Nadezda is a prominent dissident Russian journalist. I met Nadezda, or Nadya, as friends call her, first, in İzmir in 2008 at a two-day workshop that was hosted by my faculty of that time for bringing Azeri, Armenian, Russian and Georgian journalists around a peace initiative of journalists from the region.
Since then, by learning about her investigative journalism background and her leading position in the organization of women journalists of Russia, and her feminist stand and by being invited by her to several academic and professional meetings in Sochi, Wien, and Moscow, I have had a great chance to know more about her and impressed by her endless motivation for a "good journalism".
Our last meeting was in April of this spring and on the occasion of the Fetisov Journalism Awards ceremony where we had decided to interview each other. Here below, you will see mine in which Nadya introduces the Awards as the chair of the Awards Steering Committee that is a relatively new, but very important initiative in the sense of encouraging journalists who are doing their profession under difficult conditions due to the subjects they are focusing, investigating, and reporting on.
The interview continues with Nadya's comments on the current situation of press freedom and the profession in her country. She gives us insights about what to do for "good journalism" and future of the journalism in these days of populist authoritarian regimes.
For the interview she has done with me, which questions women journalists' positions in the newsrooms, the strategies they develop for handling the "malestream" media and the profession, and their approach to peace journalism, please go to the following link. The interview was done in English but published in Russian.
How the story began
Nadya, you are an experienced, internationally respected journalist and currently the co-chair of the Fetisov Journalism Awards Steering Committee. Recently I, as an expert consul member and you as the co-chair of the awards' steering committee, were both in Dubai on the 22nd of April to join the Fetisov Journalism 2022 awards ceremony. For me, it was a great occasion to meet with prominent journalists from different parts of the world and with the winners who bravely covered politically very sensitive issues of their countries by giving brilliant investigative journalism examples. As someone who knows how the story started, please tell us first who is Gleb Fetisov and why the journalism awards.
It is one of unusual – and hopeful at the same time histories of recent media development, and charity activities. Gleb Fetisov was a successful businessperson in finances, then he started political activities, establishing the Green Party in Russia. Maybe he had contradictions with political opponents, but he was put behind bars, and accused of violation of some financial rules (it was fake, later he was released and announced not guilty).
Anyway, he spent 18 months in detention without permission to see even his mother. The only people he could see there were his lawyer and members of the Public Observation Committee, a special human rights body to control the conditions of prisoners.
One day, journalist Eva Merkacheva from the popular national daily MK, a member of the committee, came to his detention place. She was an expert on the human rights of prisoners and wrote about that for many years. She was interested in his case and supported his struggle for justice, published many articles, and attracted attention to his case.
Finally, Fetisov was released. When I met him, he said that was not sure that he could ever see his mother and be released. He said also that he understood that journalists do very important work for people and decided to do something for journalists. So, it started with a journalist's investigation. Fetisov left politics and focused his business on movie production and cultural initiatives, he invested in Russian Booker, in awarded films like Sobobor and Loveless, musicals and serials.
When Eva Merkacheva approached me and said about the Award, I could not believe that a rich man could establish a professional prize without his own interest. We used to see how rich people, even those who pretend to have a reputation of being people with principles, use media and journalists as a tool or just soldiers for their goals, look at media as their service for money. I was wrong.
When we met with Gleb and his team, and later, when colleagues from the European Federation of Journalists and other international organizations met him, and study the whole initiative, we all were really surprised that it was real and pure charity, like it should be. Very rare example today. Really inspiring, it could give a fresh start to others. Of course, Mr. Fetisov has his personal interest, he has an ambition to be well-known as a philanthropist and wanted to leave a memory about this award as a family initiative.
He has three kids. Now his daughter Alice, who graduated in cultural management, started working at Fetisov Foundation on the award. But I think, it is a very good ambition. By the way, Russia has a very strong tradition of philanthropy, many people in the world know the names of Tratuakov, Shchukin, Morozov and other millionaires of the 19th and early 20th century, which supported arts, science, and medical care.
It is important to re-establish this tradition. It is important that Mr. Fetisov never interferes with the process of collecting or decision-making. Top international experts from four continents all over the globe examine journalists' works and prepare a shortlist of 10 in four categories, and then the jury decides the best three in each category. Everything is totally transparent; the founder has no voice as well as the team.
The awards of 2022 were given in the categories of "outstanding contribution to peace", "contribution to civil rights", "outstanding investigative reporting" and "excellence in environmental journalism".
What makes the award unique
Could you tell us the importance of giving awards in these four categories that make the awards unique?
Four nominations were established as four dimensions of contemporary journalism. Of course in some time maybe new nominations will appear, jury members at the last meeting were thinking about a special sub-award on women's rights, migration and children, because we regularly get very many pieces of work about those issues, and they are very strong.
The idea of the award is not only to give a prize to the best reporters; today it is the biggest award in the world, 100 000 Swiss Francs for the first award in four categories, and smaller amounts. Many winners invested that money in their following investigations, by the way. The main goal is to raise awareness of the importance of honest, ethical, and sharp journalism and the importance of true words.
The idea was also to highlight the best reporters' work all over the globe. The Fetisov Award is unique because it unites journalists from well-known publications like New Your Times, The Guardian, El Pais, The Nation, and many others, but also publications from new online platforms of consortiums of mainstream and niche media outlets from old democracies and from countries of conflicts. The result is fantastic. First, we get a comprehensive picture of today's world, with all diversities and details that are usually far from mainstream media, we see faces and hear voices of people from all parts of the globe, and we see problems sometimes hidden from people. And we see fantastic, strong, and courageous journalist work. Journalism as a public good is alive, it exists everywhere, and journalists do their best. If you reed collections of the best stories (already 4 of them), you could see it.
Journalists from non-democratic countries
In my impression, the awards mostly are gone to the journalists from non-democratic countries, although there were a few awarded to western journalists too. Do you share my impression and if so, what this picture tells us?
As I said, the competition is for everybody. Participants from 83 countries sent their work to the last competition. Yes, more than 50 percent of publications came from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Some countries are leading, like India, and Nigeria. Those countries are very strong and active journalists, writing in English, and they would like to be visible.
At the same time every year, several US and European journalists are selected for the shortlist and are among the winners. Of course, US and EU journalists have much more options for visibility and more contests than African journalists. But we stand on the quality first of all.
"The journalist takes a side"
What I see in the awards, the first two categories "outstanding contribution to the peace", and "contribution to the civil rights" represent an alternative approach to conventional journalism since these categories assume the journalist takes a side; side of the peace, side of the ones whom rights are violated and in which case the states are the responsible ones. What we know is that journalists in non-democratic countries take big risks when their cover against any state action. What do you think about the roles of journalists when the issue is war or human rights violations?
Today journalism is undergoing a crisis everywhere. Some people declare the "end of traditional journalism", try to challenge the basic principles and standards, stand for "new sincerity" and so on. I think the award winners' proof that journalism is still stable, and is based on the main professional and ethical standards.
On careful work with resources and fact-checking, presenting different opinions and non-partisan, and responsibility... What about covering conflicts and wars, as well as the violence on human rights journalists from very different countries many years ago already prefer to focus on the human dimension of the conflict, on individual stories and voices of people involved in the conflict.
They are not shy to show compassion to the victims, in this way many best journalists around the globe do some promotion- promotion of humanity, compassion and peace. Of course, if you cover conflict, you cannot present one part of it as angels and the opposite as devils like propaganda does, but usually journalists blame violence and wars as a whole.
And this coincides with the basic idea of journalism as a public good. What about personal feelings – one of the winners 2022, report about the problems of Afghan women astronomers in Austria. Directly wrote about a sort of conflict of interests, he became a friend with her hero, but she tried to make and analysis at the same time the phenomenon of online friendship between a hero and an author, women from two small towns, the same age, from Austria and Afghanistan, with the same dream of progress and justice. I think it is very productive. About risks in non-democratic countries – yes, it is. And there are people who choose it anyway. Journalism is a profession of risk, in any country. And profession of personal choice.
Let me move from the context of Fetisov for a moment and ask for your comment on the objectivity principle of journalism. In my opinion although "objectivity" has an "absent presence" in journalistic practices as it is particularly the case with "national interest" issues as we discussed above. But still, journalists mystify it and keep paying lip service to it even in the routine news.
On the other hand, some scholars and journalists say, when the sides are not equal, a try to give an objective picture for instance would only help to the interest of politically, economically powerful ones. You are a journalist, but also, I know you are teaching journalism, tell me what is your comment on objectivity, is it indeed possible or ever applied? And what you say to the journalism students regarding "fair journalism."
This conflict existed since journalism appeared, and the discussion about that is very old as well.
When I was a young journalist in USSR [Union of Soviet Socialist Republics], we studied propaganda at Moscow State University (MSU), and at the same time my best teachers -in the same MSU and in the newspaper- explained very easily that you should not lie, should not write against your belief, manipulate and make any harm to ordinary people, and try to do your best for the truth and justice.
And many journalists in totally controlled Soviet media did the same, using Aesop language, choosing their topics and heroes and so on. We understood what real journalism was and what was not very well. Of course, objectivity is an ideal, like all principles from ethical codes, but it is important to have it in mind. We cannot avoid our not only political but personal priorities, but as for me, you should try to forget about your feelings when you write your story.
Or write a comment. It is hard. All ethical codes (more than 400) say that the professional interest of journalists is to serve the audience, not power or state. In the Global Charter of Ethical Journalism, except in 2019 by IFJ [International Federation of Journalists] and almost all professional organizations the basic point is that journalists could not be used by power, enforcement or anybody for their goals, that journalist duty is more important than state demand.
I teach the same all the time. It is a very important point of International professional community and solidarity. Of course, sometimes it makes problems, but it does not mean that the principle is wrong. I see journalists follow those principles in all countries, and it is the best what I could say about the future of journalism.
The age of digital journalism
They say in the age of speed and digital journalism that turns the journalist from the gate-keepers to the gate-watchers who have to be faster than ever to catch the fresh news, "investigative journalism" is under threat. On the other hand, in authoritarian countries, investigative journalists' job is harder than ever due to several restrictions. In that sense, seeing "investigative journalism" among the FJA [Fetisov Journalism Awards] category made me so happy, and I do believe such encouragement really is needed. What do you say about future of the investigative journalism under the circumstances?
Digital platforms just give new options, it is tech detail. You can write with a pen, with a computer, or with your phone, the most important is your message. The clip is not journalism at all, the image sent to millions as it is has nothing with journalism. Speed of short news is a sister of fakes and stupid mistakes, many media today refuse to publish any sexy news without fact-checking and proof, and they are right.
Information and journalism are not the same, and people, as recent surveys say, after COVID trust media much more and need information the trust more than ever. So, I am optimistic in this way. What about investigative journalism –it is in trouble not only because of legal and other restrictions in non-democratic or semi-democratic countries but its old democracies as well. I do remember how in THE US even before the bank crisis several media cut investigative departments, and journalists established independent consortiums.
Some of our winners from Europe and the US could not publish their investigations in mainstream media, editors did not want to have problems with power or corporations. I think the Internet is very helpful for investigative journalism, first, it makes possible big data analysis and communications. Many investigations today are cross-border ones, united by people from different countries. I do hope independent foundations could help international teams.
What else also made me hopeful about the future of journalism when I see the FJ A winners, is the cross-country works and collaborations of the journalists from different countries. I think this is great in terms of following up the cases across the borders and also it might have an empowering effect on the journalists through not only making their coverage stronger but also opening ways for solidarity among the journalists. I found the results of the FJA as encouraging such collaborations too. What is your opinion on these?
I think it is very important, around 25 percent of all works sent for the Award are prepared by international teams, from 2, 3, and sometimes 12 countries! The recent winner, Mexican- US work on the biggest corruption case between Mexico and US Company, last year's winner – teamwork of 12 countries from Latin America, Europe, Asia, Africa about trafficking in human beings, it was possible because of this team International long-time work.
Some joint publications helped to stop the import of materials made by slave work in Nigeria to Europe, the study of the Nile Valley situation united journalists from many countries, and the same with Amazon forests etc. It is not well studied today, but it is a clear trend in media development. What is also important, is involving many experts and activists in investigations, in gives a more comprehensive and poly-voices picture.
Freedom of the press in Russia
How do you comment on freedom of the press and journalism in Russia today?
Today Russian media face very strong restrictions, like never before in the last 30 years. Experts say more than 30 new amendments and regulations focus on the restriction of journalists and media work since 2010th. In 2022 after new laws, the number of independent media were closed. Around 600 NGOs, media and individuals are included in the list of "foreign agents", some media were announced ' "non describe". Dozens of journalists left the country.
Many works for Russian language media abroad. It is true that journalist investigation as a firm is frozen in today's Russia. At the same time, many journalists all over Russia do their job and try to do their best to inform the audience and to help people. They remember the old Soviet practice of the Aesop language and the craft of playing with associations and images, and they write about people's choices and dignity.
Many regional media cover hot regional and local issues, and support efforts to improve life, and they are trusted. A new phenomenon is the fact that almost every other week new independent voices are born on the Internet, mostly on YouTube and Telegram, they are very diverse, and the most important is that people pay for those new media, as well as for independent NGOs. People never did that before the pandemic.
Novaya Gazeta, led by Nobel Peace Prize Dmitry Muratov, lost its license but opened new formats online and offline, and people pay for all of them. They are called contributors, and not only donate but react to publications, suggesting new themes and heroes. It is a new stage of cooperation between journalists and the audience, based on trust and understanding of journalism as a public good. Many young people are in the field.
Of course, people in Russia trust mostly the media and journalists who are in the country, breathing the same air and facing the same problems and of course isolation of Russia is very harmful for the media in the country, but it is also harmful for everybody. Lack of information and cooperation is dangerous. And all hope that the situation would change for the better.
I do remember Gorbachev perestroika and democratization and remember that people change the laws if they decide. And journalists, working under the strongest pressure and control, helped people to do that, people trusted journalists more than all Soviet institutions. It can happen again, I am sure.
About journalism in Turkey
Although it is its 4th year now, FJA is not much known among the Turkish journalist who is really doing their job in a media regime that is totally under the presidential government's control and they really need such encouragement. What would you say to the Turkish journalists?
I admire Turkish journalists and respect them a lot. I admire your commitment to strong and true journalism to the truth and dignity. I wish Russian journalists knew more and met more often with Turkish colleagues. I was in the Turkish trade union, the Association and Turkish newspapers when I was vice president of EFJ (European Federation of Journalists] between 2013- 2019.
My first trip as VP was to Silivri prison, we were fighting together for the release of 68 journalists in 2013. At that time, most of them were finally released. I do believe that all journalists and writers prisoners will be released, International journalists and writers organizations do remember about them. Of course, I hope the journalists of Turkey would take part more actively in the 2023 competition and wish them to get an award. I wish you – and all journalists in the world- to see the triumph of free and true Word and strong and free journalism. I hope we will.
About Nadezhda Azhgikhina
Nadezhda Azhgikhina had her B.A and Ph.D degrees from Moscow State University, Faculty of Journalism and worked for Ogonyok, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Business Tuesday as a reporter, columnist, and editor. Currently, she is working at "Media Group" and "The Nation", besides having several professional affiliations such as being co-chair of the Fetisov Journalism Awards' steering committee, executive director of PEN Moscow, member of GAMAG Europe, president of Woman Journalist Club and member of Article 19 board. She is co-founder and co-chair of The Association of Women Journalists (2013-2019) and was vice-president of the European Federation of Journalists (2013-2019).
She taught journalism at Moscow Technological University, and Moscow State University and has been at Barnard College, Columbia University, and Tampere University as guest lecturer. As the Member and coordinator of Russian and International Research Projects run and took part in several projects on issues of gender, human rights, the safety of journalists, and press freedom under the umbrella of UNESCO, IFJ, EFJ, OSCE, MSU, UN Women, WHO, ILO, CoE. Her works is awarded by Swedish "North Star" order, Armenian Dink medal and several national organizations. She is the author of 3 books of fiction, 7 books of non-fiction and director of 2 documentaries.
She was married to Yuri Petrovich Shchekochikhi, a famous investigative journalist who wrote and campaigned against organized crime and corruption in Russia and was subjected to a politically motivated assassination in 2003 with the symptoms of radioactive poisoning.
About Sevda Alankuş
Sevda Alankuş graduated from Faculty of Political Sciences, Ankara University, got her Ph.D degrees from the same university and in the field of Public Administration and Political Science. She has gotten her full professorship degree in Communication Sciences and has been teaching and administering at several faculties of communications at Turkish Universities. She has continued her academic works at Leeds University (United Kingdom) and Keyman Institute of Northwestern University and currently working as the dean of the Faculty of Communication at Yaşar University. Since 2000 she has been advising the BIA journalism trainings and she is the editor of 9 books in journalism and author of Peace Journalism Handbook. Her research field and publications cover issues of gender and media, feminist media criticism and ethics, journalism theories, alternative media, and peace journalism. Since 2020 she is a member of the expert consul of the Fetisov Journalism Awards. (SA)
