The dispute over the BBC’s restructuring of its Russian service continues. After Thursday’s letter in the Times, signed by Index on Censorship and others, the World Service director Nigel Chapman went to great length to contact various signatories and address the points of the letter. Chapman also sent a letter to the Times, saying: ‘The BBC will continue its strong commitment to the BBC Russian service and to its role as a trusted, influential and editorially independent news provider.’
A World Service spokesman stressed to Index on Censorship that the cuts would mainly be made to news bulletins designed for the BBC’s FM partners in Russia (of which there are now none) and that the reduction in hours of radio programming would mostly be down to the cancellation of 11 1/2 hours of ‘repeats’. He also reiterated the fact that more resources would be poured into online operations, where the majority of Russian BBC users are now found, and that current affairs programmes such as Vecher na BBC were being expanded.
A further email to Index on Censorship said that several of the signatories of the Times letter had apologised on learning this.
Today the Times printed a letter from Russia expert Robert Chandler, questioning the World Service’s claims. Chandler pointed out that while cutting repeats sounds fine, it potentially means programmes are lost to listeners at the further reaches of Russia’s 11 time zones. As Chandler puts it, ‘[Chapman] seems to regard the whole of Russia east of the Urals as an irrelevant appendage to Moscow and St Petersburg.’ He then goes on to say there needs to be a ‘public inquiry into all aspects of the World Service’, citing problems in Nepal and Pakistan.
One suspects this issue’s not going to go away any time soon.
UPDATE: And it hasn’t. Here, in pdf form, (and interesting reading) are:
Nigel Chapman’s response to the original Times letter.
The unedited version of Robert Chandler’s letter to the Times, supplied to Index on Censorship.
A response from Donald Rayfield, Emeritus Professor of Russian and Georgian, Queen Mary University of London, supplied to Index on Censorship.
UPDATE 2: In a letter to the Times today, the World Service’s Nigel Chapman addresses Robert Chandler’s points, which he describes as ‘inaccuracies and assertions’, says the BBC’s ‘independence and editorial integrity are non-negotiable’.
3 Comments
I had worked for the BBC Russian Service from 1989 to 2001, and witnessed the beginning of its decline. When I joined the Service in 1989, it had a vibrant, if somewhat eccentric, atmosphere of creativity. Intellectual debate was an integral part of programme making, originality was encouraged and each member of the Service took pride in his work.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, John Tusa, then the Director of the World Service, lifted the ban on recruitment of journalists who had been employed by the media in their countries. For the Russian Service it meant recruitment of the people who, before the collapse of the Soviet regime, had worked for the Soviet propaganda machine. They had excellent radio skills, good English, but, in my view, no idea about balanced reporting and treating people with trust and respect.
With the new style of editorial leadership, the broadcasts of the Russian Service became more and more bland. “Dedicated” presenters were chosen not for their charisma and integrity but for their dedication to the management. By the time I resigned in 2001, creativity in the Russian Service was stifled, individualism frowned upon, the atmosphere of fear and cynicism dominated. The only section of the Russian Service still producing programmes of intellectual distinction and outstanding cultural depth was Russian Features.
It is hardly surprising to me that, when the economic necessity dictated, the editors of the Russian Service decided to close the Features, the last centre of excellence and free-thinking. What I find astounding is that Nigel Chapman allowed them to take advantage of his ignorance.
It’s flawed on so many fronts. Let’s not forget it was Nigel Chapman and many of current WS bosses who pursued the policy of getting partners in local FM stations in Russia when it was patently obvious that the Russian authorities will not tolerate any BBC presence on any mainstream airwaves. Let’s just hope they didn’t spend too much of taxpayers’ cash on buttering up the heads of local radio stations. Same people are dictating the current policy which simply apes what cash-starved Russian stations are doing now. It’s not thinking of anything new, certainly not of any value-added position of British Broadcasting Corp. They never liked topical features anyway because it was least associated with the ever-flawed World Service model of UK ‘core’ news distributed amongst the talent-depleted language services who are supposed to translate and adapt material. Many of the Russian news in BBC RS news bulletins are still translations of some outdated and simplified copy supplied by BBC News team. The model is dead for many years now but is somehow still counted upon in budgeting BBC RS activity. Above all there’s a total and utter lack of care about the part of the audience which still continues to believe in BBC and its mission. By changing colours once again, BBC doesn’t gain any new friends but is rapidly losing the old ones. A very stupid strategy indeed.
The allegations made by Irina Shumovitch in the previous comment are extremely serious. Are there any other former employees of the Russian service qualified to comment on them? All I can say myself is that it has been obvious for some years that the Russian Service has been growing more and more terrified of offending the Kremlin. Two years ago, for example they declined a suggestion from one of Politkovskaya’s translators, Arch Tait, that they publish Politkovskaya’s PUTIN’S RUSSIA on their website. This would have been an important scoop for the Russian Service; the original text was in the possession of the translator and no one in Russia knew it. Nevertheless, even though the declared purpose of the RS was to publish material that could not easily be published within Russia, they refused it.