UZBEK DOCUMENTARY ATTACKS UZBEK RFE/RL JOURNALISTS

C O N F I D E N T I A L TASHKENT 000876 SIPDIS SENSITIVE DEPT FOR SCA AND DRL E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/28/2018 TAGS: PGOV PHUM KPAO UZ SUBJECT: UZBEK DOCUMENTARY ATTACKS UZBEK RFE/RL JOURNALISTS AND PROGRAMMING REF: A. STATE 65258 ¶B. TASHKENT 847 ¶C. ASHGABAT 864 Classified By: PAS K. ANDERSON For Reasons 1.4 (B, D) ¶1. (U) This cable provides background information useful for understanding reftels. ¶2. (SBU) Summary: In mid June a state-produced documentary bashing RFE/RL's Radio Ozodlik service aired on state TV in two regions and nationwide on nominally independent TV stations. The documentary challenged the reporting practices of Ozodlik and profiled nine journalists, releasing personal information about the journalists and their family members in a likely attempt to intimidate them and discredit the service. The documentary drew strong international criticism, but some of the criticism of RFE/RL's reporting may be valid based on past Embassy experience. End Summary. A DOCUMENTARY IN NAME ONLY -------------- ¶3. (SBU) On June 9 and 10 state-owned Ferghana Regional TV and Namangan TV Stations aired a documentary in Uzbek on the practices of reporters working for the RFE/RL Uzbek- language Radio Ozodlik service. The documentary was subsequently re-aired nationwide on June 20 by the independent Network of Nonstate Television (NTT) stations (Note: NTT is nominally independent, but likely was acting on request of the Government of Uzbekistan (GoU). NTT headquarters compiles 5-6 hours of programming and distributes it to regional independent channels that are required to air the programming at exactly the same time nationwide. End Note). It did not air on any of the four state nationwide channels. A different program on Namangan state TV on July 1 featured a roundtable discussion that discussed the documentary, but did not re-broadcast it in its entirety. Neither the documentary nor subsequent programs mentioning the documentary has been broadcast since. ¶4. (SBU) Modules of the program focused on a particular RFE/RL story and journalist. First, an actual RFE/RL story would be played, followed by interviews with Uzbeks interviewed by RFE/RL for the story. Those interviewed for the story would claim they either did not know they were being interviewed, that the interviewer claimed to be from a different news agency, or that the story was fabricated. After discrediting the story, the program went on to profile the journalist in question. Interspersed throughout these modules were interviews with former Radio Ozodlik employees who described the service as totalitarian, corrupt, and biased. The program also showed interviews with "experts" who claimed that Radio Ozodlik,s practices are against journalistic ethics and illegal. The program also claimed that RFE/RL's programming was part of a deliberate information attack, and implied that the United States was behind this attack. The documentary closed with a justification for any actions taken against this "information threat" and an appeal, set to the background of Uzbekistan,s most prominent landmarks, for Uzbeks to remember their rich cultural heritage. ¶5. (C) The program appeared aimed at intimidating journalists and their families. The documentary profiled nine RFE/RL journalists. Each profile displayed a photo of the journalist along with his or her radio pseudonym and personal information such as citizenship, where he or she went to school, and where he or she last lived. Additionally, most profiles included personal information about the journalist's family members and children, including their names and where they live and work. ¶6. (C) The program included criticism of the U.S. government, implying that the 9/11 attacks were planned by the United States as a cover for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and notes past U.S. actions that used the press to sway public opinion. It also claims that the United States helped to create the terrorist organization IMU and that Radio Ozodlik has a cozy relationship with opposition members. During these segments images of revolution and protest along with ominous music are played. In drawing these connections the program brands Radio Ozodlik as an "informational threat" that justifies actions to protect against this threat. REACTIONS TO THE DOCUMENTARY -------------- ¶7. (SBU) The documentary drew strong international condemnation. The OSCE Permanent Council released a statement on June 19 (Ref. A) noting, "No legitimate journalistic purpose was served," by the revelation of the personal details of journalists. RFE/RL President Dr. Jeffrey Gedmin noted the documentary in a July 2 Washington Post editorial on freedom of the press in Central Asia before his visit to Uzbekistan with BBG member Jeffrey Hirschberg on July 10 (Ref. B). COMMENT -------------- ¶8. (C) The journalistic practices of Radio Ozodlik reporters are not above reproach. In addition to the examples of poor journalistic practices outlined in the documentary, embassy staff has experienced similar events. The LES Press Assistant has been quoted by Ozodlik journalists three times without his permission or knowledge that he was being interviewed. Information Officer also has been quoted without her permission. There have been other reports of questionable journalistic practices by RFE/RL in other Central Asian countries. Embassy Ashgabat recently reported on the RFE/RL's broadcast of the torture of an RFE/RL correspondent who had been detained by the government, but was not actually tortured (Ref. C). The criticisms of the journalistic practices noted in the documentary, based on embassy experience, have credibility. COMMENT CONTINUED ¶9. (C) Since the 2005 Andijon events the GoU has restricted foreign news organizations. However, it has been unable to remove Radio Ozodlik. The service is particularly worrisome for the regime because it broadcasts in Uzbek, is widely accessible, and cannot be controlled as other press agencies can. The documentary can be seen as part of a wider program to retain control over information and to attack Radio Ozodlik by discrediting its reporting, intimidating its reporters, and implying that it is an external threat that must be resisted and defeated. The GoU believes that RFE/RL is a tool of the USG, and, based on the meeting reported in Ref. A, it appears unlikely that GoU,s views toward RFE/RL will change in the short-run. Radio Ozodlik does not do itself any favors by using questionable practices, but these practices do not warrant the personal attacks in the documentary. End Comment. BUTCHER