Regulars
MEDIA
How much would you pay for a story?

by Alex Ulmanu
September 2004

The boys from the satirical weekly Academia Catavencu have an interesting skirmish going on with the daily Adevarul. In response to an allegation that Academia Catavencu journalists have sold stock in Academia Catavencu to a shady businessman, it revealed that Adevarul receives fees for advertising dressed up as editorial content.

If you go to adevarulonline.ro and click on Publicitate, you will quickly discover that the advertising tariffs of Adevarul include the following phrase: Articol publicitar fara 'P'. This means, of course, Advertising story without the 'P', where the 'P' indicates newspaper stories that are paid for to promote a company, a product or individual.

Paying for stories to appear in newspapers has become common practice in Romania's post-communist media. Such stories are run in Romanian and English-language newspapers, in television and radio news broadcasts. They are a clear reminder that many media outlets are far from being independent, and quite divorced from delivering factual, unbiased information to their audience. And, since so many newspapers, television and radio stations are keen to let themselves be used like this, it is no wonder that companies, politicians and political parties use the media to advertise themselves to the public in such an incorrect fashion.

According to Adevarul's website, such a story without the 'P' mark is charged 6,050 euros if it shows up in the daily edition, and between 198 and 3,190 euros if published in one of the newspaper's supplements.

This means, if I have a spare couple of hundred euros, I could get a nice story published about myself in one of the most important Romanian dailies (and one that calls itself a 'national independent newspaper'; readers would think it is a genuine newspaper story, and not an advertising stunt.

''What's the big deal?'' people in the know may ask, since this is endemic throughout print media. It is a common practice for newspapers to offer advertisers stories in the newspaper if they agree to a big contract. Such stories should bear a 'P' mark to correctly inform the readers they are advertising, and not editorial content. But often it does not happen this way. Adevarul is not an exception, it is merely foolish enough - or brave enough - to make it official and to display the tariff for an advertising story with the mark on its website. Some English-language publications published in Bucharest do the same, running stories about people or companies who pay to get their names, products or actions in the paper.

And it does not stop there. Music stations such as TV K Lumea (formerly Atomic TV) air videos from artists who pay for each broadcast of their music. You may be a lousy singer, but if you have enough money you can make a name for yourself this way. The most obvious example is Fizz, an artist loaded with money who, according to reports in the media, has become a local star because he paid for his expensive videos, in which he wears fur coats and surrounds himself with girls in lingerie, to be aired on stations like TV K Lumea.

Such practices are a nemesis to the distribution of fair and accurate information. If anyone can get a positive story published in a respectable national newspaper, imagine what this means for the political world, especially in electoral periods such as the one we are approaching.

How objective could the electoral coverage get, when positive stories and journalists are for sale? Of course, newspaper stories paid for by politicians are only one aspect of the problem. Vivid has in previous issues published information about political and economic circles controlling the press either directly (''I own a media outlet, so I am free to use it to advertise my interests''), or indirectly, through political or economic pressure. Recently it was revealed that Prime Minister Adrian Nastase has directly supervised government spending on advertising in the media - and government advertising, of course, is a decisive means of controlling what is written: ''I give you money, you talk and write positive articles about me.''

It happens at a corporate level, in under-the-table dealings with media outlets, but also at an individual level, through funding, corporate gifts or favours given directly to reporters on the field or to editors in the newsrooms. The media have reported numerous cases in the past years when journalists were handed envelopes with cash or expensive presents during press conferences or other media events. Poor wages and low professional and ethical standards make journalists vulnerable to such practices.

I am not saying that every one in the media is prone. But it happens all too often, and casts a dark shadow on the credibility of the press. Thus, the argument brought about by corrupt politicians and businessmen revealed by investigative journalists - that journalists should not be trusted because they are corrupt themselves - becomes more relevant. Plus, there is the danger that legislative initiatives from authorities meant to limit press freedom are justified by the same argument. A controversial article in a new election law, which was eventually withdrawn, stipulated that print media should be banned from publishing any political commentaries, analyses, or results of opinion polls two days prior to an election. The Central Electoral Office has this year issued a similar decision prior to the local government elections, but the media have strongly contested it.

Supporters of a free media maintain that such a provision is akin to censorship. However, one could argue that any politician could benefit from masked advertising even on election day if he or she pays for a promotional story without the 'P' mark appearing in the press. Political advertising in the days close to elections is forbidden by law. Also, television and radio stations are banned from broadcasting material related to politicians and parties involved in the campaign in the days preceding the election.

It is evident that practices such as publishing masked advertising or promotional stories should end in Romania's media. The question is, how? Regulation from authorities would certainly irritate the media, as journalists are sensitive to anything that could be interpreted as censorship or state control of the press. Ultimately journalists should take care of the problem themselves, through self-regulation such as codes of practice adopted and applied by all media.

The Convention of Media Organisations has been working on a new ethics code, in addition to the existing code adopted (but observed by almost no one) by the Romanian Press Club. But it is one thing to talk about ethics and professional standards, and another to really work by them. Hopefully, Romania's press will soon understand it needs to give up unethical practices if it wants to be credible.

Alex Ulmanu lectures in media and is the founder and director of the StartMedia foundation.