Self- censorship in Uzbekistan
BROAD ACCEPTANCE WITHOUT CLEAR DEFINITION
The majority of Uzbek journalists affirm that self-censorship is justified, even if they fail to give a common and comprehensive definition of it.
Self-censorship is a common phenomenon in the mass media of Uzbekistan, as much as the state censorship exercised by the State Censorship Authority. “Every journalist more or less knows what he may or may not write about”, confessed a pressman, who wished to remain unknown. “Nobody wants to clash with anyone and have problems. Also, why write about something for which one may be summoned, or carpeted, at least?” Another reporter stated that he would like to write about many of the problems of life in Uzbekistan, but he clearly realised that either an editor or a censor, in any case, would throw the article into a waste-paper-basket. “Why then try?”, he asked.
EDITORS’ CENSOR
In fact, not only the external censorship in press plays a leading role, but the censorship inside the editorial boards as well. “Self-censorship is regressing from the top to the bottom”, remarked independent journalist, Nodira Bairamova, “i.e. from the editor to the reporter". All participants in a newspaper process are well aware of their limits, as the framework for press “freedom” in Uzbekistan was outlined long ago and nobody wants to overpass them. While information travels from one authority to another, its main messages disappear completely. What the Uzbekistan press writes now is more “joyous and bright” than in the 70’s, the deadest period in the history of socialism. “Censorship and selfcensorship are to blame for the fact that the Uzbek press has remained Bolshevik, i.e. far from being correct”, said expert Ruslan Ishimov. “We are reassured”, said a head of one republican newspaper in a confidential talk. “Like that, we secure our positions. Do you really think we do not know how to, or do not want to, write about serious happenings in our life? Of course we do, but we do not want to answer for the consequences … “
WHAT IS SELF-CENSORSHIP?
From conversations with journalists, it became clear that many of them -having no idea what selfcensorship was- nevertheless often identify the meaning of self-censorship with concepts of journalistic ethics and morals. In Uzbekistan, one frequently hears that self-censorship is nothing but nonblackening, non-slandering or non-offending. So, one of the reporters contributing to an economic magazine remarked that “self-censorship is self-criticism and objectivity, i.e. a journalist aspiring to objective disclosure of an event keeps away from aspersion”. Reporter Michael Guralsky is sure that self-censorship is the ability to suppress a desire to make a sensational article which would have a more negative effect rather than beneficial consequences. “Self-censorship requires that reporters should neither use unverified facts nor make any conjectures, and to be very cautious in using data”, affirms Guralsky. Mrs. Nodira Bairamova considers that self-censorship and journalistic ethics should not be independent of each other. “Criticism can be productive and benefit the society or a person, but can also be licentious and harmful; everything depends upon the moral qualities of a journalist and how he can limit himself for ethical reasons”, she added. According to Mrs. Bairamova, self-censorship prevents criticism. It is confirmed by the data of a sociological interrogation made by the International Retraining Centre of Journalists of Uzbekistan. 90 % of the interrogated journalists negatively responded to the question: “Have you ever published articles in which your disagreed with any decision of authorities at various levels?”
IS SELF-CENSORSHIP GOOD OR BAD?
Many journalists in Uzbekistan appreciate, positively, the phenomenon of self-censorship. In their opinion, the absence of self-censorship in Tadjikistan in the early 90's resulted in the mass media playing a catalyst role in the conflict. An economic magazine employee believes that self-censorship is a benefit, as it provides for the prevention of information distortion. The author should not allow his article to create a negative resonance or riot in the society. This results in distorted understanding of the public mission of a journalist. Mrs. Nodira Bairamova thus affirms: “The basic commandment of a journalist is avoidance of doing harm! So self-censorship is quite natural.” As for Michael Guralsky, he believes that self-censorship is necessary as it helps to maintain a balance in the society. “Sometimes a journalist can unwillingly do harm.” However, an Uzbek sociologist, Bakhodir Musaev, is sure that selfcensorship represents a negative phenomenon. “Self-censorship is even more dangerous than the classical censorship as it restrains in man his yearnings for freedom, truth and search for precision, thus transforming him into a slave.” Actually editors censor information, not so much in the name of stability for the society, but rather for the sake of their own well-being. That is why newspapers are mainly featureless, monotonous and non-aggressive. By asserting that one should not “criticise” some events or state organisations, whose actions can really be considered illegal, such a self-censor satisfies himself with the fact that he did not undermine the authority of Uzbekistan at an international level. However, such “state interests” turn out to be serious problems for the society and undermine the true interests of the republic.
CAMEL Central-Asian-Media-Electronic-List
#19, September 2001, У CIMERA
Другие статьи в литературном дневнике:
