Before joining the staff of the Prague Post, Brian Kenety worked for several years in Japan on staff of the English-language version of the Asahi Shimbun daily newspaper. Over the past few weeks, he researched and wrote a long article on CME, CET 21 and NOVA TV, which was published by The Prague post on 12th February. This did not happen without controversy, though. The article became a source of conflict in the editorial offices of the Prague Post and Brian Kenety quit the paper on the grounds of "irreconcilable editorial differences". The editor of the Prague Post, Barry Henderson said on 17th February that Brian Kenety had left the paper "due to a deadline controversy". When asked whether the Prague Post might be carrying other articles about CME and NOVA TV, Mr. Henderson did not rule out the possibility in the future.

Here is an interview with Brian Kenety, recorded in Prague on 13th February 1997.

Jan Culik: Why do you no longer work for the Prague Post?

Brian Kenety: Because over the last three weeks I became so deeply involved with the story of Nova TV and CME that I could not understand that other people, other journalists, could not see what the story was.

JC: What is the story?

BK: The story is that CME has violated the spirit of the law.

JC: Czech or American law?

BK: Czech law... The point of the story is that it may be too late for the Czech Republic. I am taking this - exactly their words from the SEC documents. Every company presents to its shareholders its history. So there are headings, such as CORPORATE STRATEGY. "The broadcast laws of the emerging markets are relatively new and untested." You can read between the lines. It means "we can lobby them very effectively". It means that a little money by US standards goes a long way. The point is, it may be too late for the Czech Republic.

JC: What is the Czech Republic going to lose? Because, after all, there are all these proponents of totally free market enterprise. Surely it is good when American investors come into the Czech Republic and are practising free enterprise?

BK: The point is that Rupert Murdoch had to change its citizenship in order to gain control of a station in the US. The US would never allow Czechs or any other foreigners to take control of a station in the US. Now, in the US there are God knows how many channels. We have a choice. And so if there were simply a German or a Japanese or whatever, Chinese station, fully one hundred per cent owned, it would not matter so much because we have many.

JC: So are you saying - correct me if I am wrong - is CME perhaps exploiting the Czech Republic, using the imperfect local laws to extract lots of profits out of the country for their own ends?

BK: If I were to say this, they would find a way to sue me. I can see the validity of the question. I am a journalist and I will never imply - nor do I believe - that the CME has broken a single law. I quote Henry Kissinger - power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. The only thing a politician likes better than money is exposure and power. The Czech council for Radio and Television Broadcasting is supposed to be independent. I hope it is. They realise they cannot possibly win. They cannot fight a legal battle on technicalities. So they have changed their tactics. Their battle now is the content of Vladimir Zelezny's ASK THE DIRECTOR.

JC: I do not think that is the case. They are working on three grounds. The first ground is that CNTS Nova TV is allegedly wrongly registered in the Czech Register of Companies. The other point is the lack of impartiality on ASK THE DIRECTOR and other programmes, including the news programmes. And the final point is the non-transferability of the broadcasting licence. They argue that CET 21 was dutibound to inform the Council about the impending ownership changes because Condition No 17 of the broadcasting licence was valid until mid-December 1996 and there was no right to conclude the Zelezny-CME loan agreement and other matters without notifying the Council for Radio and TV Broadcasting first.

BK: OK. But CME, which is registered in Bermuda, I do not for one second believe CME has broken any American laws. However, what they have done through the letter of the law, through the technicalities, takes advantage of the relative inexperience of the legislative bodies here.

JC: I have never criticised CME. I have always only criticised Vladimir Zelezny. Because it is Vladimir Zelezny who is lying and who is discrediting CME.

BK: But it is not only Zelezny. It is Jan Kasal, the Head of Czech Parliament's Media Subcommittee. If you look at a number of his appearances on Nova TV's SEVEN DAYS and ASK THE DIRECTOR and what Kasal discusses, such as "primetime advertising on Czech TV needs to be abolished".

If you look at the situation in America, Ronald Lauder is a well-known Republican campaign fundraiser. There is an article in the New York Times of February 6th or 7th, talking about George Pataki, the Governor of New York. His wife has been lobbying for Estee Lauder. The point is, it is not through a combination of bringing money, investment and jobs, right? And then the Ronald S. Lauder foundation brings help to museums, to schools, charity work. CME comes in first. They meet all the right people. It is called lobbying. There is nothing wrong with that. They are master lobbyists. They have the best legal team in the world.

JC: But there is the Zelezny-CME loan agreement for the purchase of the majority CET 21 participation interest, which CME has presented on SEC to the American investors. In the Czech Republic, Zelezny is on record as saying that the loan agreement will not be consummated. Is this not misleading? Does this not break the law?

BK: No, because if you look at the language of the document, it never says this happened. It says "entered into an agreement". This is a kind of language that my editors did not understand. They said: "what the hell does this mean, 'entered into an agreement'? Can't we just say, 'signed'?"

JC: So the American shareholders are not being mislead because the agreement is vague? It does not say it has already taken place?

BK: Any intelligent American investor is well-versed in legalese to read between the lines. Because everywhere it says "this is conditional on Czech law". Advisers have told me, this is a beautiful contract. They did an incredible job. They have dotted every i and crossed every t.

JC: But Condition No 17 of the broadcasting licence has been violated?

BK: It is too late. It is a moot point. The whole thing is over. The Czech Council for Radio and TV Broadcasting were very naive.

JC: What was the basis of the disagreement between you and your editors? You left of your own volition?

BK: Last week Czech writer Bohumil Hrabal fell out of the window. Suddenly, there was a front page story. Suddenly, they did not need my story any more. What they did they ran a full page of stock prices. We stopped running this full page over a month ago. They put Bohumil Hrabal on the front page and they put the stock page back.

JC: Why? Perhaps they felt your article wasn't researched very well?

BK: Because instead of leaving me in peace to write the damned thing they fought me for five hours. Obviously I did not present it in a concise manner, in a way they could readily understand. I have been studying these legal documents intensely.

JC: Can it have nothing to do with the fact that the wife of Editor-in Chief, Alan Levy, took care of Ronald Lauder's children?

BK: No. I really don't think so because when we called Alan Levy on Friday morning before an article about NOVA and CME came out in the Czech weekly TYDEN, we asked, we said, we would like to put your name in this article, to give you credit, because no one has such quotes from Zelezny. And he was thrilled. I became totally impatient with what I'd perceived as incompetence and lack of editorial vision on the part of my immediate supervisors. I have the greatest respect for Alan Levy. I do not want to suggest for one second .... We were all up until 1,30 in the morning, Monday. The paper is printed in Germany. Everyone involved was carefully checking the article, which to my knowledge is the biggest article, the longest article they ever printed. Anyway, I quit. I said I don't want my salary. You can have my article for a token one crown, but it has to be done my way. Let's not be sued because we oversimplify. Each person in CME carries four or six titles. For example, you cannot say that Martin Radvan is a lawyer for CME. Martin Radvan "provides legal services". My editors cannot understand this concept. They thought I exaggerated. I quit over a week ago. This week they told me the only reason they printed the article was because the Prague Post appeared so many times in Tyden, that they would have looked really stupid if nothing had come out in the Prague Post about Nova. Otherwise they would not have printed this.

JC: still don't understand what their grievance was...

BK: I don't, either. There are some people I speak to who immediately grasp the importance, you know. I joke about it. I say, it's too late for the Czech Republic. But I met some very nice people in Rumania and I would like to prevent this from happening there.