces of gossip was custom-made and was printed in Moskovskiy Korrespondent as part of a personal vendetta against me. The chief editor frankly admitted that the editors might have been “taken in”. That was the last straw.

Two lessons must be learned from all of this. The first is for the authorities. The Russian media market, especially on the local level, must be free of administrative pressure. This is an essential condition for the development of truly independent news media, especially print media.

The second lesson is for the journalistic community. Everyone knows the wording of the law on the media, according to which the editors are responsible for published material. No one gives a second thought to what this “responsibility” entails, however. As a rule, it means the possibility of defamation suits filed by the people offended by news stories.

In addition, there is the moral side of the matter. I think journalists and editors should take a more conscientious approach to articles, especially in the case of rumours about the personal lives of citizens. Many things are also written on walls. They must learn to distinguish between information of public interest and phoney “tips” and “scoops” intended to hurt and defame people.

P.S. I would advise the chief editors of some newspapers and the federal and Moscow “career officials”, who are planning to dance on my grave, to become more familiar with the works of the great journalist Mark Twain, who made this famous remark after his obituary was published in the New York Journal: “The rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated”. Force a fool to pray and he will smash his forehead. They should not think they are on the same level as the people they are serving with their incendiary comments, “resolute condemnations” and inspections. Everything will be sorted out in time.