The Kyrgyz media, remaining the most free-thinking in Central Asia, is concerned about the current state of freedom of expression in the country. Despite the preserved conditions for media development, the trends in 2008 are alarming. According to several local and foreign media experts, this situation can be explained by the fact that 2007 was a very difficult time for Kyrgyz journalism and laid some dangerous trends for the development of the media in the future. 

Among the main trends of 2008, experts identify a worsening situation of electronic media, an increase in the incidence of violence against journalists, a narrowing of the range of alternative and opposition media, a reduction in the access to information, a preservation of criminal punishment for journalists, as well as attempts to regulate online publications. This emerging trend has brought together the media and human rights organizations. 

Deterioration of the electronic media in Kyrgyzstan 

On June 3, 2008, the President of the Kyrgyz Republic, Kurmanbek Bakiev, signed the Law of KR "On Television and Radio Broadcasting.” It was adopted by the Parliament on April 24, 2008. Consideration and adoption of the new law by the Parliament and then by the President were accompanied by strong reaction from civil society, media experts and representatives of international organizations. They were indignant at the rashness of adopting the bill, which did not take into account the realities of electronic media development in Kyrgyzstan. 

The need to consider the future of electronic media in legislative perspective is long overdue.  But nobody knew what kind of drastic measures will be used to solve  the problems of radio and TV stations and whether any measures will be taken at all. 

Experts estimate that the bill will significantly weaken the country's TV and radio companies on the eve of the transition to digital broadcasting. Most TV and radio companies of the country would not be able to implement the provisions of the law at all and would be forced to retransmit Russian or Kazakh television and radio programs, or to close down. The President Bakiev signed the bill but instructed the Ministry of Culture and Information and the Ministry of Justice to develop amendments to it. However, according to the experts, the amendments would not be able to change many of the provisions the experts recognized not only as shortsighted but also undemocratic. 

For instance, paragraph 6 of Article 11 of the Law “On Television and Radio Broadcasting” declares the law “On the National Television and Radio Broadcasting Corporation” invalid. Thus, the mechanism of civilian control over the activities of public television has been lost and the principle of civilian participation in the election of the NTRC Supervisory Board has also been abolished.  According to the experts, the new law has “buried” the idea of independent public television in Kyrgyzstan. 

“This bill has destroyed public television and radio in Kyrgyzstan, which was just created on the basis of KTR. The point is that we have a law on the National TV and radio corporation (NTRC), which established the basis of public television and radio in Kyrgyzstan using the technical capacity of NTRC. The bill adopted today by the Parliament members, in fact, abolished the main provisions according to which the NTRC was to become public. The President, not the Supervisory Board, as was anticipated earlier, appoints the director general,” commented Elvira Sarieva, a member of the Supervisory Board of the NTRC of KR. 

Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the law stipulates that more than half of the programs for each TV and radio organization, should be in the national language.  Furthermore, at least 50 percent must be the companies’ own products and not less than 60 per cent must be national audio-visual production. 

“After adoption of the Law “On Television and Radio Broadcasting,” in my opinion, there is no more independent television broadcasting in Kyrgyzstan. I think adoption of this law is the most important event related to the mass media development over the past six months. The law laid the rules of censorship, because all those instructions on what and how much to broadcast is censorship. Thus, it was a step back,” shared Aziza Abdirasulova, head of the human rights center Kylym Shamy. 

“Currently, the vast majority of TV and radio companies do not have sufficient resources to broadcast more than 50 percent of its own production. With the adoption of this law, there is a real danger that these organizations will not be able to overcome the required barrier and continue broadcasting, which could lead to the information vacuum in many parts of the country,” stated in an appeal from the international organization Internews Network to the President of the country.  This appeal was published prior to the signing of the law as an expression of extreme concern. 

The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Miklos Haraszti, also appealed to the President Kurmanbek Bakiev, requesting to veto the amendments to the law on broadcasting adopted by the parliament. The reason for this was that they limited the independence of public broadcasting, according to the OSCE. 

“Independence and autonomy of public broadcasting are essential characteristics, without which, it would be impossible to transmit pluralism of voices and opinions,” stated  Mr. Haraszti’s letter to President Bakiev dated May 9, 2008. 

Amendments to the Law “On Television and Radio Broadcasting,” adopted by the Parliament on April 24, gave the President the power to appoint the director general of the NTRC of Kyrgyzstan. Under the amendments, the president will also be able to nominate all members of the supervisory board for approval by the Parliament.  

“These amendments are contrary to their stated objective; namely formation of a truly pluralistic and independent public broadcasting,” Haraszti said. 

Unfortunately, the appeals of international organizations did not bring an expected result. Consequently, the country's media community is concerned about the problem of enforcing the law, lobbying for the necessary amendments, as well as analyzing and assessing possible risks and consequences. 

“We asked the heads media outlets and they already know that they will have to cut the number of employees. According to preliminary reports, at least 2,500 media workers will lose their job,” predicted the media expert, Alexander Kulinskiy. “The law will not only hamper the development of television, but also result in the end of many broadcasters. The rules laid in the law are simply not feasible for most television and radio companies. Article 8 of the law states that 50 per cent of broadcasting should be the companies’ own production, and, in the best case, only three TV and radio companies, which are subsidized from the state budget or rich external sources, will be able to implement it.” 

According to Kulinskiy, the law will firstly affect regional broadcasters who will be forced to either close down or cut their staff. 

“From the business point of view, the easiest way for a broadcaster would be to completely abandon its own programs and retransmit the production of others, inserting commercials. Thus, a large number of problems for radio and television may be solved: the staff can be dismissed and salaries need not be paid, nobody will bear legal responsibility for news programs and pay extra taxes,” the journalist added. 

In addition, experts note some specific points of the law that bewildered them. For example, Article 4, which prohibits direct broadcasting of foreign television and radio companies on the territory of Kyrgyzstan, is physically unenforceable because it is impossible today to limit broadcasting of programs from Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan or satellites in the territory of Kyrgyzstan. In order to implement the law, it is necessary to adopt a new law banning the use of satellite broadcasting antennas. 

“We see that since the Law “On Television and Radio Broadcasting” came into force, all TV and radio companies continue to work in the old format, and no one even tried to implement the norms of the law. The reason is that they are simply unable to meet the prescribed requirements technically or economically,” expressed Ilim Karypbekov, a media representative and a member of the working group on amendments and supplements to the Law “On Television and Radio broadcasting.” 

On a positive note, he commented that the bill was signed on the condition that the government will develop appropriate amendments and additions to it. 

“I wish to believe that this condition will be fulfilled, because we know a number of cases when Presidential decrees were not executed by officials. Since the elaboration of amendments and additions has been entrusted to the government of the Kyrgyz Republic, the Ministry of Culture and Information will, most likely, be responsible for the implementation of the law. The fact that the government is actively engaged in the working group on amendments and additions to the law, gives a great hope. We hope that the authorities will keep on following this position because, at the moment, the law does not take into account the opinion of either the civilian sector, or the representatives of TV and radio companies of the republic,” added Karypbekov. 

In an interview, the media expert explained that currently, the Kyrgyz journalistic community is concerned about the possible introduction of two provisions of the Law “On Television and Radio Broadcasting,” related to broadcasting in the national language and its own production. 

In this regard, as Karypbekov stressed, a working group on amendments and additions to the law was formed from the famous Kyrgyz media experts and journalists. In the near future, it must finalize its work and propose elaborated amendments to the Parliament. The time of transition to new forms of broadcasting is particularly underlined here. For example, as the expert described, the media must within two years, bring their own production up to ten per cent of the total broadcasting; within four years - up to 30 percent; within six years - up to 50 percent, and so on. The mechanism of discussing the exact timing should take into account the real abilities of local TV and radio companies to implement this rule of the law. 

The process of licensing broadcasters also needs attention. 

“Currently the law is totally raw, and the government of KR has the whole prerogative here, creating another seat of corruption in state power. The body that will deal with issuing and revocation of licenses will possess great power in this field. Naturally, in this situation, many in the media will try to use unofficial methods to obtain or retain their licenses. Therefore, a judicial mechanism for revoking licenses must be created.  Or else, these powers should be granted to the National Council of Television and Radio Broadcasting –formation of which, we are going to propose in our draft,” explained Ilim Karypbekov. 

The law gave rise to mixed reactions from the public, including a number of positive ones. For instance, Marat Kayipov, the Minister of Justice of KR, who recently left his post, believes that adoption of the law has been a major achievement in the development of the media of Kyrgyzstan. 

“From now on, our law enforces a measure, to which, at least 50 percent of the total media broadcasting must be in the national language. State language is one of the symbols of sovereignty, and without it, our sovereignty would be impossible. Thus, I think that the enactment of the Law “On Television and Radio Broadcasting" is a major achievement. At the same time, I would like to say that we should proceed in this direction further. Gradually, we will move to full broadcasting in the national language. But first we need to come to the stage when all of our citizens will be able to speak, write and think in the national language,” gave his evaluation Kayipov. 

“In my opinion, this bill is primarily directed at strengthening the national information security of Kyrgyzstan,” said Myktybek Arstanbek, a Kyrgyz journalist, employee of the NTRC. “I doubt that the law aims to eliminate unwanted companies.” 

Commenting on the paragraph in the bill which says that all broadcasting companies should observe the proportion, in which at least 50 per cent of airtime should be own production, Myktybek Arstanbek also admitted that it might lead to the closure of TV and radio companies.  

“They are accustomed to piracy, using someone else's products, showing advertising and getting money for it. Let them work. For example, to make a half-hour program on the NTRC we have to work for two weeks, if not the entire month, thus filling up to 17 hours of airtime. Let them work the same way, and then they may criticize the government channel. We work very hard,” the NTRC employee said.  

“It is no big deal if a company closes. A good place is never empty. New people will come and start working instead of them. Now there are many potential TV producers who have no opportunity and no frequencies to broadcast but they have a strong desire and ambitions,” said the journalist. 

Alexander Kulinskiy identified two other positive aspects in the law: “As the bill was copied from similar bills of the CIS countries, it contains positive moments, simply due to the fact that in the CIS countries this experience has been long practiced.” 

Firstly, the law provides that every company should have rules, which prescribe a journalist or a company to act in specific way while covering events. That, in fact, introduces mandatory editorial policy. 

Secondly, the so-called Supervisory board should be established.  50 percent of the members will be formed by the staff and 50 per cent is formed by the owner. That could defend the staff from employers. 

Increase in the incidence of violence against journalists 

An increase in the incidences of violence against journalists, which caused the reduction of freedom of speech in Kyrgyzstan, was noted in the reports of several international organizations. In February 2008, Human Rights Watch, the Committee to Protect Journalists and Freedom House expressed their concern about the human rights situation in Central Asia, and in Kyrgyzstan particularly. In the ranking of media freedom, compiled by the Reporters without Borders  Kyrgyzstan took 110^th place, while Tajikistan was the 115^th, Kazakhstan – 125^th and Uzbekistan – 160^th. 

International organizations marked an increase in intimidation of the media,  stating that many are “working in an environment of increased harassment from the authorities, violence and lawlessness.” This is stated in the report by the Committee to Protect Journalists. 

The Committee gave several examples of tough measures by law enforcement bodies against such newspapers as Agym, Kyrgyz Ruhu, Apta and Aykyn during the street protests in April 2007.  They also noted the increasing number of threats to Kyrgyz journalists through anonymous telephone calls and attacks on reporters.

Marat Tokoev, the head of the Public Association Journalists, confirmed the conclusion of the above-mentioned international organizations: “The first evidence of beating journalists took place during the November opposition rallies in 2006. Then the law enforcement bodies did not look for the perpetrators. Criminal investigations were started but nobody knew if those people were caught. There was no reaction from the government or the head of the state.” 

Violence against journalists has become frequent since the Tulip Revolution of 2005, causing more than 4 ,000 mass protests.

Journalists who had to cover the riots faced mob aggression and negative attitudes from the side of the organizers and of law enforcement bodies dispersing the participants by force. 

Since early 2007, the Institute of Media Representative (IMP) has recorded over 22 cases of assault, threats of physical violence against journalists, and moral-psychological pressure. The year of 2008 has already broken previous records on the number of lawsuits initiated against journalists. For example, currently there are about 50 cases of legal proceedings, which are carried on by the IMP. According to Ilim Karypbekov, this figure reaches more than 100 cases; as some journalists do not resort to the help of the IMP. Since early 2008, around 36 lawsuits against journalists were recorded; 7 of which relate to criminal proceedings. Currently, the state bodies have ceased to make generalizations on the number of lawsuits against journalists. The last generalization was conducted in 2003, when there were 150 claims. 

It is also important to note that the number of court decisions in favor of journalists is reducing every year. For instance, in 2007, journalists won up to 80% of court cases. But in 2008, one may conclude that judges became more severe towards journalists. According to the forecasts of lawyers, this year the number of cases won by journalists will not exceed 60%. 

As a result of violations of the journalists’ rights in the past year, two journalists, Kairat Birimkulov and Turat Bektenov, feared for their lives and also for the safety of their relatives.  They were forced to leave the country and have received political refugee status. The reason for this was their professional activities. Unfortunately, up until today, the results of investigations of the violence cases against journalists were not obtained and made public. 

With an increasing number of threats, attacks and lawsuits against journalists, intense discussion of the security of journalistic work in Kyrgyzstan has developed.  As well, it has become necessary to find measures to help reduce the incidence of violence against media workers. 

From late 2007 to early 2008, many media organizations implemented projects and organized various activities, such as the production of a particular form of clothing, and publications on how to ensure their own safety; all aimed at improving the training of journalists so that they could work in extreme conditions. 

“I have worked in journalism for 12 years, and there was no physical violence against me. However, there have been lawsuits. The problem is that it is much easier for officials to sue a journalist rather than to correct their fault,” said in an interview Daniyar Karimov, an employee of the 24.kg news agency. 

He believes working in the capital is relatively safe because journalists are in the view of the public: “It is much harder to work in the regions. There a journalist is face-to-face with local ‘kings.’ Indeed, in our regions Akim is like a king [Akim is a head of local administration] and some local bandits are also like ‘kings’,” Karimov believes. “There would be no problem if everyone complied with the law. So, our journalism is ‘toothless’, especially in the regions, because the journalists are afraid to write. If you ask them to comment on something, they agree to talk about it only under the condition that it will not be published or it will be published anonymously. If you appeal officially to them, they only say that everything is fine, without providing any concrete facts.”

Most experts tend to believe that the dangerous work of journalists became a key issue after the violent overthrow of power in March 2005, which established the precedent for using violence as a solution to problems. More than half of the affected journalists covered the mass protests organized by various political forces. 

The colleagues of Daniyar Karimov were attacked during the mass demonstrations: “The fact of physical violence is proven by the example of my colleague Azis Egemberdiev,” he said. “He suffered during the April demonstrations in 2007, being in the center of the events. He was beaten so severely that he had to stay in a hospital afterwards. The perpetrator was not found. A similar attack was undertaken against another journalist, Nargiz Yuldasheva. This happened at a rally of presidential supporters.” 

“During the autumn demonstrations in 2006, we journalists, were almost beaten with batons, when police started dispersing the crowd near the parliament building. No one paid attention that there were representatives of the media. We managed to hide behind the columns, where the police officers, guarding the parliament, were also hiding,” added Karimov. 

The murder of a famous Kyrgyz journalist Alisher Saipov, who headed the newspaper Siesat (Politics) in the Uzbek language, on October 24, 2007, gave rise to a second wave of concern for the safety and lives of the representatives of journalistic profession. The news of the assassination  shocked not only the media community in Kyrgyzstan, but the whole world. To date, the killers of Alisher Saipov have not been found. 

“The situation with freedom of speech in Kyrgyzstan leaves much to be desired. Examples of this are the death of Alisher Saipov and the beating of many journalists,” believes Aziza Abdirasulova, the leader of the human rights center Kylym Shamy. She stressed that current risks in the work of journalists are enormous and writing an article can be fatal for its author. 

“It is no secret that journalism is a dangerous profession. The saddest fact is that in our country, this profession is becoming more dangerous,” said the director of the legal clinic Adilet, Cholpon Jakupova. 

“The death of a talented Kyrgyz journalist Alisher Saipov is an event that has become, not only a black day for journalism in the country, but also an alarming factor for independent journalists, who realized that their profession is not safe,” considers Tynchtykbek Choroev, director of the Azattyk radio station (Prague). 

“Today, the price of freedom of expression for a journalist is his health and his life. Law enforcement agencies act only after something has happened. Legal protection is not what they need. There is no mechanism in Kyrgyzstan which could provide preventive measures to protect the rights of journalists,” expressed the IMP director Ilim Karypbekov during a roundtable discussion in the memory of Alisher Saipov. 

The media expert Shamaral Maychiev, noted that workers of the media in the country had been beaten prior to the assassination of Alisher Saipov. 

“We have entered the phase when not only journalists, but also all members of the society, need to learn the basics of safety,” said Shamaral Maychiev. In his opinion there should be some tool to guarantee safety of the media representatives. “Perhaps, it may be a specific person who has experience in the area of operation and investigation and may cooperate with law enforcement authorities,” he said. 

Shamaral Maychiev highlighted, in his view, the wrong approach when people set their great hopes on the state. According to him, this is a remnant of Soviet mentality; while in the legal arena, many questions must be self-regulated. “As long as there are no bodies of self-regulation, journalists will not receive their status,” he noted. 

Aziza Abdirasulova expressed the opposite view saying that, “The state is responsible for ensuring freedom of expression and safety of receiving and disseminating information.” Thus, it is obliged to ensure the safety of journalists and develop national mechanisms to protect them. 

The experts believe that the journalistic community in Kyrgyzstan today should consolidate its efforts and create structures that will protect their rights. According to them, one should not expect the effective protection from the side of law, as legal norms are inherently formal. 

Narrowing range of alternative and opposition media 

Virtually all the media experts and human rights defenders working in Kyrgyzstan and outside of it have noted a decrease in the number of independent media, a decline of independent information space, and consequently, a less important role of the media in the society; particularly in decision-making processes. 

The opposition or alternative media, according to the experts, are currently experiencing great pressure. 

“Now the opposition media are undergoing hard times, while the opposition has almost lost the possibility to express themselves,” shared a correspondent of the BBC Radio station in Bishkek, Sultan Jumagulov. “I am extremely concerned about the reduction in the number of opposition-minded media. I am particularly concerned about the fact that the country does not have opposition television channels any longer and the opposition has lost access to free sources of information.” 

“The reason is that the authorities advocate such a policy. For example, there were several independent channels under the rule of previous leaders, today there aren’t any. In addition, the reason for the small number of independent media is economic problems: many in the media can hardly make ends meet.  As as for newspapers, the circulation of 10-12 thousand is too small to pay high salaries for their journalists. Besides, they are gradually pushed from the market by Internet publications,” said Sultan Jumagulov. 

The narrowing range of alternative and opposition media and the pressure against them, became a serious issue after the trial of opposition newspapers De facto and Alibi - both of which are published in the Kyrgyz language. 

The newspapers published articles,which suggested the probability of involvement of the President’s nephew, Asylbek Saliev, in a traffic accident where a young man named Moldakunov died in March 2007. Asylbek Saliev, considering the article as libel, claimed compensation for moral damages amounting to 2.5 million soms ($69,000 USD). 

On June 2, 2008, Pervomaisky district court in Bishkek made a decision in favor of Asylbek Saliev, requiring each newspaper to pay the compensation of 1 million soms ($29,000 USD) for moral damage and protection of dignity. In addition, within 30 days, these newspapers were to publish the articles denying Asylbek Saliev’s involvement in the accident.  They were thus required to admit the information in the newspaper article of January 23 and 24, 2008, ’Will Asylbek Saliev be criminally liable?’, false. 

Besides, an Alibi journalist, Urmat Imanaliev, the author of the ill-fated article should pay the compensation of 3,000 soms ($85 USD) to the plaintiff. The counterclaim from the Alibi to Asylbek Saliev on the protection of business reputation and compensation for moral damages was rejected. 

The losing party soon announced its intention to appeal against the decision of a district court in Bishkek city court; but the latter recognized the decision valid. 

A criminal case of ”false denunciation” against the chief editor of De facto was also filed. Experts called the term “false denunciation” as “a new invention, not only for Kyrgyzstan, but also for the entire post-Soviet space.” This was stated on 20 June, 2008, during a press conference of the IMP. 

According to Ilim Karypbekov, if this the point of view of the Office of Public prosecutor, then it is necessary to bring criminal cases against nearly all journalists and media in Kyrgyzstan.

In his opinion, if the media gives inaccurate information, there are the legal articles of “Defamation” and “Insult”, as well as protection of business reputation. “The official himself could sue the newspaper De facto as a private person, but instead another mechanism was selected. This set a scary precedent, which is typical of totalitarian and authoritarian states,” said Karypbekov. 

“The media do not denounce, they inform. False information falls under completely different article,” Ilim Karypbekov said, adding that the fault of the De facto newspaper might have been in revealing the information before the decision of the court; citing this was negligence of the newspaper. As Ilim Karypbekov noted, if the creative staff of the newspaper believed that the information was important for the public, it should have provided this information in anry"" unclear what he is refering mean?]esents the Office of Public prosecutor and is making this statement. idences of protes entirely different way. 

The pressure on the opposition newspapers did not stop even after the announcement of the court decisions for huge compensation in favor of the plaintiff. So, the August 21 edition  of the newspaper Alibi was confiscated. The reason for this confiscation  was the newspaper's failure to pay the compensation of 1 million soms. Later on September 9, the ex-chief editor of the newspaper Alibi Babyrbek Djeenbekov was arrested, but subsequently released. According to the Bishkek Department of Internal Affairs, the reason for the detention was the failure to implement the court decision on the claim of Asylbek Saliev, and the arrest was selected as a preventive punishment, because “being free, Djeenbekov could prevent finding the truth.” The arrest violated the immunity of Babyrbek Djeenbekov, as he was a candidate for Bishkek City Council).  

Fearing arrest, the chief editor of De-facto, Cholpon Orozobekova, left Bishkek together with her husband and children, and their current whereabouts are unknown. 

The former editor of the Alibi newspaper is currently not in detention. On September 18, the Office of Prosecutor General recognized the arrest of Djeenbekov as illegal. However, after the actions of law enforcement bodies both De facto and Alibi ceased production of newspapers. Although it should be mentioned that a new newspaper Achyk Sayasat replaced Alibi. 

These events have caused an immediate reaction from the civil society, which has repeatedly expressed serious concerns about the pressure on independent media and the abridgement of freedom of speech since early 2008. 

“The public association Journalists and the PF Institute of Media Representative perceived the information about the arrest of the ex-chief editor of Alibi, Babyrbek Djeenbekov, with great anxiety. In the history of the Kyrgyz Republic, the latest similar case of arrest of the chief editor of a medium was 10 years ago, and it was the darkest period for freedom of speech in the republic. This action by law enforcement agencies against a media representative will negatively affect the image of the republic as a country seeking to build a democratic state, and undoubtedly, it will be perceived by the international community as a rollback of democracy,” a public address to government representatives from September 10, 2008, stated. 

“The events, which happened in the country in recent months, are yet another indication of the fact that there are actions aimed at curtailing honest and ‘citizen-focused’ media -- media which contributes to informing citizens about the situation of the country more openly and transparently. There are already very few media outlets where one can get true alternative information,” the statement of the center Interbilim of  September 10,2008, said. 

The cases of the above-mentioned newspapers, according to journalists, reflect the growing negative trend of reducing the number of opposition media as well as exerting pressure on existing ones. 

Tynchtykbek Choroev on this occasion said: “The latest action against the newspaper of De-facto is a vivid indication of the fact that political leadership of the country uses the same methods as during the presidential rule of Askar Akaev. It is a pity that everything repeats itself.”

“There is a definite goal to close and destroy the opposition media. The pressure now is very tangible. There are many problems: moral pressure, lawsuits, and material constraints. Survival is very difficult. In developed countries it would be a nonsense if the  relatives of high officials sued an independent newspaper,” shared Cholpon Orozobekova. 

“One of the major problems for Kyrgyz journalism is the lack of opposition media,”stated a Kyrgyz journalist, Leila Saralaeva. 

”It is virtually impossible to publish an alternative view in local newspapers. Their pages contain daily praises of the authorities policy, but it is made so blatantly and unprofessionally that people have already started to reject it,” emphasized the journalist. 

Commenting on the general situation of the Kyrgyz media, Leila Saralaeva said that, in most cases, it is hard to call them independent and diverse: “For the most part, they are represented by pro-governmental editions and television channels.” According to her, the main thing in today’s situation is “to provide different views of different political forces and, at least, to create the appearance of alternative.” 

“In the meantime, "bitchiness", used in some materials about the opposition, is regrettable. If this continues, it will have the opposite effect, when people will hate not the opposition but the journalists vilifying it,” said Leila Saralaeva. 

In his turn, the deputy chief editor of Erkin Too newspaper, Mukhtar Abilov, is of the opinion that the lawsuits against opposition media are justified. In his view, if such media cannot provide objective information, they must be held accountable. 

“Our opposition media are only fifty-percent objective, that’s why when go too far, the power has to defend itself. Why can one not sue newspapers if they abuse and publish false facts? Maybe, then, they would write more or less objectively,” emphasized Abilov. 

“Journalists should practice self-censorship. They should understand that false material is fraught with trials. In all countries where independent media exist, trials involving the journalistic community take place. Thus, the media develop professionalism among journalists as they become more responsible for their work,” said the deputy chief editor of Erkin Too.

“In general, there is no such situation in Kyrgyzstan where the media, particularly the opposition ones, constantly feel pressure. If that were indeed the case, it would be regrettable because we live in a democratic society,” said the editor-in-chief. He also added that some media often deliberately create excitement, passing quite objective actions of the government or individual officials off as pressure,” Mukhtar Abilov highlighted. 

Meanwhile, the head of the public association Journalists Marat Tokoev, shares the opinion that the opposition media often go too far, and consequently, suffer. In this regard, he mentioned the lawsuit against De-facto and Alibi.. The media expert stressed that this situation would not have happened if the newspapers held adequate policies and adhered to objective point of view. 

“Against the background of the current situation, which is now in the media field, one may say that politicization  our media plays a negative role for the media themselves, as they suffer from this. In specific cases, we clearly see that some newspapers are clearly pro-opposition, and their orientation is determined by their founder, not by the chief-editor. The problem is that most of our media are unprofitable, and, therefore, newspapers increasingly serve as instruments of political struggle,” expressed the view Tokoev. 

Some leaders of the mass media in Kyrgyzstan believe that those recent trials involving the activities of the opposition newspapers of Alibi and De facto “undermined the credibility of other private independent newspapers and have threatened the freedom of speech.” During the press conference in Osh that took place on August 20,, chief-editors of three privately owned newspapers Erkin Kojogeldin (Jangy Zaman newspaper), Kaldarbek Koylubaytegin (Kabar-South) and Tolonbai Jakshybaev (Kok Mongu) came out against the positions of Alibi and De–facto. 

In particular, the editor of Jangy Zaman accused the leadership of those newspapers of “allowing publication of false and unverified materials.” According to him, after the court decision that demands the newspapers to pay 1 million soms in compensation and after the closure of the two newspapers, it became difficult for independent media to publish critical materials and highlight the facts of corruption. Journalists felt a even greater threat.

According to Kaldarbek Koylubaytegin, opposition newspapers “use the freedom of speech in a wrong way, allowing unprofessional work and posing themselves as victims of totalitarian power.” 

Member of the Jogorku Kenesh (Kyrgyz Parliament), Alisher Mamasaliev, believes that the decrease in the number of free media is connected with the trend of strengthening state power in general. 

“State power now pays more attention to the media, trying to influence them by administrative methods. Basically, I think it is understandable. The authorities are trying to control the situation in the country, including the media sphere. The state structures are trying to regulate the media. This is the nature of any authorities; they should attempt to regulate relations within the country. And there is no threat to freedom of speech. I would not say that we have the media monopolized by the state; one can find alternative information in newspapers and on television.  Private newspapers are in great demand; which we can see in their circulations,” expressed his view the parliament member. 

One form of pressure on independent media, according to leaders of newspapers, is also “a politically motivated effort to prevent the development of independent media”, which is apparent in dissemination of newspapers through the subscription network of Kyrgyzpochtasy (Kyrgyz Post) and Kyrgyzpechat (Kyrgyz Press). According to Bermet Bukasheva, the chief editor of the Litsa newspaper, these two organizations are monopolists in the market who never paid money for the sold circulation. 

“Our readers are eager to get the newspaper but do not have such an opportunity, while the governmental media have no special difficulties.  Moreover, they easily survive due to the forced subscription,” underlined Bukasheva. She also added that, in comparison with the independent media, governmental newspapers have several advantages, including large resources for selling the circulation and a great number of advertisers. At the same time, in the opinion of the editor of the Litsa newspaper, the main shortcomings of the state media is that the readers do not always trust them, and their circulations may be significantly lower than the circulation of independent publications. 

According to Bukasheva, free media hold the future and it is quite good. She explained her prognosis based on the high professionalism of Kyrgyz journalists, and also stressed that, in her view, civil society, individual politicians, and the press itself, will not allow mass media to lose its independence. 

Developing the issue of independence of Kyrgyz media, Shamaral Maychiev said: “We have no independent media, as such. It is impossible to speak about independence because in order to be independent, a contract with the owners of the newspapers is needed. Today the owners often interfere in the media, and journalists cannot work in accordance with professional standards. The journalist community should set standards because, today, in most cases, journalists provide biased materials, which are made in a very rough and one-sided form.  Even an inexperienced reader sees that those articles are biased; understanding who ordered it and why.”

“All these facts cause a very large number of lawsuits against the Kyrgyz media. Our institution alone has considered more than 70 lawsuits in recent years and one must bear in mind that not all of the sued journalists ask for our help. There are journalists who defend themselves without the help of other institutions.  So, I think that the number of actual lawsuits is higher,” concluded Shamaral Maychiev. 

It should be noted that the trend of reducing the role of the media in Kyrgyzstan is directly linked to the decline in the level of politicization of the media, as well as the trust from the consumers of information. 

“In general, I think the level of politicization of the media in Kyrgyzstan has recently declined because people do not believe them any longer,” said Igor Shestakov. The media expert expressed the view that since the mid 1990s until 2006, the Kyrgyz media have been very strongly influenced by politicians and could be divided into two camps. According to him, during that period many publications in Kyrgyz press were radical and had a definite task: "to strike." That is, as the expert explained, the media originally created the image of enemy for themselves, and the whole concept of materials, provided by them, was structured on the basis of it. 

“After the November demonstrations, people no longer pay attention to political developments in the country. Now they are unlikely to buy a newspaper in order to understand the politics. The press does not shape the political views of the population anymore; it ceased to be a guide. There are more opportunities to obtain more objective information today,” said this media expert.  

Reduced access to information 

The issue of access to information is related to the interaction between state institutions and the media. In 2008 the voices of journalists were heard: in April of this year, the Jogorku Kenesh adopted amendments to the Code of Administrative Responsibility, which permitted monetary penalties for officials who refused to give information to journalists. 

“I think this positive act, created in favor of journalists and the population, is surprising. I do not know who initiated it, but it is unexpected good news,” commented Bermet Bukasheva. 

Sultan Jumagulov said that the amendments to the legislation should positively affect the relationship between state officials and journalists. On that occasion he said: “For young and inexperienced journalists this provision opens a wide road to all public institutions. And that is playing into the hands of those who have not yet become professional journalist.” 

Jumagulov here stressed that, beside that amendment, there are now many laws that require officials of all ranks to provide information. 

“Journalists are given free access to information,” said Jumagulov. “Besides, our state officials are very much accessible, compared with those ones in Kazakhstan, not to mention Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. For example, foreign journalists are always surprised at the openness of our officials.” 

Despite the approval of this important initiative for journalists, many experts believe that the penalties of 500 to 1 000 soms ($15-30 USD) will not compel state officials to become more open to the media. 

At the moment, managers and staff of the media note the lack of interaction between state officials and journalists, and  this interaction is very exclusive. 

“State officials cooperate with some media only. However, avoiding cooperation with other media, they do damage to themselves because the independent media that could cover their activities possibly in a positive manner, are forced to highlight only their negative sides,” shared Bukasheva. 

Other journalists agree with Bukasheva saying that officials cooperate with those journalists who ask friendly questions.  In turn, these journalists can be easily influenced to cover the activities of the organization the officials represent, in a favorable light. 

Media experts tend to believe that the access to information by journalists depends on several factors. First, obtaining information largely depends on the personality of a director or an official. It means that they are guided not by law, which obliges them to provide information, but by their own volition. Secondly, they may hide some facts or deliberately conceal some information, being afraid of misunderstanding. 

“If a state official does not want to provide some information, he may find a lot of reasons to refuse,” Shamaral Maychiev noted. 

In reality, it is very difficult to make officials bear responsibility for failure of providing information. The media workers have to make great efforts to present evidence that the officials failed to provide required information intentionally. 

According to Maychiev, only 5 out of 100 journalists receive information without being involved in conflict with officials. The remaining 95 journalists cannot obtain the necessary information. 

“Many media workers have their own informants in different state structures. During workshops, I have met the reporters who have no problem with obtaining information; the most important thing for them is to have events. The others say that no matter how many times they write or call the state structures, no one ever replies. So here we may speak about different levels of professionalism,” said the media expert. 

Since such a restricted access to information has also been associated with the lack of persistence among journalists, as well as with the low level of their professionalism, experts consider it necessary to provide special training on how to get information and make inquiries. 

“Sometimes, inquiries are drawn up in such a way that they are not easy to answer. In addition, journalists often ask very abstract questions. Meanwhile, an official should know about the availability of the information in his institution to answer the question. As a rule, there are only one or two people in the staff of an entire state body who know about the required information and they are considered the most competent. I believe that journalists should learn to ask questions, both orally and in writing, while state officials should learn to answer. In general, I believe this law is a good thing, and I hope it will yield positive results,” concluded a lawyer. 

Preservation of criminal punishment of journalists 

Decriminalization of articles for libel and defamation remains one of the most important issues for the media of Kyrgyzstan. Humanization of the criminal law in Kyrgyzstan excluded criminal punishment for libel and insult. However, while adopting the amendments to the Criminal Code in 2007, parliamentarians, in a strange and vague way, left articles 127 and 128 unchanged. 

The media community believes that these articles remained unchanged due to the fact that the main plaintiffs in cases of libel and defamation are usually officials and members of the Parliament, who in no way “are willing to lose such an effective instrument of influence and pressure on the media.” 

“In their time, many of those people were also sued for libel and insult and even participated in the demonstrations to repeal these rules. However, once in power, they saw the other side of this problem, and changed their position,” said Shamaral Maychiev. 

There have been more than three attempts in different years to exclude prosecution of journalists for libel and defamation, but none of them was successful. 

According to the IMP, 5-6 journalists a year are sued for libel in the republic. But in none of the cases was it possible to prove a direct intent of a journalist. The judges determined only if the journalistic material corresponded to real facts, but they did not determine whether those materials offended the honor and dignity of the plaintiffs. 

In this regard, Ilim Karypbekov said that he hoped that Kyrgyz legislation would exclude the measure of detention of journalists, as even fines and suspended sentences have a quite serious impact on media workers. In particular, as the media representative said, the journalists who are subjected to a fine or a suspended sentence, often feel offended, and the people around them might call them criminals. 

Alexander Kulinskiy, an independent journalist, noted that there are alternatives to the current punishment for libel, and the journalist community is ready to suggest them. In particular, he spoke about the congress of journalists held in December last year, which established the Commission on complaints against the media. 

Kulinskiy stressed that the commission has a task of condemning journalists who allow public defamation. In particular, the expert emphasized that the commission’s activity is of pre-trial character and will resolve some conflicts through peaceful means. For example, if the fact of libel takes place, the commission will recommend the newspaper concerned to publish refutation; in some cases, if this can not be achieved, the refutation will be published in other media. 

Such a measure, according to Alexander Kulinskiy, will have much greater impact than any trials and harsh penalties. The journalist explained this by saying that chief judges in that situation would be consumers of the media; who would see condemnation of certain media and journalists by their peers. This would have the greatest influence in shaping public opinion. 

The issue of repealing criminal punishment for journalists for libel and insult now depends only on the political will of the country's leadership. It currently remains unsettled, causing growing polemic and debate in civil society of the country. 

Regulation of information editions on the Internet 

A bill initiated by the parliament member, Alisher Sabirov, could become a step to the restriction of freedom of speech in the republic. The main idea of this bill is to equate web-based information with the mass media.  Thus, they too can be regulated by the media legislation. The initiative to regulate online publications is one of the most widely discussed topics by the media community in Kyrgyzstan. The complex issue requiring careful consideration not only by media experts, human rights representatives and officials, but also by IT-workers, cannot be solved without the participation of all the stakeholders, competent examination, and the assessment of risks and impact. 

Back in 2007, the Parliament expressed dissatisfaction with the content of anonymous comments in the Kyrgyz online media. In the opinion of politicians, this contributed to inter-regional, ethnic and religious discord and threatened the state integrity. 

At the same time, many experts believe that Kyrgyz Internet space is a place where one can freely express opinion, and legal regulation of Internet sites will delay the development of information publications on the Internet. As an example, political analyst, Mars Sariev, commenting on the initiative, spoke about the April demonstrations; when Internet sites quickly informed about the course of political events, while the rest of the media remained one sided.   

Ilim Karypbekov thinks that web-based information resources should be held accountable for the content of the comments placed in their forums, but definitely there should not be any restrictions on the freedom of speech for citizens. “Today many people receive information through the online community. Enforcement of the act in Kyrgyzstan might kill the emerging civil journalist,” he said. 

As the experts observed, the law, will not be effective because many other ways to express opinions and put the information in the Internet space will be found. 

Alexander Kulinskiy believes that the bill would lead to restriction of freedom of speech. But on the other hand, the issue of prohibition of forums currently requires greater attention from the public. According to him, the forums have become a “drainage ditch” for information, where everyone can express their incorrect attitude towards all what is happening. 

“The important thing is that in a few years, these people will rule the country. In the whole world, political and social culture were initially imposed, and our state must follow this practice. Another question is how would it be applied in our conditions? In this regard, we have yet to develop,” noted the journalist. 

The initiator of the bill, Alisher Sabirov, explained the reasons for the initiative as follows: “The issue of information security is crucial for Kyrgyzstan. I must say that the biggest concern I have is the information available on Internet sites, where there are judgments and proposals that incite inter-regional, inter-religious and inter-ethnic strife. Also, the information could include propaganda of the ideology opposite to our nation. For this purpose, during the previous convention, we have prepared a bill whose main objective was to equate websites with the media, and to impose control over the dissemination of information.” 

According to the parliament member, now the mechanism of how to place control over Internet sites is being developed. “Most likely, we will require the website administrators to monitor information posted by visitors,” stressed Sabirov. 

He drew attention to the fact that under this bill, not all websites will be equated with the media. However, Sabirov stressed that “every citizen has a constitutional right to privacy of correspondence,” and this bill does not violate this right. 

Many government officials, along with legislators, are seriously concerned about the lack of public policies on the Internet. Supporting the initiative to regulate the content of Internet publications, are, in the opinion of journalists, a hope to get more tools to control the flow of information. However, representatives of state structures themselves explain this by the desire to protect some individuals from insult and to support cultural communication on the Internet. 

“The point is that the materials in the electronic media, unlike newspapers, are stored in a database.  Anybody from every corner of the globe can get access to any material at any time. In this medium, many electronic media open discussion forums where everyone can express his view on a given topic, policy, or public figure. However, some visitors leave absolutely incorrect comments, inciting inter-ethnic and cross-regional strife. This is unacceptable. That’s why I think that the owners of electronic media should bear full responsibility for the comments in the forums,” commented Marat Kayipov. 

However, human rights defenders believe that solution of this problem should be based on the standards regarding freedom of speech, which exist in the country. 

“The International Pact on Civil and Political Rights operates in our country.  It states that everyone has the right to seek, spread, and receive information by any means; i.e. it can be creative work, peaceful gatherings, as well as written expression of views and comments of the articles. Unambiguously, comments should be posted in a suitable format. Any views expressed publicly are imposed limitations. But in our legislation, there are already bans on speeches aiming at the violent overthrow of public order, inciting interethnic strife, etc. Therefore, in my view, there are enough tools, including the Media law, which regulate this kind of expression,” expressed Dmitry Kabak, the head of the PF Open Asia. 

The question of legal regulation of information on websites, which today have become almost the only alternative source of information in Kyrgyzstan, also remains unsettled. Preservation of alternative sources of information, as well as prospects for further development of civil journalism in Kyrgyzstan, according to the experts, now depends only on the parliamentarians. At the meantime, most experts believe that a positive decision regarding the regulation of the Internet editions is only a matter of time. 

Consolidation of efforts by local and international media organizations and human rights defenders 

In relation to the current media situation in the country, since February 2008, Kyrgyz civil society, particularly many media and human rights organizations, have consolidated their efforts for the advancement of the media in Kyrgyzstan.  They work towards preventing the attempts of “tightening the screws”, abridgement of freedom of speech and expression, providing safe conditions for journalists’ work, improving their vocational education, and increasing access to socially significant information for the public. 

To achieve their goals, media organizations in Kyrgyzstan, including all the regions, created a professional newsletter through which they discuss important issues, such as: legislative initiatives, projects, activities and other events, and also the development of a common strategy to address the problems associated with media development. 

The trend of integrated actions by media organizations can also be seen in their joint efforts to promote bills important for the media, to protect the interests of certain publications and individual journalists, to launch joint projects and joint activities in the field of training of journalists, and ensuring their safety. In addition, leaders and experts from media organizations began to meet regularly in Bishkek to exchange their views on a number of issues related to the above-mentioned objectives. 

Unfortunately, the positive trend of bringing together representatives of non-governmental organizations in improving the media situation has not yet been able to influence the course of events that occurred in 2008. 

According to the media experts, decision-makers did not hear the voices of civil society. Numerous declarations, open appeals, interviews, commentaries, analytical sociological studies of foreign and local media organizations have been ignored. However, despite this, they have not given up hope and intend to continue to work on solving the problems of the media development in Kyrgyzstan. 

The experts note that the constructive cooperation of the media representatives and civil society is necessary for successful promotion of the issues related to the advancement of media in Kyrgyzstan. 

“This is a time when the future of the media depends not only on journalists but also on civil society and on how many young people will join in. I hope that the new generation of young men and women will strive to preserve the liberal values. There can be no decent future for Kyrgyzstan without that, and we must be aware of it,” warned Tynchtykbek Choroev. 

Ilim Karypbekov agreed with him, expressing his view that “the media and NGOs should mobilize their forces, by self-regulation introduce clear and transparent rules and offer their arguments to defend their positions.” 

“Both sectors, unfortunately, are very alienated. Their views differ so much  that the authorities use this to set their own rules. If these two sectors – the media and NGOs - will be able to unite and work together to defend their position, they will retain the framework of freedom,” the media representative concluded.

Gulnura Toralieva, media expert of the IPP