A report released last month titled ‘’Caught in the middle: Central and Eastern European Journalism at a Crossroads’’ offered a very somber picture of the state of the media in the Central and Eastern European region. (The report can be accessed here http://www.ellenhume.com/articles/CIMA-Central_and_Eastern_Europe-Report_4.pdf and I’d recommend those with an interest media in the region to give it a look) . In it Ellen Hume an experienced media analyst based in the region speaks of how the positive momentum of the free press which came after the collapse of the previous system is now being reversed. She argues that ethical journalism faces a triple threat, backsliding against democratic reforms, a global Internet driven media business model and the continuing world economic crises. Last week I caught up with Ellen to gain further insights on the state of media throughout region and also to hear her views on the controversy surrounding the Hungarian media law
The Prague Post: The very first line of your report is a very strong one stating that ‘’ journalists in the region are struggling to hold on to the gains made in the first decade after communism’, why do you believe this to be the case and what do you see as the main threats that journalists in the region face?
Ellen Hume: The whole report documents how challenging it has been to create an independent sector called media. The hardest thing that has been most difficult to put in place is a public which says we expect journalists to behave ethical and realistic way not in a partisan manner.
TPP: What do you mean by a ‘’ public culture’’
EH: I refer to public culture as the people rising up, the way they did in the Czech Republic in 2001 and saying they don’t want their TV being taken over by political hacks. At the moment in the region media is seen as the spoils of the political party, it is the norm and that’s how it will continue to be unless the public start raising the sink. I am talking about creating a space that is something different to this. My report is about how you create a space where people can describe what the government is really doing or what the business community is doing that they are not being fair and transparent about. The attitude prevalent in the region at the moment is ‘’ we are in now power now and our friends should treat us well now’’. The journalists are supposed to not represent specific interests. Its all about creating a proper public space, if you public doesn’t respect the importance of this you won’t get anywhere.
TPP: So how do you go about creating this public space?
EH: There has to be something in the schools where you teach journalists to behave a certain way. You have to have a legal regime and a culture where journalism is treated as a public good. The public has to be alive; you need to create an active citizenship.
TPP: Obviously we are seeing a changing nature of journalism as a result of the rise of the Internet, in your report you say the internet is ‘’ the cause of the downfall and the savior’’ what do you mean here?
EH: While in the short term like everywhere the internet sites are taking business away from newspapers in the medium term the internet could offer a new medium for really good content and social practices. Some of the new crowd sourcing ventures are very exciting. With the internet the tools are there because you have so much information. In many countries especially in Hungary there are websites where journalists disillusioned with the mainstream media are migrating to but having said that the internet will only save us if used well.
Hungary and its media reforms
TPP: In the region the big media story has been the controversy surrounding the Hungarian media law. In your report you deal with the proposed media law reforms before it became much on an issue for the Western press. Being based in Hungary how did you access the domestic reaction to the law when it was first proposed?
When the media law was proposed here the intellectuals and liberals all saw the changes as a sinister power play by government. Having said that at the same time many citizens said he want a new media law because all we are getting is garbage, commercial garbage, pornography, too many advertisements and not enough news. The public also wants to get at this hate speech and tabloidization problem so you can see why elements of the public support the media law reforms. Indeed if you read the law it says the government supports freedom of speech so are not following it from a legal point of view or have experience in how this things often work you might say this is an unfair attack on Hungary, ”we are a strong nation and who are the EU to come and attack us”. Many people are not looking at the government as a sinister force but a one who is cleaning up the garbage.
TPP: And your thoughts on the Media reforms?
EH: I think there are serious reasons for the criticism and I outline them in the report. The language used is too broad and not precise enough. I do think there are instruments in place like the nine year term for the Media Council that do not improve the independence and strength of the watchdog media. Clearly the 9 year term is worrying. To have one party represented in the media council does not seem like a good augury for independent neutral media. The structural language remains problematic. The structure of having journalists register and the huge fines are problematic while having a small group of people all from one party with such powers clearly that is not a step forward in the world of open society and open information.
As the leaders in Middle East who had enormous power are learning finding out right now the media are difficult to control and working with them takes more than this draconian legislation that says punish people for certain things. It’s a cat and mouse game and governments are in a weaker position than ever to control this.
TPP: Were you pleased that the EU got involved in this whole affair?
EH: The EU stuck with some technical changes but I don’t think that that solves the overall problem that everybody is worried about. I think the EU was caught in a dilemma. There greatest power is when a country wants to enter the EU. Then they have great power to change things but once a country is in the EU there is not much they can do as they just don’t have the enforcement mechanisms. When you have states like Italy with clearly a very weak watchdog media I can see why a supporter of this media law would say look at some of the provisions elsewhere. Research will be done about how this laws rolls out and that is needed because there is hyperbole of both sides right now.
What made Hungary stand out was that no country had put all the restrictive laws in one package. The early drafts were amazing because they were purporting to regulate all kinds of internet activity including laws that internet news must be ‘’balanced’’ which was just a lack of reality. It showed a mentality and an impulse that the media needs restrictions and punishment rather than a democratic impulse. It did not provide any progressive proposals on how to manage hate speech and there was no balancing language from the government saying we want to have effective journalistic schools that are effective and citizen education.
TPP: Were you surprised by the reaction?
EH: I think the Hungarian government had no idea they were stirring such a hornets’ nest. They did not anticipate such a reaction but they took on the media! It is picking a fight with the very sector that is most visible and vocal so you are going to get international attention. It kind of blew up in an unexpected way and some elements may have been demonized in ways that the drafters never intended to implement.
Comments are closed.