At a certain very closed meeting at which the heads of leading Russian media outlets happened to be present, Alexander Veshnyakov, the chairman of the Central Electoral Commission, attempted to sooth the media bosses by saying that there was nothing to worry about. He said that no one would be closed down immediately under the newly amended law on the media, but only through the courts and only after two rulings, which can always be appealed. Even then, the procedure is slow, three weeks at the fastest, but more like 50-55 days given the traditional speed of the Russian court system.

What’s more, Veshnyakov continued, even if a particular TV program gets sanctioned, the whole channel won’t get closed down — just the one show. Soothing words indeed.

But some journalists say the amendments to the law on the media put any normal sociopolitical publication or program in the same category as rowdy radicals holding demonstrations in the street. The only difference is that the rowdy radicals can be dealt with by being hauled in for, say, disorderly behavior, while the media can be brought to heel for not taking the right election campaign line. Of course, with regard to the media, there’s also now the option of getting them for "propagandizing terrorism."

The new draft of the law restricts electoral campaigning to little more than publishing candidates’ official biographies — and not selectively, but for everyone standing for election in this or that district. The number of words has to be the same for each candidate. The slightest deviation from these rules will bring down the accusation that the media outlet in question is either biased toward a particular candidate who hasn’t paid for the favor through the Central Electoral Commission’s own transparent channels, i.e., through the official campaign fund, or that someone is trying to do in this or that candidate through "black PR." Never mind that the law makes no reference to the concept of any kind of PR, whether "black" or "white."

Just imagine that a thoughtful journalist happens to write some musings along the lines of what might happen in this or that region or in the country as a whole if this or that group of candidates wins. Let’s consider, say, what would happen if the Communists win and United Russia, the "party of power," loses. And let’s say that the journalist hints that, if the Communists win, it probably wouldn’t be very good for the country, and even gives a bit of description, based on the Communists’ electoral platform, of just how it wouldn’t be good if they won.

The Communists, of course, would feel offended and file a suit against the newspaper in the courts for using "black PR." All it takes is two such complaints, and, 55 days later, another media outlet leaves the Russian market. Of course, the outlet could battle on and prove its innocence in the European Court of Human Rights or in the Russian Constitutional Court, but the law provides for no compensation for losses suffered in the meantime.

On the other hand, should a journalist see a Communist victory as something potentially positive, all the other parties might get offended and take the newspaper to court, claiming that the article was written to order and paid for by the Reds themselves with money not from their official campaign fund.

Under the amended law, the only way to write about the upcoming elections without the risk of offending anyone and getting taken to court will be to publish analytical articles that have no analysis, just faceless and neutral references to the various parties and candidates. This will mean according each candidate the same amount of words down to the last letter and writing in such a way as to not cause the slightest offence to anyone involved.

Publishing the results of opinion surveys would be better avoided, because there’s just no getting away from the fact that different numbers correspond to the different names. It would also be wise not to mention any less-pleasant facts about a candidate’s biography, for example, that he did time in prison, was convicted of theft or committed murder. Even the fact that so-and-so promised the voters such-and-such and then didn’t keep the promise would probably be better left unsaid. After all, all this digging around in the past is really no more than "black PR."

Someone might be tempted to cry that this is all completely absurd, and that, in such a case, the media might as well just write nothing at all about the elections, neither good nor bad. The thing is, that’s just what the wise legislators want. One Russian historian once wrote that Russian laws were indeed harsh, but they weren’t always enforced. In this case, you could say that the patent absurdity of these amendments to the media law is just a cover for their selective enforcement.

After all, the journalists covering politics already know full well in whose favor any violations that arise will be interpreted. And everyone knows that the only way to write about the "party of power" will be as with a deceased person of dubious reputation, that is to say, either something good or nothing at all. A wealth of choice indeed for the free Russian media.