The Voice of Mirza Xazar

Comments To My Performance Review
26 September 2002

I strongly disagree with and object to the rating of my Performance Review and the comments included in the review. I consider the final rating, the "NI" in "Professional Standard" and "Judgment" all to be mistaken and the reflection not of an objective evaluation of my professional performance but rather an indication of personal feelings and deep bias. I was the only journalist at RFE/RL to be subjected to a last minute Performance Review. This indicates that I was singled out for special treatment not for reasons of any alleged performance deficiencies but for other, wholly unprofessional, reasons. These reasons are addressed below:

1. In a summary comment, the reviewer writes: "Too often, Mr. Michaeli injects his personal opinion into Service programming. One example the editorial on the Jewish cemeteries (emphasis added/the reviewer's terminology) was discussed at this year's program review." The reviewer then concludes: "The Service programming does not adhere to our professional codes. This is why the overall rating is NEEDS IMPROVEMENT."

Comment: It is clear that the reviewer had no example or evidence to support this conclusion and rating other than the reviewer's own reaction to my commentary on "Jewish cemeteries". The reviewer failed to discuss details of the commentary. This failure and the use of the suggestive words "Jewish cemeteries" reveal the reviewer's bias and intent. The reviewer conveys the misleading impression that my commentary is about the history and presence of Jewish Cemeteries (in Azerbaijan). In fact, my commentary addressed the issue of the desecration and destruction of 49 grave- sites at the Jewish Cemetery in Baku in November 2001. Our Service reports on and sometimes provides commentary on events and developments of importance and interest to our listeners. When our buro in Baku learned of this particular event through contact with the head of the Baku Jewish Community, every effort was made to obtain additional, accurate information from other sources. This entailed timely action on the part of our stringer who, in the course of two hours, procured reactions and information from The Interior Ministry of Azerbaijan, The Office of the President, and the Israeli Embassy. All of these sources confirmed the initial report on this case of vandalism and desecration. The police official who was investigating the matter was interviewed and we also aired the opinions and views in regard to this event of all political parties, including the ruling political party. Local print and electronic media outlets in Azerbaijan, with the exception of the State run TV, reported on the event. Surely, desecration of a cemetery in Baku is a matter of interest and importance to our listeners. Surely, the importance and interest of this event transcend the particular religious identity of those whose graves were desecrated. This is certainly true of Azerbaijan and to suggest otherwise would speak more to the reviewer's bias than to the concerns of our Azerbaijani listeners. When the local media give extensive coverage to an event, should RFE/RL minimize its coverage and commentary because the desecration and vandalism involved a "Jewish cemetery" because the Service Director happens to be Jewish himself? No matter what unfortunate bias may motivate the reviewer, this story could not and should not be ignored and it certainly was deserving of commentary. s there any reasonable person in the world who will not denounce vandalism at cemetery, be it Muslim, Christian, or Jewish?

The commentary I provided, following good journalistic practice and RFE/RL policy, was kept separate from our stringer reports on the event. My commentary was, of course, clearly labeled as commentary, again in accordance with our Professional Code and the highest standards of journalism.

According to our Professional Code:

C. Analysis, Commentary and Editorials

. Commentary, which is to be clearly labeled as such, is analytical in content and judicious in tone but reflects the personal judgment or opinion of the author on a particular issue. (See Professional Code)

"Our broadcasters and journalists never reflect their own views and opinions in our news stories: commentaries and points of view must be clearly labeled as such."

Clearly, in direct contrast to the reviewer's view, the Professional Code and RFE/RL Editorial Policy recognize the legitimate role of commentary as long as commentary is clearly labeled as commentary. Since my commentary on this event was clearly labeled as commentary and kept separate from news coverage, as has always been the case with all my commentaries and expressions of my views, I have not violated any editorial policy at RFE/RL or of good journalistic practice in general. The accusation that I have violated the Professional Code or other editorial policies by "injecting personal opinion into Service programming" is baseless. There is no Editorial Policy at RFE/RL which forbids broadcasters from writing commentaries. The reviewer, then, is in error and this baseless accusation can in no way serve as grounds for rating my overall performance as "Needs Improvement". Moreover, the reviewer's personal view of my commentary, should remain just that, a personal view. To permit personal views to replace objective analysis is to invite a distortion of the evaluation process and a challenge to journalistic integrity.

In February 2002 the Intermedia Research Center conducted a Panel Review of our November programming. Of eight panelists, a single panelist expressed “outrage” at my commentary on vandalism at the Jewish Cemetery. He did it in an aggressive, insulting, uncivil manner. In my email message to Jeff Trimble, Don Jensen, and Tom Dine on May 3, 2002, I protested this open attack and aspersions on my character, my religion, and my private life:

“The InterMedia has issued a review of Internal Monitoring Panel on Azerbaijani Service programs for the next Program Review. I appreciate the work the InterMedia has done.

I am not pleased with (basically biased) comments of some panelists about my commentaries on the defacement of Jewish graves at the Jewsih cemetery in Baku such as:

"...Khazar's commentary of 24 November was biased and driven by personal ambition, which did not produce a good impression".(see page 12 of InterMedia Listener Panel Review)

This is what a Panelist Nr 1 and some others has to say about my commentary. They all applauded similar views expressed by Azerbaijani politicians, religious leaders, and officials, but amasingly, were outraged when I (Khazar) have expressed same views. What does a commentary on a crime such as destruction of (Jewish or else) cemetery has in common with my "personal ambitions" remains unclear. This is why, in my view, the InterMedia decided (unfortunately) to include here a "Translator's note" "explaining" (amasing isn't it!) the meaning of my (Khazar's) "personal ambition": " Translator's note: I believe the respondent is implying that Khazar is an Azerbaijani of Jewish extraction, from small community of Jews who live in the mountainous Guba region(?)". (see page 12 of InterMedia Listener Panel Review)

Correction: The translator has absolutely nothing to do with my religion, my belief, my ethnic roots. It is my private business. It is not a public issue. Furthermore, contrary to the Translator's "expertise" I have never seen Guba and it's mountains in whole my life. The Guba mountains has nothing to do with me, my religion or my ethnic roots at all.

What this remark about "mountains of Guba", my private life, my religion has to do with the Program Review? Why this remark concerning only my private life, and believe was included into the Panel Review and distributed IN WRITING to several people?

I categorically protest against this kind of (unfortunate) publicty. It is not helpful. It is harming RFE/RL image. It has nothing to do with the Program Review.

rgds
Mirza"

Don Jensen was silent. Jeff Trimble responded the same day:

“Mirza, I appreciate your comments and I understand your reaction. Given the verve of the panelist's objection, I think it's worth looking together at a translation of this item in order to try to understand the nature of his concern. Let's discuss it together.

Rgds,
Jeff"

But Jeff Trimble did not act on his call for a discussion, "given the verve of the panelist's objection". I have asked Mr. Trimble to discuss this pressing issue, as he had suggested. In response, he has told me that he does not have the time. The discussion he suggested has never taken place. I tried to talk to Don Jensen, but he categorically refused to discuss the issue with me. “If you want to discuss this issue, NO COMMENT. I do not want to talk about this”. My protest remained unanswered. My supervisors, in fact, made no effort to help to me obtain a fair opportunity to respond to these baseless accusations. On the contrary, at the Program Review on May 31, 2002, both Jeff Trimble and Don Jensen used language very similar to that of the listener, suggesting that I had “personal ambitions” while writing about the vandalism which took place at the Jewish Cemetery. Don Jensen called my commentary “clearly labeled, but a wildly speculative commentary”. That the cemetery was, in fact, vandalized is not in dispute. Does my religious identity mean that I am not free (or able?) to provide professional commentary on an event when it happens to relate to persons, dead or alive, who share that religious identity? Is this special handling for an RFE/RL journalist, who happens to be Jewish? Is this religious profiling? I have provided more than 20 years of dedicated, recognized service to RFE/RL and prior to this entire matter I cannot recall a reviewer whose remarks clearly imply that there are special expectations of RFE/RL journalists who happen to be Jewish. Are the reviewer and those who have used some of his unfortunate language, ready to attack RFE/RL journalists who may report and offer commentary on any vandalism that might occur at Muslim or Christian cemeteries and accuse these journalists of "having personal ambitions"?

RFE/RL has always been dedicated to democracy and the values of an open society. These values surely include due process, a fair hearing, and opportunities for the accused to present his or her case. Don Jensen and Jeff Trimble, I regret to note, have not acted in the spirit of this RFE/RL dedication to these values. They have misrepresented the facts in this matter. An important part of this misrepresentation is their claim that the issue of my commentary on "Jewish cemeteries" (the reviewer's words) had been "discussed at this year's program review". No stretch of the imagination could enable one to describe that occurrence as a "discussion". At this program review, I was subjected to verbal attack with no real opportunity to respond. On the very few occasions when I managed to begin to speak, I was constantly interrupted, and not permitted to make a complete statement in response to the baseless accusations and allegations leveled against me. A program review in which one has little or no opportunity to contribute in a meaningful way, and discussion is precluded, is hardly a serious exercise aimed at improving programming quality.

At one point in this program review where open discussion and serious analysis were off the agenda, Jeff Trimble called the Azerbaijani Service programs "medieval". Objective observers would recognize the use of a term like this for what it is. In the absence of anything substantive to say or demonstrate, throw a term or name at someone. With some expression of disbelief, he asked: "How do these medieval programs attract the highest number of listeners at RFE/RL?" It seems not to have occurred to him that the answer is obvious. It is not "medieval" programming but rather programming of the highest professional quality which attracts the highest number of listeners. To suggest otherwise, is to demonstrate a lack of respect for the intelligence and discernment of our Azerbaijani listeners.

A program review with the deficiencies I have described is an abuse of the procedure and certainly is no basis for producing a "Needs Improvement" evaluation in regard to "Judgment", "Professional Standard", and overall performance. This particular program review on 31 May 2002 in its denial of due process, open discussion, and basic fairness, was also a violation of the values of a democratic society for which RFE/RL has always stood.

In a Development Plan the reviewer instructs me to avoid writing "personal commentaries". As I stated above, the Professional Code does not prohibit writing such commentaries. But even so, if my supervisors have believed there is no need for my commentaries, why did they not say: DO NOT WRITE COMMENTARIES? Why was I not spoken to about my commentaries on some kind of meaningful basis? Why has there been no effort, short of accusations at a program review, or performance reviews, to speak with me about alleged problems with editorial issues? If, in fact, there has been concern about editorial matters, it hardly speaks well to the professionalism of supervisors who have not communicated in any regular fashion any concerns.

2. The reviewer in a Summary comment says the following: "The most important fact is that long standing editorial issues remain year after year". I deeply disagree with this assessment. The assessment reflects the personal view of the reviewer. This personal view in regard to “long standing editorial issues” may have been of some value if it had been regularly communicated and discussed. In reality, for the last four years we have had only few meetings on editorial issues, mostly at Program Reviews. In fact, year after year my supervisors have failed to discuss, to instruct, and give directives, on editorial issues. Only now, as they depart from Broadcasting Management, have Don Jensen and Jeff Trimble decided to “speak out”.

It is clear to me that the reviewer's use of the phrase “year after year” is an attempt to create an illusion of a long-standing problem with my performance when, in fact, there has been none. It is also clear that this language constitutes an effort to fabricate the appearance of a "pattern" of performance. The aim is to build a wholly unfounded CASE to be used in future actions against me.

I would like to point out that year after year I have implemented all recommendations made by my supervisors at Program Reviews and Performance Reviews. These recommendations were made once every 12 months. There appeared to be a direct correlation between the recommendations and a declining number of listeners. In 1998 our listener rate was almost 36%. After four years of following the recommendations of my supervisors the Azerbaijani Service rate has reached14%. This significant decline in the number of listeners can be attributed to efforts to greatly reduce analysis and commentary. Prior to these imposed changes, analysis and commentary contributed to attracting greater audiences.

At the same time, my supervisors created and fostered an inhospitable work environment in which it was very difficult to maintain productivity and morale. Every opportunity was sought to undermine the authority of my position in the Service, and keep me under constant pressure. Supervisors should direct and assist, not undermine and subvert the dedicated efforts of those whom they supervise.

I have implemented all the instructions given me by my supervisors. I have reduced the number of commentaries significantly during the 12 months of the Review period. Even the Intermedia Review Panel has documented that for the last 12 months I was rarely heard on the air. But the reviewer has nothing to say about this in his summary comments in my Performance Review. As of September 3, 2002 I have completely stopped writing commentaries and analysis.

3. There is a very serious inconsistency in my Performance rating. For example, the reviewer gave me "VG" in "Sense of Mission", but rated me "NI" in "Professional Standards" and "Judgment". How can a Director with a very good "sense of mission" have a bad "judgment" or "low professional standard". At the same time, a Director rated "VG" in administration with the note: "Cooperative and efficient". I cannot be accused of not cooperating in editorial issues. I have always cooperated. There has been no occasion when I have refused to cooperate on editorial issues.

4. The reviewer has given me 3 Very Goods, 6 Goods, and 2 Needs Improvement. But the overall rating is NEEDS IMPROVEMENT. The Internal/External Panel Review conducted among our listeners in May by Intermedia has rated professional content, journalistic quality, objectivity, balance, quality of commentaries and analysis in our programs as Very Good/Excellent. There is a clear discrepancy here and it is the result of biased judgment. This is no way to conduct an appraisal of performance. It seems to me that “politics” played a major role in appraisal of my performance. It is unfair, certainly unprofessional, and I refuse to accept this biased appraisal.

I am ready to cooperate with anyone in Broadcasting Management with the purpose of refining and improving our programs. I have demonstrated my dedication to the highest standards of professionalism throughout my many years of work at RFE/RL. In all these many years I have always assumed others at RFE/RL shared this dedication. My experience of these past four years compels me to note that there are some at RFE/RL from whom I cannot expect this dedication to professionalism.

I urge you to take action to correct my Performance Rating and bring it in
accordance with my REAL performance.

Sincerely,
Mirza Michaeli,
Director,
Azerbaijani Language Service

14 January 2004

Hello, dear compatriots! Hello, dear guest! Welcome to The Website Of The Radiostation “The Voice of Mirza Khazar”!

Since my removal from the Azadliq radio on September 2nd, 2003, this is the first opportunity I have had to communicate with my former listeners and my compatriots. This time, however, my instrument is not the microphone, but this website and I am grateful for this chance. Silencing creativity is an unjustice to the field of journalism. Creativity seeks freedom and a genuine democratic radio thrives on free speech. On “Black January” in 1990 when the armed forces of the USSR invaded the Azerbaijani capital Baku, I directed the microphone of radio Azadliq to help justice, the homeland, and a suppressed nation. In spite of attempts of the Soviet KGB and Supreme Soviet of USSR to silence my voice, in spite of all pressure put on me inside Azadliq, in spite of heavy censorship imposed on my programs, I refused to give in, I refused to be turned away from my purpose and goal. One-and-a half years later the USSR started to collapse and Azerbaijan gained its independence.

Thirteen years after “Black January”, on September 2, 2003 the senior management of the Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty corporation punished me for my programming in January 1990. I was removed from my position, and my employment with the RFE/RL was terminated. The charge: my coverage of the 1990 January events was unprofessional and I had violated Professional Code. They were right. When I approached the microphone to condemn Soviet agression, spread the anguish of Azerbaijan to the world, read national poems on air, I acted not as an American journalist, but as an Azerbaijani. This was a great honor for me. And today, thirteen years after “Black January” to be removed from my position for that deed, is still a great honor for me. I have not turned back from my pace and I have no intention to do so. To tell the truth, to name justice as a justice, injustice as an injustice, to call white – white, black – black, to help powerless people, to sooth those under yoke, to protect freedom, to defend human dignity; these were my principles during my 27 years of work at the Radio Liberty, and they are still valid for me today, only this time through a new medium, a new beginning based on my old values.

Dear compatriot! Dear guest! The site you are visiting now, when complete, will be different from all existing websites inside and outside Azerbaijan; the main difference being the “voice”. The name of the website is not “Mirza Khazar’s website”, but the website of “The Voice of Mirza Khazar”. You will see many innovations on our site, which you never have seen in other websites.

Thank you for taking a tour through website of “The Voice of Mirza Khazar”. Bon voyage!

Yours truly,

Mirza Khazar

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The incident in the Caspian Sea on July 23 is an another sign of existing and future conflicts between the five Caspian littoral states over offshore oil fields in the region. The conflict between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan over ownership of some oil fields is well known to the public. Turkmenistan claims ownership of two oil fields which Azerbaijan has included in its oil exploitation program. Ashgabat even threatened to appeal to an international arbitration court to solve the dispute in its favor. But the 23 July incident when an Iranian gunship and a military aircraft threatened two oil exploration ships belonging to Azerbaijan is more serious than the dispute between Baku and Ashgabat. It is significant that the incident occured just two days after the visit of Hassan Rouhani, Secretary of the High Council for National Security of Iran, to Baku and his meetings with Azerbaijani president Heydar Aliev.

 

 

 

What happened during these meetings is still unclear, but Hassan Rouhani made it clear in the presence of the British Ambassador to Azerbaijan by saying "Iran will not permit foreign companies to launch any oil and gas activities within its 20 percent control share over the sea."

 

 

 

The 23 July incident occured in the Azerbaijani sector of the Caspian Sea. The Azerbaijani authorities promptly protested the Iranian actions, which is understandable. The Azerbaijani leadership realizes the danger of such incidents not only for Azerbaijan's souvereignty over parts of Caspian sea. The main concern for official Baku is the potential danger of Iranian actions for Azerbaijan's relationship with international oil companies.

 

 

 

The British oil giant BP said it was operating the survey vessels and said it has suspended exploration work in that area of the sea around its Araz-Alov-Sharg oil concession. Furthermore, BP made it clear that the company does not like to be involved and the governments should solve problems between states. This statement might be discouraging for official Baku, of course. It is not clear if the states behind the oil companies, such as the United States and Great Britain, would like to become involved in this dispute or not, but it is obvious that Azerbaijani leadership would like very much for this to happen.

 

 

Nevertheless, the Azeri state news agency reported that Prime Minister Artur Rasizade had sent a letter of protest to the Iranian ambassador in Azerbaijan over the 23 July incident. And observers believe Heydar Aliev's upcoming visit to Iran is in jeopardy over the incident in the Caspian Sea.

 

 

 

As for Iran, it is not clear what official Tehran hoped to gain from this incident. Relations between Azerbaijan and Islamic Republic of Iran have been tense for the last several years. Iran opposed agreements signed between Azerbaijan and Western oil companies on the exploration of Caspian oil fields. At the same time, Iran still insists that the status of the Caspian Sea should be resolved first, making demands on Azerbaijani sector of Caspian sea. The Azerbaijani government rejects the Iranian position. On the other hand, the Iranian government is not pleased with the Western-oriented foreign policy pursued by Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan in turn accuses Iran of maintaining economic and political relations with Armenia, which is in conflict with Azerbaijan.

 

 

 

Another "hot" point in relations between two countries is, of course, the problem of around 20-30 million Azerbaijanis living on their historical land in Iran. Government newspapers in Tehran accused the Azerbaijan Republic of stirring up nationalist sentiments among the ethnic Azerbaijanis in Iran. The Azerbaijani government press in turn accused Iran of exporting the "Iranian model of political Islam" to several regions of Azerbaijan in order to establish its influence and create an Islamic regime here.

 

 

The incident on July 23 has complicated the already tense relations between the two countries. The incident has also complicated Azerbaijan's desire to explore the huge oil reserves of its sector in the Caspian Sea. And the incident has added a new dimension to the Caspian quarrel: a military one. An RFE/RL correspondent in Southern Azerbaijan reported that an Iranian military helicopter violated Azerbaijan's air space on 24 July. That report has not yet been confirmed, however. Is this another "incident" to put pressure on Azerbaijani government, or an accident? The concern created by the incident is growing.

 

(Mirza Khazar)

 

Azerbaijan Report: July 24, 2001 (RFE/RL)

http://www.rferl.org/content/Article/1340883.html