Ilim Karypbekov, Director of the Media Representative Institute: First, I would like to talk about the processes that are now taking place in the mass media. Nowadays, there is no electronic mass media at the national level that does not depend on those in positions of power. It is widely known that all of the country's electronic mass media are concentrated in the hands of one person. The same is true for the press. Those in power are trying to create an informational space that will reflect only their position. If one considers mass media at the national level, one can say that there are newspapers - "De-facto," "Super-info," and perhaps some other small mass media. However, it is notable that there is freedom of speech on the Internet. It has not yet been monopolized and there is a diversity that will come to an end soon, when the legislature takes steps to regulate it. I think that deputies will raise this issue before the end of the year.

What kind of preventive measures can we take and what is being done at present? The only step that has been taken is the establishment of a commission to consider complaints about the mass media. This is the only institution that tries to control the journalism community from within. I hope that the activities of this institution will be fruitful. So far, there are no other measures that are being taken. An effort to monopolize and to form a common informational space is not bad. But authorities face certain difficulties. For example, as long as mass media customers know that a certain media organization is controlled by those in power, it loses its popularity and becomes ineffective. Hence, the authorities might need to subsidize mass media in order to maintain the common informational space.

As for the mechanism of legislative control, the Minister of Culture and Information told us during a private meeting that he is preparing to propose amendments to the law "On mass media," and they will touch on the status of journalists. Their status is not currently defined and regulated, legally. After the changes, their profession will be licensed.

In all developed states, the non-governmental sector and the mass media cooperate closely. In Kyrgyzstan, these two sectors do not get along and do not understand one another. As a result, there is likely to be legislative intrusion into this field - in an effort to gain control.

All the actions of our authorities resemble those of the authorities in Russia and Kazakhstan, which adopted legal norms on regulating the non-governmental (NGO) sector. In Kazakhstan the grant activities of any NGO must be carried out under the strict control of state bodies. It is only after receiving their permission that NGOs may receive grants. We are moving in the same direction. The only solution for the NGO sector is to coordinate and self-regulate. So far, NGOs in Kyrgyzstan do not support one another; they work only for their own interests. This may result in the loss of the liberal-oriented mass media and NGOs.

Gulnura Toralieva, IPP Program Director: I would like to give several facts on the freedom of mass media in Kyrgyzstan. 1. Experts of the Committee to Protect Journalists expressed their discontent concerning the introduction of censorship on mass media in Kyrgyzstan in the 2007 edition of their annual report, "Attacks on the Press," which covers all countries in the world. The report called the mass media situation in Kyrgyzstan unsatisfactory because of the introduction of censorship and the increase of threats against journalists. 2. The Vice-Prime-Minister of Kyrgyzstan, Nur uulu Dosbol, charged the Minster of Culture and Information "to coordinate the information policy of the mass media better."

Alexandr Kulinskiy, independent journalist: I want Ilim's words to be understood better. When he talked about the draft bill on the status of journalists, he meant that we know that there is such a document being prepared right now. Yesterday I met with the Minister of Culture and Information and we discussed the situation. In fact, there is no draft bill on "the status of journalists" yet. The minister thinks that such a law is necessary, but what will it include? Yesterday he accepted an invitation to meet with the non-governmental media sector next week to discuss two questions.

The first question is whether it is necessary to adopt a law on the status of journalists. The majority of NGOs and journalists think there is no need for such a law, that the normal law "On mass media" is sufficient. The second question is how to implement the law "On the access to information that is under the control of state bodies and self-governing bodies of the KR." I think one should not try to escape such debates.

Also during the meeting with the employees of the Ministry, I was informed why Nur uulu Dosbol said what Gulnura Toralieva quoted him as saying. That day, there was a conflict between the employees of the Ministry and two journalists from TV and radio companies. I was told by Ministry representatives that they were deeply upset by the actions of the journalists, especially those representing the channel backed with administrative resources. The journalists said a lot of threatening things to the officials. After this incident, Nur uulu Dosbol was furious and that's when he said what he said. It was a direct reaction to the behavior of the journalists. I would like to emphasize that often, cruel reactions are reactions to our behavior. There was a kind of similar situation between 1991 and 1993, when there was so much freedom that no one knew how to use it. The outcome was the trial of Zamira Sydykova in 1995 and the gradual turning of the screws. Today, we observe the same things but in a more rapid way.

The reasons authorities are trying to limit the mass media should be mentioned. Both sides are getting ready for "spring events." The current intensification is a result of preparation for these possible events. A part of the problem we have depends on us. If we do not understand today that we are doing something incorrectly, there is a threat that a law could be adopted that would include an ethical code, and a journalist failing to observe it would lose his license. The state, unlike journalists and NGOs, has the administrative resources, and can develop a law that can be easily adopted by the current parliament. We need to avoid pushing the situation to the extreme. Nur uulu Dosbol's words highlight this situation.

As for censorship, it has always existed. The only difference is that, earlier, it was not discussed openly. Sometimes the electricity was off, the bridges of ... were burned for unknown reasons, the NSS was involved in the work of media. If one remembers 2002, some opposition deputies showed a video of the Aksy shooting and all of the media were ordered not to show this record. The only channel permitted to show it was KOORT, which was allowed to show a small fragment. "Pyramid" was forced to switch off all its phones, make its news block two hours early, and leave the office after making copies of the tapes. The next day, there was no electricity. When they understood that it is useless, broadcasting was off air.
Censorship was always there and always will be. Mass media - particularly, electronic media - cannot resist it. It is necessary to have technical and political resources to resist it, which the media do not have.

It should be remembered that history might turn out differently; the experience of KOORT is an example. Each of us has to think about what goes on the air and its consequences. The supervisor of the "Pyramid" program "Nashe vremya" told me: "You are promoting the opposition. And when they come to power, they will stop it." Nowadays, I often think, is it necessary to talk about everything?

Shamaral Maychiev, media representative in the KR: It is often the case that freedom of speech is evaluated based not on reality, but on how certain events are perceived. To measure freedom of speech, we need indicators. How can we measure freedom of speech? Based on:

1. Professional freedoms and guarantees - education and access to the profession, conditions and standards of journalists' activities, professional associations;
2. Application of responsibility measures;

These are two points on which to do research on freedom of speech. Today there is some evaluation of the media. We can rely only on our feelings.

I will read several indicators meant to measure freedom of speech.

Professional freedoms and guarantees:
• The possibility to undertake journalistic activities freely - this is about censorship. Here, it implies official institutional bodies that maintain censorship;
• Mass media registration - informative or permissive character. At the moment, it is possible to address the Ministry of Justice and register press units; it will take a month. There are problems with electronic media, which relate to the licensing of frequencies.
• The presence of freelance journalists - today we do not have them;
• State regulation - it is absent today;
• Professional immunity - the presence of legal complaints. This is the indicator that shows the rate of illegal dismissals, the presence of the legal protections of journalists' professional activities, which are absent;
• Access to information - openness of state bodies, which is absent
• Confidentiality of information sources - today, through the courts, the sources of information may be released;
• Education level at universities - the process of receiving theoretical and practical skills. In totalitarian states, to eliminate freedom of speech, they start with education;
• Licensing and access - there is a problem relating to electronic media, as I mentioned earlier;
• Suspension of the mass media - it is clearly guaranteed by law; it is possible only with a court decision;
• Conditions and standards of journalistic activities - these are labor unions, which are absent;
• The presence of ethics - recently an ethics code was adopted;
• The existence of a commission on qualification;
• The existence of a professional organization that will incorporate not less than 1/3 of the media - it is necessary. Media organizations should initiate the establishment of such an organization;
• Facts and opinions - journalists confuse opinions and facts;
• The presentation of public figures and of their interests.
• Mass media as a business;
• Existence of professional associations - absent;
• Existence of NGOs;
• Other ways to solve disputes besides appealing to courts - a body for self-regulation;
• Application of responsibility measures - the ability of the courts to compensate for moral damage. Access to justice;
• Regulation of content - programs, air time, retransmission. These are serious problems with these indicators. For example, the pressure from the Uzbek media in the south of Kyrgyzstan
• Political advertisements - there is no law on political advertisements;
• Commercial advertisements.

Summarizing the above, I would like to say that freedom of speech must be acheived in accordance with previously agreed indicators. Those media evaluations conducted by Freedom House and IREX, include general conclusions on freedom of speech in Kyrgyzstan.

Leila Saralaeva, Associate Press correspondent: While analyzing the current situation, I agree with the point that media are not free. No one is interested in editorial policy, because no one can influence it. Journalists rewrite material or create transcripts of parliamentary proceedings. When there is ‘hot' material, it is an order from the authorities. Thus, one of major functions of journalism - to criticize and reveal the truth, is fading. It is in the public interest for journalists to investigate and critique. But the process of state agencies' reacting to media criticism is not operational. State officials are not afraid to be publicly criticized in the press. This is because their positions do not depend on their work but on their personal relations with high-level officials. Maybe this situation is a result of the corrupt nature of our society. It is a source of public mistrust of the media. As for relations between the authorities and the mass media, the president said it well: "Now a minister will not give an interview or hold a press-conference without the consent of the Prime Minister." Until now, we have not felt that. But perhaps, it will happen soon.

Grigoriy Mihaylov, correspondent for the federal information agency REGNUM: I will characterize most journalists in Kyrgyzstan as "locked." I call them this for several reasons. First, I would like to point out their low levels of education and professionalism. Most students do not have practical training after graduation. Second, they are afraid of the authorities. Vecherniy Bishkek" or "Pyramid" today state: "Bakiev is not good." And tomorrow, after a change of ownership, the same people will write that he is good. Journalists are not afraid to lose their readers' respect, and there are skills for changing opinions and the willingness to cooperate with leadership."]. If the leaders were concerned that after a change of editorial policy, employees might leave, they would do it much more carefully. Now it is done very simply. It turns out that a journalist is simply a transmitter of words, assigned to deliver the thoughts of his leaders.

Ilim Karypbekov, Director of the Media Representative Institute: When I asked whether politicians should have strict principles, I was told that politicians must have flexible principles. It seems to me this position has spread to journalists. Such situations have occurred: the Media Representative Institute protects one newspaper, which received a lot of complaints. Then the owner of this newspaper moves into power and, right away, the flow of complaints stops. Officials usually do not complain about pro-government media. But as soon as the owner joins the opposition, immediately, journalists become critical. And again this organization appeals to the Media Representative Institute for assistance.

Do journalists have principles? Unfortunately, journalists frequently do not have particular values. This leads to many problems. Regardless of media owners who become proponents of the powerful or the opposition, the total number of complaints does not decrease. During 2007, the Media Representative Institute participated in more than 45 cases when there were complaints against journalists. During its three-year history, the Media Representative Institute represented the interests of journalists in 120 cases. That is a lot. And there are many journalists who do not come to us for help. Basically, there are complaints about the media every day.

Alexandr Kulinskiy, independent journalist: Regarding the question on the principles of journalists, I think that quite high standards are being applied to journalists. At the same time, these standards are formed by a society that is far from being idealistic and can cynically sell votes during elections, then go against those they elected. After this, I wonder how people can demand from a journalist something that they themselves are not able to perform. Are journalists the chosen caste or gods? Don't journalists have families they need to feed? Twelve percent of a society must be active, principal and intelligent if it is going to function well. When there are more, society goes crazy. In our country, perhaps, there are too many intelligent people; therefore, we live like this. What do we know about journalists today? We do not know who is an average journalist. We do not have a labor union of journalists which aims at forming a professional environment where an individual can work. Journalists might become principled when there are professional fundamentals like contracts, professional training, re-training, improvement of qualifications, etc. In our press, there are no normal labor relations. It is a huge problem that most prefer to forget, but there are talks on principles. No one thinks about how a journalist with principles will survive when he is not employed. In my view, there's no point in talking about principles in the society without principles. This is first.

Secondly, we forgot about regional journalists. For example, in the newspaper "Za ugol" in Kyzylkiya, the only employee is the chief editor, an old lady. What do we know about her needs? When I talked to her, she told me with tears on her eyes: "Do not forget about us, and that we also do something." But we do not remember them. People like her strive for professionalism, association, and protection of rights because they know what it means. But, we at the top talk about high values and do not stand on the ground similar to our opposition. We are ones who resist association and the creation of professional organizations. Those who tend to have morality, mostly struggle against it.

Andrey Miyasarov, Director of the Media Support Center: Kyrgyzstan is a unique country because only here do we have independent publication, a body for self-regulation, and an institute for the protection of journalists' rights via Ilim Karypbekov. The conditions exist to build a dialogue.

There is a view that there is no free journalism. Here, we use the English word "free," which is translated as "not occupied, unpaid." It turns out that somebody always pays.

But, there is a serious problem. There is no solidarity among journalists nowadays. There was some solidarity after the murder of Alisher Saipov. Why wait for something like that to show solidarity? As for independence, Kyrgyz media is much more advanced than Russian media. The only thing is that information policy was developed more correctly in Russia, and the cropping of the informational space was the first step.

Mass media independence is defined by its financial situation. We try to solve one simple question. Media is popular, it is efficient. One of the elements of financial independence can be product marketing. This is the purpose of all media with no exceptions. Media cannot make a deal with the state enterprise Kyrgyzpochtasy. Thus, all the top profits go to people who have no relevance to newspaper production. The point is that we produce a newspaper and 10% goes for the wholesale of newspapers. Then, the newspaper goes somewhere, and these processes are not controlled. A part of the money that goes to Kyrgyzpochtasy, newspapers cannot recoup. But people, who work at the markets make 300-400% profits by selling the product we produce. In 16 years, no one has addressed this problem. All efforts to create an association of publications and distributors that could be a starting point for establishing an alternative system of distribution have failed. People are not ready to understand that not all products of the press will be interesting. Obviously, each solves its problems with state bodies individually, gaining a temporary success. The question of financial independence, and in particular, one of its elements, is not solved because of the absence of professional solidarity among the journalistic community. Today, the dialogue between the mass media and the authorities is not possible due to the absence of such a body.

Those NGOs that work with them, they protect media more than media itself. We have the newspaper "Journalist news." It could become the core of the journalist community. This newspaper is supported by many. Perhaps, it will become one of mechanisms that will trigger the association of the journalist community.

Ilim Karypbekov, Director of the Media Representative Institute: I want to add several words about journalists' principles. The problems of journalists at the state-owned national TV and radio channel are related to these principles. It is the same when we ask the militiaman on the road why he takes bribes. He will probably say it is because of his low salary. Then, we advise him to leave the job. Similar requirements must apply to NGOs. If I work in an NGO, I need to be transparent. In the title of the law "On access to information that is under the control of state bodies and self-governing bodies" initially there were fewer words. It was previously called the law "On access to information." Then NGOs start saying that this law encourages constant checks upon NGOs. NGOs must be transparent. To ask for transparency from state, NGOs must themselves be transparent. The same must be true for journalists. If a journalist says that he is open and follows principles, then his opinion will be heard and respected.

Andrey Miyasarov, Director of the Media Support Center: The best indicator of media success is audience - readers. Unfortunately, many of our newspapers do not survey their readers. The newspaper "MSN" used to publish 50,000 copies, now - 10,000. "Vecherniy Bishkek" used to publish 80,000 copies of its Friday issue, and 20,000 copies every other day. Now, it is 40,000 and 5,000. This is the answer. People react.

Gulnura Toralieva, IPP Programs Director, concluded the round-table and expressed thanks to its participants.