A new report by Reuters Institute visiting fellow Laura Fielden shows that incentive programs and increased penalties for news outlets may help rehabilitate the oft-criticized UK media regulatory system.

In response to recent critiques from both the government and the public, the UK’s Press Complaints Commission announced their intention to launch a new media regulatory system this past March. Yet as journalists and officials attempt to map their new regulatory path, the complexity of the task grows more apparent.

In her report, titled, “Regulating the Press: A comparative study of international press councils,” Fielden suggests the heart of the UK press council debate is the issue of whether regulation should be voluntary or mandatory.

The report, which examines regulatory systems in six countries, draws on information gathered via interviews with press council members, media ombudsmen, and journalists from participating countries. The purpose is not to provide a broad overview of press regulation, but rather to present shared experiences – both positive and negative – to help inform future decisions concerning press regulation in the UK.

Countries following a voluntary system are discussed at length using the story of Richard Desmond, who in 2011 withdrew several of his newspapers from the UK’s Press Complaints Commission while simultaneously joining the Irish Press Council.

In what has now come to be known as “the Desmond problem,” Fielden hints in her report that Desmond’s withdrawal from the UK regulatory body was motivated by a lack of tangible benefits provided by the commission. Fielden frequently refers to the Desmond case to show that for press councils to be voluntary, an incentive system must be created in order to promote adherence and prolonged membership.

Sweden, Germany, Finland, Denmark, Ireland, and Australia were selected for analysis due to similarities with the UK as far as governmental makeup, size, and breadth of media oversight.  In addition, the report called on specific experiences from Canada, New Zealand, and Norway in order to highlight areas of press freedom in those particular countries.

Drawing on examples from Canada and Germany, Fielden backs a unique system that uses media consumers as bait to encourage outlets to increase their compliance.  Fielden points out that current regulatory systems largely leave readers in the dark, making it difficult for consumers to identify press outlets that are affiliated with credible regulatory commissions.

Fielden suggests media outlets be forced to carry some type of “standards mark” on their front page, in order to indicate their participation in a press council. This type of system, Fielden explains, will allow members to promote their affiliations to customers and distinguish themselves from less compliant outlets. She also recommends strict oversight designed to punish media outlets for failing to adhere to a press council ruling through fines and suspension from regulatory commissions.

Fielden explains that UK press regulators should attempt to align their new system with one that shares similarities with the Irish.  Fielden touts the superiority of the Irish model of press regulation, which legally recognizes publications with clean compliance records thus providing protection from future ligation. Ultimately Fielden feels that ethical incentives will eventually translate to revenue incentives, especially if stigma is attached to papers that fail to appropriately satisfy their regulatory commissions.

The report’s complexity portends that developing a new media regulatory system in the UK will be extremely difficult. Not only are current media regulations becoming outdated, but press councils are also finding it difficult to provide incentives for newspapers to uphold memberships. Ultimately, Fielden suggests that UK press councils transition “towards a model where there are robust incentives to ensure that ethical compliance is viewed as a commercial selling point.”

The changing political system in Albania is tied to the evolution and transformation of the media industry.

The establishment of political pluralism and a market economy in 1991 brought with it the collapse of the state’s monopoly in the Albanian media market. This transition from a centralized system to a private media system was accompanied by fundamental changes in the market. In contrast to the former communist East, where the transition from controlled media markets to free markets occurred in a gradual manner, in Albania this change took place abruptly.

Thus, during the years of 1991-1997, almost all of the newspapers and magazines controlled by the communist state disappeared from circulation (with the exception of the newspaper Zëri i Popullit, the main paper of the communist party in power), and in their place emerged new newspapers which functioned primarily as private businesses. These new media businesses fundamentally transformed the landscape of Albanian media. Before 1990, only two daily national papers were printed: Zëri i Popullit and Bashkimi. In 1991 four daily papers were printed, and in 1994 that number doubled to eight. Today 28 national dailies are printed – a considerable figure when compared to the number of print media publications  in countries with populations much larger than Albania’s.

The same pattern occurred in the audiovisual market where the only state radio-television outlet, RTSH, is dominated by a large number of private television and radio stations that have overtaken the Albanian-speaking media. According to statistics from Keshilli Kombetar  i Radios dhe Televizionit (KKRT - National Council of Radio and Television), in Albania today four national television stations are in operation, 65 local stations, 33 cable television stations, three national radios stations and 47 local radio stations.

A market with minimal regulation  

The boom of private media has brought a state of chaos to the media market. The fact that the legislation in this field still has many gaps contributes to this phenomenon. The state has not attempted to play its full role in a market that developed rapidly and has the tendency to bypass regulations. This somewhat anarchic situation has been especially visible in the field of electronic media. While newspapers and magazines have begun registering to become legally licensed as private businesses, electronic media have started their operations without legal licenses from the state.

One of the primary traits exhibited in Albanian media is a lack of financial transparency. From the moment they enter the market, private media businesses do not declare their investments. This causes periodic imbalances, as large investors from other fields systematically enter the market and alter the media landscape. This has occurred periodically with the involvement of construction businessmen like Koço Kokëdhima, Irfan Hasanbelliu, Genc Dulaku, as well as coffee businessman Dritan Hoxha – who instantly created new media outlets which became the most important in the country. As a result of the powerful investments of the first two businessmen (Kokëdhima and Hasanbelliu), their respective newspapers are the have the largest circulations in the country, while Dulaku and Hoxha have two of the largest Albanian private television platforms.

Competitive new businesses that enter the market frequently alter the tendencies of the media market. The newspaper Shekulli, entered with a price three times lower than the other papers. It sold for 10 Lek (approximately 70 cents), while the other newspapers sold at a price of 30 Lek (210 cents). Later on, the newspaper Panorama followed the same path. This, in turn, caused the other owners to react by seeking legal protection from the Competition Authority. Though such an imbalance in price cannot be justified – even by the cost of printing (which is almost equal) or market sales – it is explained by the fact that the publishers of some newspapers cover printing costs with profit arriving from other businesses.

In the field of television media, imbalances in the media market are mostly reflected in advertising costs, as well as program content. Various television channels have been unable to accept the prices of commercials. On August 5, 2003, the directors of five main television channels, RTSH, Klan, Vizion Plus, Top Channel, and Arbëria signed a memorandum of cooperation for the setting of identical  prices for television advertising. According to this memorandum, every 30-second commercial spot transmitted on channels of the five signees would cost 100 Euros. In spite of this, however, the memorandum has remained unimplemented, as each channel applies its own fees.

Such lack of respect for rules is also shown in the financial treatment of  journalists and technical personnel.

The salaries of journalists vary drastically from one media outlet to another as a result of competition: Top Channel and Vizion Plus pay salaries two or three-times higher than the other outlets which suffer economic difficulties. The salaries of television journalists are also much higher in comparison to those of print or radio journalists.

Since 1992, there have been continuous attempts to establish regulations in the media sector. In many aspects, the market today is more stable than the situation a few years prior; yet in spite of this, it remains erratic, unstable, and to a certain degree, informal.

A small market in crisis

With a population of roughly 3 million residents, Albania remains a small and unfavorable market for media. Small markets create ample obstacles for the consolidation of media businesses, as the cost of their products is practically the same as those produced by media operating in larger markets, while the profits remain much smaller.

However, apart from the question of size, the Albanian-speaking media markets are also fragmented due to the liberal politics practiced by the Albanian government in the media field. A large number of actors – which have a very positive effect on the pluralism of Albanian media – operate in these markets but also fragment the media. Regardless of the creation of media groups in which consolidation can be observed, the market remains significantly spread out since concentration has not resulted in the closing of the other businesses. The difficulties of a small market are not only reflected in the low circulation of Albanian papers, but also in the minimal amount of advertising in electronic media (accurate audience measures for such media is still lacking).

The daily circulation of all Albanian newspapers and magazines is no greater than 70,000 copies; and of this number, only Panorama and Shekulli have a circulation between 15,000 and 25,000 copies (according to the declarations of these outlets themselves). The other outlets all have a circulation of less than 5,000 copies.

The long crisis of print media

Print media, which was the first private media form in Albania following the fall of communism, has experienced a long crisis that continues today.

In the first phase (1991-1994), print media outlets enjoyed favorable financial conditions because  they were financed primarily by political parties, and as a result, had three stable financial sources:  

• Political parties
• Circulation sales
• Advertising sales

There were other advantages as well, the first being a large, stable audience—a significant component of which corresponded to the electorates of political parties. In addition, the parties spent a portion of their budget on print media, as at the time this form of media was still the most powerful in Albania.

The first large daily papers that emerged after 1994 were faced with great difficulties. Due to the low salaries of journalists (50-250 Euros)[KN3] , the prices of these papers were much lower and barely covered the costs of production.

Other than production costs, a significant portion of the total cost of newspapers and magazines is allocated to intellectual production, a term used by Nadine Toussaint-Desmoulins in L’Economie des Médias. This cost has increased continually because of the raise in average Albanian income. In addition, the competition to attract the most qualified professionals has contributed to the increase of income, which has become a burden in the fragile economy of Albanian print media.

The economic state of print media in Albania is greatly challenged, which in turn results in unstable media businesses with a lower chance of survival. The majority of businesses have, in fact, negative balances and if the laws of economic balance transparency and bankruptcy worked as intended, many of these businesses would be forced to shut down. This situation is compounded by the small advertising market in Albania.

The boom of audiovisual media

The largest investments in Albania are made in audiovisual media.  However, these investments are characterized by different patterns of development: large investments are made in television media and smaller investments in radio media. Even in television media there is a diversity, with some companies having made much larger investments, which in turn has made them much more competitive than the other television outlets. For example, television stations like Top Channel, Klan, Vizion Plus and lately Ora News have invested more, and consequently become superior in terms of the quality of broadcasting.

The investments in these television stations have made them competitive in three areas: broadcasting technology, production of programs, and human resources.

Technological investments include the building of broadcasting studios and broadcasting systems. Until 1997, the biggest investor in these two fields was Radiotelevizioni Publik Shqiptar (RTSH, Albanian Public Television), which was the only broadcaster in the entire Albanian territory. Still, however, with regard to technology RTSH was very far behind. The cameras and the editing studios of RTSH are still those imported from Eastern Germany between the years of 1985-1990.

According to statistics provided by KKRT, the majority of television channels in Albania have negative balance sheets. All local television channels that transmit in Tirana and other regions result in negative balance sheets. However, one should also take into account that the financial declarations made by the majority of television channels in Albania are not accurate. This inaccuracy results from the false declaration of the number of journalists employed and their salaries, as well as falsely reporting profits made in an effort to evade taxation on profit. Nevertheless KKRT has created a database of the finances of television channels in Albania which shows that only Klan, Top Channel and Vizion Plus have managed to reflect positive balance sheets. Here are the numbers for some of the main television channels for 2008-2010.

The main source of revenue for Albanian television comes from advertising. Out of $15,666,000 spent on advertisement in Albania for the year 2004, $8,500,000 went to television advertising. This amount is not dispersed equally, however, because the main television stations receive the majority of advertisements from businesses and the government. The remaining production costs are covered by other financial sources. Some TV channels like TV Arbëria have foreclosed, while others are experiencing ongoing financial difficulties, which are reflected in unpaid staff salaries.

Radio businesses are more modest, but also more stable than television businesses. Though the majority of radio outlets are faced with a shortage of funds, they have much lower costs than other media, as their programs mostly consist of news taken from the Internet, talk shows with callers, and music programs. Meanwhile, staffing costs are low and technological investments are also not very expensive.

In summary

The nature of Albanian media is largely defined by the nature of the media owners. As a result of the radical liberalizing reforms, the Albanian media market, as well as all other markets, has quickly become dominated by the private market. Private media has considerably balanced the role of the public sector. The Albanian public radio-television has remained an unreformed media institution and is still quite similar to the state radio-television of the past. Its reliability and ratings are consistently decreasing and it is now mostly watched in rural areas.

Contrary to most European countries where legislation prevents the concentration of media in the hands of a single owner, in Albania and Kosovo this sort of phenomenon is allowed. As a result, in the Albanian-language media markets one can witness the consolidation of various media, and the creation of powerful media groups controlled by a single shareholder. Furthermore, Albanian legislation does not prevent other businesses from investing in the media industry.

Internet and new technology are the only sources of media with an open perspective and a common space for communication in the Balkans. Online communication bypasses the constraints of traditional media. In spite of this, in comparison to other countries in Europe, the accessibility of Internet and new communication technologies to the population is still small. The high costs stand in contrast to the low purchasing power of the Albanian public. The prevalence of Internet is compromised by the low economic level of the population and the lack of landline telephone infrastructure—a gap that is even more visible in rural areas. Despite remaining in infancy, new media outlets have increased in prevalence at a continuously increasing rate and within a short time are expected to emerge as competitors to traditional media.

In light of the above, it can be said that the Albanian media landscape is one marked by great challenges—challenges that have been, in part, faced successfully, although they are intertwined with the communication, democratization, modernization and integration of Albanian society. Facing such challenges will be the true test of the Albanian media system.

 *****

This article was written specifically for EJO by Dr. Mark Marku. Dr. Marku is a professor of media and communications at the Department of Journalism and Communication, University of Tirana. He has published several books on the history of the Albanian media and on  issues  of media semiotics and which have been translated by many Western authors in the field. Currently Dr. Marku is a Member of Albanian Parliament, and Vice-President of the Parliamentary Commission of Education and Media.

A recent research initiative focuses on the journalistic profession in Serbia.

“Profession at the Crossroads – Journalism at the Doorstep of the Information Society,” conducted by the Media Center of the Faculty of Political Science in Belgrade from July 2010 through June 2011 (heads of project: Prof. Dr. Miroljub Radojkovic and Prof. Dr. Snjezana Milivojevic) explores the hypothesis that journalism in Serbia lacks the adequate resources for an appropriate response to the technological, economic and social challenges radically transforming the profession. The results paint a gloomy picture of Serbian journalism, grappling with extremely low salaries and digital advances.

A long period of transition and the primacy of existential issues in Western Balkan countries have removed the emphasis from the challenges of contemporary journalism. Unsuccessful privatization, increasing concentration of ownership, development of the media market and the economic crisis – these are the characteristics defining the Serbian media scene.

Most Serbian journalists work for electronic media outlets (60%) and the press (30%), while others work in news agencies, online media, as independent journalists, etc. More than half work in Belgrade, while the remainder are almost uniformly distributed throughout Vojvodina and Central Serbia.

Data indicates that journalism has become a female-dominated profession, with gender differences resulting from an increasing number of female students enrolled in journalism-oriented university programs. Yet journalism still reflects the typical male-female discrepancies with regard to senior positions: less than 33 percent of women occupy senior or managerial positions, while only one woman in Serbia is co-owner of a media company. This information is significant in consideration of the social and economic position of journalists. Although it is often believed that women who are employed part-time face the choice between career and motherhood, it is encouraging to know that two-thirds of interviewees (76.54%) are permanently employed. The picture is also rosier when it comes to journalists’ education. The results indicate that most journalists have obtained a high level of education. Seventy-three percent hold a university degree, while the remainder have a high school diploma at the least. Still, journalists’ salaries do not reflect the notion that high education is adequately valued. The largest number of interviewees (23.85%) working in editorial positions and/or in the publicly-owned media make a salary that exceeds 50,000 dinars a month (which is more than the average Serbian salary, equaling approximately €150-400 per month). Half of all interviewees (50.15%) have salaries lower or equal to the average salary in the country.

According to journalists themselves, the greatest challenges to the industry  are low-quality journalism, the prevalence of sensationalism and tabloid journalism (22.13%), while almost one-fifth (17.23%) believe that the largest problem facing the media is a poor economic position aggravated by the global economic crisis.

With this in mind, what is the best way for journalists in Serbia to face the challenges of new media which, according to many theorists, threaten to replace traditional journalism? This study indicates that journalistic professionals do not see such a grim picture. Instead, they are optimistic. Serbian journalists essentially agree that technological changes are not profound and that they will not have a decisive influence on the future of the profession.

Danish media report outlines past, present and future of Denmark’s media system.

In a recent case study published in conjunction with the MEDIADEM research project, Rasmus Helles, Henrik Søndergaard and Ida Toft of the University of Copenhagen (UCPH) sought to determine whether media policy in Denmark promotes media freedom and independence. Danish media policy, according to the authors, is “marked by the tension between the wish to sustain and stimulate pluralism in media content – and the wish to have independent media capable of fulfilling their key democratic role in society.”

The report, titled “Does Media Policy Promote Media Freedom and Independence?” (2011), elaborates on Denmark’s media landscape while also pointing to the media subsidy system as the central target for reforms.  While all significant players in the market recognize the need for reforms to the media subsidy system, both sides are finding it difficult to agree on a path for change.  Even as the reform process becomes progressively convoluted and bureaucratic, the central theme of the restructuring continues to be the need to promote an independent media system in Denmark.

The Media System

Helles, Søndergarrd, and Toft explain that Danish media policy is complex due in part to several contributing factors. The media market in Denmark is unique due to its small size, which creates a fragile system that relies on both privatization and publically funded subsidies.  At the core of the system is the shared need to keep the media both pluralistic and independent, which is becoming gradually more difficult in the digital age. 

Current disruptions to the market have increased competition amongst public and private media, shocking a system that had previously operated harmoniously. As is the case globally within many media markets, digitization has strained both broadcast and print media sources due to the public’s increasing unwillingness to pay for content. In the past, publically funded broadcasters existed separately from the privately funded print news sources, however as disruptions increase and the media market shrinks, privatization of broadcast media has become more common. As this battle grows, private media houses find that the competition for consumers is difficult in what they see as an unbalanced system.

As is pointed out in the MEDIADEM case study, “the relationship between pluralism and freedom of expression is complex.”  While there is agreement and support for pluralism in order to maintain a free and open societal debate, those in favor of the reduction of media subsidies argue that a system that provides funding to media outlets is directly contrary to the notion of media independence.

Current Reforms and Overall Goals

Helles, Søndergarrd, and Toft point out that a viable public funding system for Danish media is necessary, but the process is arduous and characterized by a great deal of political posturing.  The current system, which relies on distribution numbers when doling out public money, can no longer be seen as a feasible option.

When mapping new media policy initiatives, Danish political parties negotiate using a three-step process.  This process begins with conferences and meetings between political parties and intermediaries, followed by the formulation of a proposal prepared by the Ministry of Culture, and finally actual negotiations that take place between the Ministry of Culture and spokespersons from the individual political parties.  While this process is open to objections by both public and political sources, changes are rarely made and typically concern funding to different media outlets as well as program content.

While few suggestions have been made for funding reforms, a recent Danish media report titled “Support for Democracy: The Future of Public Support for Media” (Dyremose, 2011) strongly suggests that subsidies be distributed based on news production rather than circulation numbers.  The report, which was prepared by a committee tasked with developing a new media support model, outlined a system that would directly fund journalists while also providing subsidies to promote newspaper production.  These reforms were suggested not only because newspapers still provide more than 70 percent of the news content in Denmark, but also because it was seen as being more sensible than the forming of committees to determine funding. 

As opposed to other funding reform suggestions which called for a review board or committee to determine funding levels for media, the direct distribution of public money to journalists and print news would allow Danish media to retain independence while avoiding political interference.  In addition, the MEDIADEM report explained that by moving away from circulation based funding it could also “ease constraints on market entry imposed by the old, platform-specific system.” 

Critics of the proposed system, including the Competition and Consumer Authority have pointed out that it could result in an even more crowded market while giving the major players a larger share of support funds.

The authors conclude their report by pointing to influence of the European Union’s media policy in today’s regulation of Danish public service media, explaining that “public service broadcasting continues to be regarded as the cornerstone of Danish media policy, and also of Danish cultural policy.”

As MEDIADEM authors continue plowing through their research, the scope of the €2.65 million media policy project takes shape.

In a thorough examination, project director Evangelia Psychogiopoulou from the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIMEP) in Athens, Greece, leads a research group intent on determining whether European media policy is fueling or inhibiting a free and independent media system.

MEDIADEM’s objective is to pinpoint and develop media policies that are tailored to the unique fluctuations occurring across the European media landscape. The research project features collaborations from 14 universities in 12 EU countries and two candidate countries and is funded by the European Commission’s 7th Framework Programme for Research as part of the Citizen in the European Union grant agreement. The considerable research undertaking began in April 2010 and will conclude through March 2013.

Project Outline

Three categories of media policy were developed by the MEDIADEM project in order to assess and fuel the development of quality media across Europe. According to the policy brief, the project first seeks to introduce and maintain a legally enabling environment, followed by the promotion of professional standards and ethics, and finally “the strengthening of media literacy.”

The MEDIADEM work plan consists of four separate phases and began with the production of an extensive report establishing theoretical foundations for the project’s research aims. Phase one also provided background information on the 14 different media markets participating in the project.

The second phase, which is ongoing, delves into empirical research in the form of 14 case studies, one for each of the collaborating countries. These in-depth case studies aim to assess media policy by not only examining the legislation but by also outlining the development process. In order to determine if individual media policies promote variety and independence in media, analysis focused on regulatory policy by making comparisons across Europe.

The third phase of the project will build on information gathered in the initial phases of the project in order to develop phase three, which according to MEDIADEM, is designed to “explain variable patterns of media policy [and] targeting media freedom and independence.”

The fourth and final phase of the project will attempt to enact change across media systems in Europe by formulating concrete strategy suggestions aimed at influencing both government and non-governmental policy makers.

The reports in all four phases of the project will be prepared through a variety of research tools, including the examination of primary and secondary resources, and semi structured interviews and conferences.

When complete, the project will have produced a monumental research portfolio which will include a theoretical report, one collective background report, 14 separate country-specific case studies, two comparative reports, a collective policy paper as well as numerous policy briefs, three case-study workshops, 14 national discussion groups, and one final MEDIADEM conference.

Target groups for the literature and research produced by MEDIADEM include the academic community, both government and non-governmental policy makers, media professionals, human rights organizations, and judicial authorities at the EU level, amongst others.

By taking an in depth look at the distinctive scenarios in all 14 countries, the MEDIADEM project has positioned itself to make meaningful suggestions that could make a long term impact in each market.

Further information as well the current research portfolio can be found here.

Although Serbia is home to only seven million citizens, it has no less than 610 print media outlets and 456 electronic media platforms.

Lack of transparent ownership, lack of freedom and an inadequate withdrawal of the state from various media outlets are only a few of the numerous problems acknowledged by media professionals. The Serbian press remains in an intensely difficult situation, yet the introduction of new technologies is increasingly viewed as a possible remedy.

THE MARKET

The press: One of the largest problems facing the domestic press is immense competition: according to data provided by the Serbian Business Registers Agency, there are no less than 610 print media outlets in the market, including 20 daily newspapers and 83 weekly magazines. Most of them are available nation-wide. In 2009, advertisers invested €36 million in print media outlets, according to data from the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia (NUNS). On average, this amounts to €72,000 euro per each registered print media outlet, which means that each outlet had to survive on less than €6,000 per month (NUNS: Media Dossier No. 32, 2010 / NUNS: Dosije o medijima broj 32, 2010). Although the press comprises more than a half of all media outlets in the country, it receives only 22 percent of all the money spent on advertising in the media, which is a result of the continuing trend of increased investment in television. According to the International Television Expert Group, three years ago Serbia held the world record in time spent watching TV, as the average Serbian citizen spends 302 minutes each day watching TV, more than five hours (for comparison, the average U.S citizen watches 298 minutes per day). If we also take into account the fact that only around seven percent of Internet users read online editions of print media, it becomes evident that the press market is struggling for survival.

Electronic media outlets: According to data collected by the Republic Broadcasting Agency, Serbia has 134 registered TV stations (six of them with national coverage, 30 regional and 98 local stations) as well as 322 radio stations (five national coverage, one provincial, 48 regional and 268 local stations). There are two public service broadcasters in the country: the Public Service Broadcaster of Serbia (Radio-televizija Srbije/Radio-Television Serbia – RTS) with two television and three radio channels, and the Public Service Broadcaster of Vojvodina (Radio–televizija Vojvodine/Radio-Television Vojvodina – RTV) with two television and three radio channels. At the moment, one of the greatest challenges is the digitalization of television programs. Transition from analog to digital broadcasting, initially slated for April 4^th of 2012, will actually begin partial implementation only near the end of 2012, while the whole process will be completed no later than the 17^th of June, 2015.

The Internet: According to data offered by the Republic Statistics Agency, 41.2 percent of households in Serbia have access to the Internet; 42.2 percent of citizens have used the Internet in the last three months; more than 1,900,000 use it every day or almost every day; and 53 percent have never used it. Social networks are used by 91.8 percent of the population aged 16-24, which tops nearly all countries worldwide. The most popular social network in the world (Facebook) has more than 3,120,000 profiles from Serbia (source: Socialbakers).

Journalistic associations: There are two journalistic associations in Serbia: The Journalists’ Association of Serbia / Udruzenje novinara Srbije (UNS), established in 1981, which has more than 6,000 members, and The Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia / Nezavisno udruzenje novinara Srbije (NUNS), established in 1994 by journalists dissatisfied with the results achieved by UNS, which has more than 3,300 members. Conflict between these two associations has existed since their separation, which hinders solidarity among journalists. According to the most recent data, around 10,000 journalists work for the Serbian media. It should also be noted that the Press Council began its activities only in September of this.

OWNERSHIP

The ownership structure of the media in Serbia is characterized by a distinct lack of transparency and state ownership of the media. The state owns the news agency Tanjug and has ownership shares in daily newspaper Vecernje novosti, the oldest newspaper in the Balkans, Politika, as well as in Dnevnik from Novi Sad. News agencies Beta, FoNet and Infobiro are privately owned. At the moment, there are five stations with national frequencies – TV Avala, TV B92, TV Prva, TV Pink and TV Happy, as well as two channels belonging to the public service broadcaster (RTS1 and RTS2). TV stations Pink and Happy are the only broadcasters with national frequencies that are completely owned by legal and physical persons from Serbia. However, a report prepared by the Anti-Corruption Council (for the period 2008-2010) points out the fact that among the 30 most significant media outlets (12 daily newspapers, seven weekly magazines, six TV stations and five radio stations) there were no less than 18 media outlets whose actual owners were unknown.

The prominent presence of offshore companies in ownership structures mostly serves to hide the real owners. TV Prva, RTV B92, Radio Index, as well as print media outlets like Vecernje novosti and Press, are owned by companies registered in Cyprus, while TV Avala and Standard have unknown owners in Austria (source: Anti-Corruption Council). Therefore, true ownership is impossible to establish, and the public frequently associates certain media outlets with the domestic businessmen behind these offshore companies (Vecernje novosti – three offshore companies owned by Milan Beko).

It is entirely possible that certain TV stations are actually owned by the same individuals from abroad, which would violate the provisions of the law on broadcasting related to illegal media concentration. The most widely circulated newspaper in the country, Blic, and the oldest weekly magazine, Nedeljne informativne novine (NIN), are owned by the publishing company Ringier Axel Springer. Apart from Blic and NIN, Ringier publishes two daily newspapers, one weekly magazine and a large number of specialized publications.

EDUCATION

Future media professionals are schooled at several public and private faculties in Serbia. The oldest faculty instructing journalists is the Faculty of Political Science in Belgrade, established in 1968. Journalism is also taught at the Faculty of Philosophy in Novi Sad and the Faculty of Philosophy in Nis. The Faculty of Media and Communication (Singidunum University), the Faculty of Culture and the Media (Megatrend University), the Faculty of Social Sciences in Novi Pazar, and the Academy of Arts in Belgrade also cover the media field. Sports journalism courses are taught at the Faculty of Sports and Physical Education in Belgrade.

According to the latest research (conducted by the Media Center of the Faculty of Political Science in Belgrade Centar za medije i medijska istraživanja FPN u Beogradu during July 2010 – July 2011; heads of the project: Prof. Dr. Miroljub Radojkovic and Prof. Dr. Snjezana Milivojevic), most journalists have achieved high levels of education. Data indicate that 73 percent of journalists hold a university degree, while the rest have a high school diploma. Previous research was conducted in 2002, showing that 56 percent of journalists and publicists held university degrees.

SUMMARY

While the rest of the world discusses the future of the journalistic profession and its transformation under the influence of new technologies, Serbian journalists are increasingly concerned with an unsatisfactory financial situation and inadequate valuation of their work. In the underdeveloped Serbian market, sensationalism has long achieved the greatest results, and under the pressure of increasingly fierce competition, most of the media outlets have almost completely rejected any comprehensive research. Therefore the domination of low-quality journalism and tabloid content is not surprising.

Local media outlets are in an especially difficult position as they are exposed to strong pressure exerted by local powerful figures, who often hold the key to their survival. In such a situation, it is difficult or impossible for readers to evaluate information, and for journalists to report it. Additionally, an increasing number of journalism schools offer quick and cursory education to students who have not adopted adequate ethical and professional standards, which further hinders all efforts to advance the profession to a higher level. Hence, it is clear that the struggle for survival will be only one of the major challenges facing the domestic media in the upcoming years.

As the EJO continues its eastward expansion, we’re pleased to announce our latest language version, EJO Romania.

In the following article, Alina Vasiliu, our Romanian Web Editor, provides an overview of the Romanian media landscape, past and present.

The year 1989 marks a distinct turning point in Romanian mass media. It signifies the full stop in all areas of Romanian society, a year when communist media institutions disappeared, soon to be replaced by democratic institutions. Nearly all of Romania’s media outlets changed their names to replace demagogic communist labels, deciding instead to incorporate the word “free” in the new titles, for example: Free Youth (national newspaper), Free Romanian Television  (public television) Free Life (newspaper in Galati), and Free Mind (newspaper in Constanta). The newspaper The Spark became The Truth. The only publication that didn’t require a name change was România Liberă (“Free Romania”), although its epithet certainly acquired a different meaning in December of 1989.

Journalism Professionals

Unfortunately, while the names of the media institutions changed, in most cases the staff remained the same. Pre-revolutionary journalists – obliged to write as commanded under the terror of censorship – became post-revolutionary journalists, behaving aggressively enough to equal the previously manifested docility. During this short period of transition to democracy, journalists took great liberties in violating rules, writing anything about anyone without sanction. Heads of the publications changed, but those who coordinated and censored journalists before the revolution didn’t disappear, rather they remained dormant only to reappear a few years later at the helm of many media outlets. Those who took leading positions in 1989 were hardly “model” journalists, as attitudes and reflexes induced by too many years of survival under communism hadn’t suddenly vanished.

Hence, the most promising option for the future of Romanian journalism may be to completely replace the generation educated in the “golden age,” to turn instead to young journalists ready to apply rules acquired in universities rather than habits borrowed from older colleagues.

Deontology

An important sociological study (“Media Self-Regulation in Romania” conducted in 2009 by IMAS, the Center for Independent Journalism and Active Watch) revealed many deviations from generally accepted professional standards. Thirty-one percent of journalists admitted to being forced to pursue advertising contracts themselves as though they were commercial agents. Many also claim it is difficult to rectify an error in the media. Forty-three percent agree it is difficult to verify information from several independent sources, and 33 percent say it’s hard to present the views of all parties involved in a particular issue. Most journalists recognize that professional standards are not met in the press, and 60 percent of journalists say this is because of political pressure. Other potential causes listed are the insufficient training of journalists, the influence of employers, commercial pressures, and the opacity of state institutions. Half of the journalists are not aware of any “code of ethics,” and 17 percent say that certain topics are taboo in their newsrooms.

Professional issues in the press culminated with several scandals, prompted first by the 2009 release of transcripts documenting a recording wherein two famous journalists, Sorin Roşca Stănescu and Bogdan Chirieac, attempted to blackmail a public figure.

The following year saw the release of controversial transcripts of Sorin Ovidiu Vântu’s – owner of Realitatea TV, one of the first Romanian television stations – conversations with journalists and politicians. Beyond the contextual political significance of the transcripts, they revealed the subordination and even servility which can exist between journalists and media owners.

At a 2011 conference in Bucharest held by the Romanian Federation of Journalists, MediaSind, President and CEO of TVR Alexandru Lăzescu explains, “In addition to the clear economic weakness of the media, the ethical standards have also completely collapsed, while the overthrow of values receives an air of normality. To what extent are the media media and is the journalist a journalist and not a weapon? If someone is called a journalist it does not mean that journalism is what he does. For nearly 10 years there has been a phenomenon that is hollow inside and eats away at media credibility. The press blackmails in Romania – though less in Bucharest – are practiced with great skill in this country. There are clear patterns applied. I know people who are exasperated by what is happening. It has grown to a sophisticated, orchestrated attack.”

It works like this: Journalists investigate and uncover negative facts concerning a particular public figure. They then offer never to disclose the information to the public in exchange for money or advertising for their publications. There are also situations when the blackmailed individuals occupying important positions in state organizations are forced to provide confidential information.

Lăzescu – who maintained his position as a professor of journalism despite being appointed to head Romania’s public television – confesses to encountering difficulties in communicating with his students, as the students realize that what is taught in university contradicts the reality of journalistic practice.

Press Freedom

Even in this context, all non-governmental organizations and press associations cling to the idea that journalists do not need to be regulated by law, as this would create preconditions for limiting the freedom of expression. Even if a bill were to be developed and debated by journalists, there remains the belief that once inside the Romanian parliament “mixer,” politicians perceiving the press as a menace would irreparably taint the legislation.

Due to a constant lobby from the industry organizations, primarily against Articles 205 and 206 of the Penal Code which condemn insult and slander, the law has not been a threat to freedom of expression in Romania since 2006. Nevertheless, Romania is ranked only 52nd in the global Press Freedom Index (2010) conducted by Reporters without Borders, down two places from the previous year. According to this ranking, press freedom has declined for the third consecutive year (2007 – 42nd place, 2008 – 47th place,  2009 – 50th place, 2010 – 52nd place).

Journalistic freedom in Romania is limited not by laws, but by the media outlets in which they operate. The absence of a regulating law or self-regulating institutions may have led to the increase of the press blackmail phenomenon and to “the suffocation of relevant and verifiable editorial content by manipulative journalism, partisan opinion and information turned into entertainment,” as the FreeEx report “Press Freedom in Romania – 2010″ revealed.

Article Courtesy of European Journalism Centre

There are about 100,000 journalists in Italy, but the number could be much higher if the journalistic profession were not regulated by a corporation, the Ordine dei Giornalisti (ODG).

In Italy today, in order to work as a journalist, one must belong to the Ordine.

There are several corporations in Italy, such as corporations for doctors, lawyers and many “technical” professionals, such as farmers, geologists, architects and so forth. Compared to other professional unions for journalists elsewhere in Europe, however, the Ordine dei Giornalisti is quite a unique institution.

As the economical and institutional crisis deepens, many voices are asking Italy to ease the access to the professional labour market and to abolish the system of corporations in order to make it easier for people to work in their field of choice. In fact, the mere existence of corporations seems to go against the principle of “career liberalisation” which is also demanded by the EU institutions.

A state-approved corporation

The ODG is a state-approved organisation that regulates the journalistic profession in Italy by imposing membership on anyone who wants to become a professional journalist. It was created by law in 1963, but the actual forerunner of the ODG was instituted in 1928, based on an idea of Italy’s leader at the time, Benito Mussolini, who had worked as a journalist for many years himself.

Today’s ODG is very similar to the 1928 organisation, the main difference being that under Mussolini’s regime, the Ordine was directly controlled by the Fascist Union and the Minister of Justice. The Ordine was not an independent organisation. Instead it was politically controlled so as to prevent anti-fascist individuals from becoming members.

After the fall of the fascist regime in 1944,  a provisional self-governing body was created for and by journalists, and it lasted until 1963, when today’s Ordine dei Giornalisti was founded by law, replacing the previous organisation.

The 1963 law provided for the Ordine be divided into three categories: the professionisti (full-time journalists), the pubblicisti (paid part-time journalists who also practise other professions) and the praticanti (fulltime journalists undergoing an 18 month traineeship in a media outlet).

The crucial difference between professionisti and pubblicisti lies in the process of acquiring the professional status. Pubblicisti must prove that they have worked for at least two years as paid journalists and published a number of articles which can vary depending on the regional section of the Ordine they are applying to.

Praticanti can become professional journalists after undergoing an 18 month paid traineeship, the so-called praticantato, or by attending a special two-year journalism course where instead of receiving a salary, participants are required to pay significant fees and take a challenging entrance test.

The next step is to pass an oral and a written exam and aspiring journalists can choose between several exam sessions every year. On a side note, it is quite shocking to report that the written exam had to be taken on a typewriter until 2009, when the use of the laptop was finally admitted.

Obsolete?

However obsolete and bureaucratic the Ordine dei Giornalisti might appear, the corporation protects the interest of its members through continuous negotiations with the publishers’ corporation and the Parliament, specifically in the drafting of new national contracts and agreements regulating the practice of journalism in Italian media organisations (minimum salary, press rights, etc).

The Ordine also advises the Minister of Justice regarding new laws on the journalistic profession. The ODG sets a code of conduct for its adherents and has the power to censor, temporarily suspend and strike members off the Ordine should they damage the “professional dignity” of the organisation.The corporation also fixes the compulsory fee each member must pay every year, which is currently about €120.

In keeping with legendary Italian over-regulation, the Ordine comes with a journalist union (FNSI), a social security fund (INPGI) and a semi-independent agency providing extra welfare for its members, Casagit. This is an important aspect to take into consideration, as according to official statistics, the number of unemployed journalists in Lombardia alone, the region with most journalists in Italy, exceeds 10 percent.

A corporatist state-approved association like the ODG exists only in Italy. In the rest of Europe, the journalistic profession is not regulated and limited by any external body.

In other European countries, journalists set up their own associations and unions, such as the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) in the UK and Ireland, and these organisations do not fall under the supervision of the Minister of Justice, nor do they require mandatory membership.

Despite having many detractors, even among journalists, the Ordine has its positive aspects, like an 18-month unemployment subsidy for journalists who have lost their jobs. This, however, applies only to professional journalists, while pubblicisti, who account for about 70 percent of the total, are to a certain extent considered as second class journalists, even though many of them actually have a daily job as journalists throughout their entire career, without ever being able to become professionisti.

It is relevant to mention here that, due to significant taxes on labour, it is very expensive for small media outlets to offer professional traineeships to pubblicisti. Moreover, the salaries of professional journalists are significantly higher. In the end, most journalists who enter the profession after undergoing a paid traineeship work in political magazines and press offices. In other words, they are paid with public money.

The trend, in fact, as openly admitted by the Ordine itself, is to give preference to journalism graduates, who, incidentally, are also more willing to accept unpaid internships for a longer period.

Journalist: a changing definition

It is a slow but dramatic change for the journalism scene in Italy, which will probably also lead to significant changes for the ODG in the long run, especially due to the high unemployment rate which is affecting professional journalists. In fact, most of the journalists currently enrolled in the Ordine are not working.
Out of a total of 110,204 journalists, according to recent data from the Ordine dei Giornalisti, 23,044 are professionisti, 1,610 are praticanti (both students and full time employees) and almost 5,000 are retired journalists who still benefit from the Ordine. The rest consists mostly of pubblicisti (paid part-time journalists) and some foreign journalists.

These figures do not specify that only about 25 percent of journalists actually practise journalism as their main profession, while the rest uses their membership card only to get free access to public museums.

“The growth of journalists in the last 10 years in Italy has been uncontrollable,” writes assistant secretary of the FNSI Guido Besana. “More than 500 journalists are joining the order every month. Those who actually work are now a minority among the ones registered in the Ordine.”

It is easier today to become a journalist, but it is harder to actually work as one.

The Ordine is clearly profiting from the growing number of its members – and their membership fees – but at the same time its reputation is facing an ever growing distrust even among journalists. Why is such an organisation necessary in a time of citizen journalism and blogging?

The Ordine membership is a mandatory requirement to work as a journalist, but at the same time the very definition of journalist is changing.

In fact, the Ordine protects mostly the rights of its older members, such as retired journalists, than those of newcomers.

“It’s increasingly more difficult to work as a journalist,” admits news executive and digital journalism professor Mario Tedeschini Lalli. “However, being a journalist as a hobby or a passion is becoming a reality, so we might as well cherish that possibility – open to everybody – to write, report and share the news, without the need of being professional journalists, but with a growing sense of responsibility and competence.”

Originally published by European Journalism Centre, October 3, 2011, written by Francesco Conte.

Paris-based NGO

Last year was a particularly grim one for journalists, as the number of murdered reporters rose 26 percent, while violence against journalists increased by a third. This year the Press Freedom Index casts a glaring eye on Europe, noting particular concern about the deteriorating press freedom situation in the European Union, as 2010 saw several EU countries take a dive in ranking.

According to Reporters Without Borders secretary general Jean-François Julliard, “It is disturbing to see several European Union member countries continuing to fall in the index. If it does not pull itself together, the European Union risks losing its position as world leader in respect for human rights. And if that were to happen, how could it be convincing when it asked authoritarian regimes to make improvements? There is an urgent need for the European countries to recover their exemplary status.”

The report places 13 of the EU’s 27 members in the top 20, however it appears the other 14 are slinking toward the shameful side of the index. Italy rolls in at 49th, Romania at 52nd and Greece and Bulgaria tied up at 70th. Notes Julliard, “There has been no progress in several countries where Reporters Without Borders pointed out problems. They include, above all, France and Italy, where events of the past year – violation of the protection of journalists’ sources, the continuing concentration of media ownership, displays of contempt and impatience on the part of government officials towards journalists and their work, and judicial summonses – have confirmed their inability to reverse this trend.”

Yet things are looking up on top.  Finland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland ranked highest, applauded for their efforts in facilitating press freedom. Iceland chalks up special points for the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative (IMMI), a bill aimed at offering an unprecedented level of protection for the media. Sweden’s Press Freedom Act deserves similar kudos for helping to secure an amicable climate for journalists, providing shelter from judicial abuse.

On the bum end of the stick Rwanda, Yemen and Syria joined Burma, North Korea, Eritrea, Iran and Turkmenistan, listed as the world’s most repressive countries towards journalists.

See Reporters Without Borders for more.

New research tracks coverage of gay marriage debate.

Are you for “family values” or “human equality”? Not that you actually have to choose one over the other, despite the prevalent belief that the two are mutually exclusive.  If you’re a Family Values reader, you might look to the Chicago Tribune for your latest in gay marriage info, whereas if you’re of the Human Equality variety, you’d better go for the New York Times. A new study published in the Social Science Journal takes a look at coverage of gay marriage in the New York Times and Chicago Tribune in 2003 and 2004, before and after the Massachusetts ruling that legalized gay marriage in the state.  After analyzing 120 news stories, detailing approach, tone and quoted sources, it was found that the Times emphasized equality, with 33 percent of sampled stories focused on equal rights, compared to 19 percent in the Tribune. The Tribune, traditionally a more conservative paper than the Times, pushed coverage toward American family values.  Religious attitudes were found to be incorporated more frequently in Tribune coverage (20 percent of stories) than Times coverage (12 percent).

For more on the moral worlds of liberals and conservatives, see Miller-McCune.