In 1980 I took a class in Soviet journalism, taught in Russian at Leningrad State University. It was a rare opportunity to hear firsthand about the role of journalism and journalists in Soviet society.
We discussed how much coverage there should be on the output of tractors on the factory line, where to place a story on a collective farm exceeding its goals, how to slant international stories such as the Reagan-Carter election and the Iran hostage crisis.
I never thought anything would change: not in the newspapers, not on radio, and certainly not on TV. It was boring stuff, but nevertheless well-suited for the purposes of Soviet communism.
A decade later, in 1990, I won an award to report in Russian for Soviet television. Everywhere I went, the seasoned Soviet journalists I worked with enthusiastically described the inroads they were making in their profession: gaining greater access in covering controversial topics, doing more critical, more analytical reports - and feeling less fear.
Everything in TV journalism was opening up, and it seemed as if it would be that way forever.
In 1992, the honeymoon was over. While the staff of Izvestia was fighting with Russian lawmakers over who controlled the newspaper, I found myself at a weeklong conference in Moscow on how young journalists from the Commonwealth of Independent States can report for TV, following international standards and style.
The brand-new Russian-American Press and Information Center invited 25 up-and-coming TV journalists - most in their early 20s - from independent TV and radio stations around the Commonwealth. They were teamed up with American journalists to report stories, Western-style.
It started with the physical basics: for example, making sure that all stories and interviews were done with the camera on a tripod so the picture wouldn't jiggle distractingly. Of course, there were problems - such as a shortage of tripods.
The Commonwealth journalists explored different styles of reporting, ranging from the straight story - a fire, for example - to interpretive stories about how that fire affected a burned-out family, or perhaps how the reporter felt about covering such a fire.
The point was not to tell these young journalists how they must report a story, but to expose them to different styles and show them how to make the best use of the equipment they had.
The journalists were shown how to keep updating the stories, coming back for the next newscast with an estimate in rubles of the damage done in the fire, interviewing survivors, assessing the prospects for rebuilding.
One reporter said he was bored with a particular story and saw no reason to keep going back and updating viewers on it. Bored or not, he was told, it is the journalist's responsibility to keep viewers on top of the news.
Having worked at a Seattle TV station since 1983, I was asked to speak on local news: how it is gathered, how it differs from network news, how the staff is organized.
The Commonwealth journalists asked many questions about where I got the information for my stories, and whether that information was free or if I had to pay someone for it.
It turned into a heated discussion. I explained that I never paid anyone for news, although I was aware it sometimes happened in the Commonwealth. Some of the young journalists from smaller stations said it was unfair to have to pay for information, since they didn't have the budgets or deep pockets of larger stations. The whole issue of payoffs was a problem we couldn't find answers to in just one week.
Some of the younger journalists felt they would never have a chance to put new ideas into practice under their older bosses. They felt they were under pressure from management not to rock the boat _ and they seemed relieved to learn that Western reporters sometimes get the same feeling.
These Commonwealth journalists know the reality of their profession much better than we Westerners do. It would be foolish to think that they face a smooth path into the future. They need tripods and cameras, tapes and editing equipment. They want more guidance on how to report on a level similar to the CNNs, BBCs and ABCs of the world. And they want to feel that they are contributing not only to the Commonwealth, but to international journalism at its best.
Helen Holter is an independent TV journalist from Seattle.
--------------
In December Boris Yeltsin established his own agency to control all of Russia's state-financed news media. This means he is in charge of all the main flows of published information of economic and political importance.
But this move just formalized something that Yeltsin has been doing throughout his presidency. He has exercised profound control over the former Soviet TV network, Ostankino, as well as the Russian TV channel, the country's two major news agencies and many popular newspapers.
Yeltsin's methods of control aren't much different from those of his predecessors. I had a chance to watch it all from the inside. For more than 15 years, Ostankino was my second home.
Through all those years, journalists had all sorts of standards to live up to. There were technical and creative standards, to be sure. But there were also standards of integrity, forcing journalists to make difficult choices.
Some told the truth on their own terms, even if they had to do it in obscurity. Others told the truth in terms acceptable to the system, sending messages hidden within messages.
Here are two examples:
Ten years ago, Vladimir Pozner was virtually unknown among Russians. For decades Pozner worked at Radio Moscow, broadcasting only abroad. Each day he would report on Soviet reality in such a way that he could tell the truth and still keep his job. He told stories about his Russian mother-in-law, using her as a pretext for describing Soviet living standards.
In contrast, Valentin Zorin was well-known in the U.S.S.R. for his reports on the "evil empire" of the U.S. He condemned capitalism and exploitation. But those who had ears could hear, those who had eyes could see. They understood his REAL message, about a country of great opportunities for those who wanted to work, about people free to choose their own way.
During Mikhail Gorbachev's era of glasnost, Pozner became an international celebrity, and that was fair. But was it fair that Zorin's analytical shows were replaced by reports of younger and quicker journalists, lacking his experience and knowledge?
The basic structure of the broadcasting system did not change dramatically under Gorbachev. Ostankino still had four channels: Channel 1, broadcasting all over the former Soviet Union and beyond; Channel 2, broadcasting only in Russia; the Moscow city channel; and Channel 4, the nationwide educational channel.
Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) had its own channel, as did each Soviet republic.
Ostankino remained state-financed and state-controlled, though not to the extent it was under previous leaders.
Virtually all of us were subject to self-censorship. To save ourselves the trouble, we avoided topics, problems and words that might be cut out of our shows by higher-ups. It was difficult to overcome the old habits and fears. But during the era of glasnost, many of Russia's journalists - though not all - managed to do it, forging a new standard of integrity in the process.
After the Soviet Union collapsed, it became evident that Soviet TV no longer existed. Former Soviet republics refused to finance channels that did not belong to them, and the 12,000 people on Ostankino's staff had to look for new financial support.
Commercials became one of the means to get the money. To attract sponsors, new shows were born, modeled after American favorites such as "Wheel of Fortune."
Has state control become weaker? Not at all. The government still provides partial financing for Ostankino. Those in power still give "advice" to journalists: whom to invite to the show (and whom not to invite), what topics and events to cover (and what not to), how much time to schedule for a story and when to air it.
Those who have money can buy access to the mass media as well as to the government. In Russia, "Big Money" has deep roots in both the mafia and the old Communist Party. The media are increasingly dependent on "donations," and they have to change their policies to suit the government and Big Money.
Double dependence, double pressure, much higher responsibility: It's getting harder for Russian journalists to work according to their standards of integrity.
Is Yeltsin trying to rein in a corrupt system by establishing a new bureaucracy, or is he just trying to save his own image? The motive may be in doubt, but the method is clear. Having been a top Communist Party official himself for many years, Yeltsin seems to know only this way.
Marina Orlova, a former Russian anchorwoman, lives in Seattle.
----------
In the old days, East was East, and West was West, and the twain would hardly ever meet. Generally, each side viewed the other side's journalists as tools for their respective systems: resources to be consulted but not fully trusted.
Western and Eastern perspectives are still different, as illustrated by this issue's articles on post-Soviet television. But there is an expanding common ground where journalists from East and West not only meet, but also work together. Among the prime examples: the newspaper We/Mbl, produced by Izvestia and the Hearst Corp., and Moscow's new TV- 6, an independent commercial channel managed by Russians and backed by Turner Broadcasting, CNN's parent company.
There are increasing opportunities for West to meet East in Moscow. Here are two new outlets for journalists:
* The Russian-American Press and Information Center is a cooperative venture of the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of USA and Canada Studies, and New York University's Center for War, Peace and the News Media. The Moscow center provides seminars and training, a library and electronic database services for reporters and editors.
Address: 2/3 Khlebny Pereulok, West Wing, Moscow 121069. Telephone: 203-57-02. E-mail via GlasNet: rapic@glas.apc.org.
The New York center also publishes "Deadline," a newsletter on East-West issues. Its address:
New York University, 10 Washington Place, New York, N.Y. 10003 Telephone: 212-998-7960.
* The International Press Center and Club Moscow is a "home away from home" for Russian and international journalists in Moscow, modeled after Washington's National Press Club. It provides transmission services ranging from telephones to digital photo filing, satellite links and e-mail. There are also seminars and briefings, as well as access to the Radisson Slavjanskaya Hotel's health club and bar.
Address: Radisson Slavjanskaya Hotel and Business Center, Berezhkovskaya Nab. 2, Moscow 121059. Telephone: 941-86-21 or its dedicated international line, 011-358-15-66-10219. U.S. information: The PBN Company, 3 Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, Calif. 94111. Telephone: 415-989-0536.