MEDIA
What chance have we for a free election, when
the PSD has as much influence in media as Berlusconi in Italy?
by Alex Ulmanu
June 2004
́Could we talk about freedom of the press?î It was a strange request to come from my first year students in a very practical news writing class. The young journalists-to-be were puzzled by the fact that various studies, reports and signals from international and local institutions such as the European Union, Freedom House, the Center for Independent Journalism (CIJ) or the Media Monitoring Agency (MMA) indicated that media independence was in jeopardy in PSD-run, pre-election Romania.
With the country an EU aspirant and already a Nato member, a political system that allows expression of a multitude of options and free elections, and an economy showing signs of recovery, one may think freedom of the press was the last thing to worry about in Romania , almost 15 years after the fall of communism.
However much Romanian media may have progressed in terms of style, it in fact remains less free and independent than the strongly opinionated newspapers of the early 1990s.
Last month, several journalism watchdogs organised by Press Freedom Week around the World Press Freedom Day, 3rd May, to focus attention on the problems facing Romanian journalists. Veterans of the battle for a more professional and independent media used the opportunity to draw attention to the fact that Romanian journalists have been facing increasing pressures harmful to press independence and objectivity. Such pressures often transform journalism into propaganda and harm democracy.
A recent study by the MMA has identified several harmful trends affecting Romanian media. It cites approaching elections as having brought about increased political pressures upon the media, and says the most harmful phenomenon affecting freedom of expression and information is the distortion of political news on television. Furthermore, it attests that local media has undergone a trend nicknamed ́Berlusconisationî (after Italy 's prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, who controls the most influential media there), whereby businessmen and politicians take control of newspapers, television and radio. It also found an alarming increase in the number of physically aggressive acts against journalists. The findings of the MMA have been confirmed by similar reports from organisations such as the EU and Freedom House.
Since the early 1990s Romanian politicians have been quick to discover that the media is a powerful tool to shape public opinion and to gain access to power and influence. As much of the cash for businesses comes from public projects financed from central or local government taxes, many local businessmen have realised the need to have close ties with politicians, or even to become politicians, in order to win public contracts. And controlling the media is a great way to influence the decision making process, to mesmerise the public and to avoid journalists' investigation of dubious deals. No wonder that so-called local barons, with overwhelming power over both the political and the business environment (Oprisan in Vrancea, Mazare in Constanta and Sechelariu in Bacau are just some of the most illustrative examples) have seized control of local media.
The Social Democrat Party (PSD) is the absolute champion of media control. Keen to maintain and increase its dominant position, the PSD has recruited local businessmen and politicians (including elected officials who shifted from other parties, so that the number of PSD mayors across the country has doubled since the last elections), and has gained control over most of the local media for effective propaganda.
When it comes to national media, especially television, which is the medium with the most influence over the public, the situation is no less concerning. The two public channels are directly controlled by the government, while private televisions such as Prima, Realitatea, National and B1 are owned by PSD leaders or by businessmen with close PSD ties. The huge tax debts accumulated by some channels are another means of political pressure. The finance ministry said in October last year that the most important private stations together owed more than $20 million in unpaid taxes, transforming them into mere mouthpieces for the government and vulnerable to its every whim.
́Phone calls to editors to ban certain opposition leaders from television or to manipulate the circumstances in which they are presented have become common practice,î wrote Alina Mungiu Pippidi, the president of the Romanian Academic Society, cited by the MMA. She explains that, in order to avoid pressures, editors have shifted towards tabloid journalism, so that newscasts have increasingly given up political coverage in favour of sensational, tabloid-like news. ́You cannot have an independent editorial policy if your television is in debt to the state,î Mungiu Pippidi said.
And you cannot have an independent editorial policy if you work for a public station, either, since its chiefs are political appointees. Dragos Seuleanu, who presides over public radio, has been accused by his staff of shaping the editorial content of the main newscasts in favour of the PSD. Private radio station Europa FM and the Romanian branch of the BBC have also been criticised by media observers for favouring the government party.
Censorship and self-censorship are amongst the most obvious effects of political pressures. Over 50 per cent of 260 journalists who answered a CIJ questionnaire said they have been pressured into stopping certain information from publication.
When politicians or other powerful people investigated by the media cannot directly influence editorial content, there are other tools at hand - administrative pressures, lawsuits and, more recently, physical intimidation. One example of administrative warfare: all the newsrooms in Gorj county were inspected by fiscal authorities only two days after local PSD leader Nicolae Mischie said in a press conference that ́some local companies pay the pressî to attack him and damage the party's image, the MMA reported.
Attacking journalists in court has been a common practice to discourage journalists from investigating dubious affairs. Countless journalists have been sued over the years for libel and slander. Although no journalists have been jailed in the past years, The MMA says many were forced by courts to pay expensive damages (sometimes as high as $20,000). More than 40 per cent of the journalists polled said they had been threatened with libel and slander lawsuits.
According to the MMA, in the past year there has been an increase in the number of cases in which journalists were assaulted, intimidated or have received death threats. Sixteen journalists have been assaulted in the past year. Police officers, politicians or unidentified persons have threatened or aggressed journalists throughout the country, and most cases remain unsolved by authorities. The MMA suggests that state officials have encouraged attacks against journalists, by failing to publicly condemn such acts of terror. To illustrate, MMA cites Prime Minister Adrian Nastase, who said in December, ́If a mere article would be reason enough for a beating, then I'd beat up a journalist every day.î
Alex Ulmanu lectures in media and is the founder and director of the StartMedia Foundation.
