News May 2004: IFJ Congress, AthensMay 2004, IFJ Congress, AthensIFJ Congress, Debate and Dialogue at the IFJ Congress Quality, Independence and Public Service Values Panel four: 11.00 May 27th Keynote Speaker: Jean Réveillon, General Secretary, European Broadcasting Union. Panel: Gabriel Baglo, Senegal, Africa Regional Office, Martine Simonis, AGJPB, Belgium, Guillaume Chenevière, Director of Media and Society Foundation, Switzerland. Moderator: Arnold Amber, CBC Canada and Canadian Media Guild The crisis facing journalism has shifted from oppression by tyrannical governments to pressure in the new political and economic conditions. People have more access to more information than ever before. But is there quality and editorial independence in the age of advertorials? What is the future of public service values in a global media system dominated by commercial imperatives and attacks on authors’ rights? How do journalists protect standards and ethics against threats to protection of sources? What new mechanisms can be used to maintain quality? What are the regional perspectives and what is the future of the IFJ public broadcasting campaign? Jean Réveillon Jean Réveillon took up his position as Secretary General of the EBU on 1st February 2004. Prior to this, Jean Réveillon was Deputy Director-General and Director of broadcasting at France 3 as of December 1999. From 1992 to 1998, Jean Réveillon was Director of sport at France 2 and France 3. From 1990 to 1992, he was Director of France 3 Nord/Pas-de-Calais/Picardie. Between 1967 and 1990, he worked at the newspaper « La Voix du Nord », first as sports journalist, then Head of sports service, Editor-in-chief and finally Director of development Gabriel Baglo Gabriel Ayite Baglo, 43, is a journalist from Togo. He worked at public television and then at the newspaper « Crocodile » in Lomé. Between 1997 and 2000, Mr. Baglo was General Secretary of the Union of independent journalists of Togo (UJIT) and member of the Steering Committee of the Union of Journalists of West Africa (UJAO).
Martine Simonis Since March 1992, Martine Simonis is National Secretary of the Belgian journalists’ association, the Association Générale des Journalistes Professionnels de Belgique (AGJPB) and of the AJP (the francophone et German-speaking branch of the AGJPB). She is a member of the Belgian Broadcasting authority (Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel) and of the Conseil pour l’Education aux Médias (CEM). She is also a member of the IFJ Gender Council and of the Labour rights experts group. Guillaume Chenevière Director general of Télévision Suisse Romande, the French speaking television of Switzerland, until 2001, Guillaume Chenevière was born in Geneva in 1937. Successively a sociologist (European Centre for Culture), a journalist (Tribune de Genève), an executive in the automobile industry (Chrysler) and a theatre director (Théâtre de Carouge), he joined TSR in 1975 as head of Entertainment and Culture. He then became controller of programmes, and finally director general in 1992. During the Swiss national exhibition of 2002, he was responsible of all radio and TV programmes of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation. Moderator : Arnold Amber Arnold Amber is a broadcast journalist with a long experience at the Canadian public broadcaster CBC and in the field of public broadcasting in general. He is and a member of the IFJ Executive Committee and the Co-Chair of the IFJ Global Campaign « Public Broadcasting for All ». Journalism on the Move: Building There has never been a more important moment for journalists to identify with quality, with standards, and with sound ethical practices INTRODUCTION The current transformation of media and journalism around the world is, according to a recent report, an “epochal event, as momentous probably as the invention of the telegraph or television.” Journalism is on the move into a fast-paced and fragmented future in which the hallmarks of good journalism, context and thoughtfulness, are fading, both in both in print and broadcast media. Concern over the decline in media standards led the IFJ, in November 2002, to launch a quality campaign aimed at reinvigorating the mission of media and reflecting the anxiety of journalists over the pressure on the quality of their work in recent years. This paper looks at the background to this initiative, provides some examples of how editorial independence is threatened and identifies some priorities for further action. Reports carried out in Europe reveal that the employment profile of journalism has changed equally dramatically, with more than 50 per cent of journalists in some of the most developed media markets – Germany, for instance, now working to freelance, casual or short-term contract arrangements. Converging media technology, increased competition and media concentration are having an impact: there is internal pressure on editorial budgets and increasing use of freelance journalism as a proportion of editorial content in all forms of media; there is less investment in professional training, less investigative journalism and a reduction in scope of editorial coverage, particularly foreign affairs; and there is pressure to integrate advertising and commercial objectives into editorial work. The new is not all bad. The US report also reveals an expansion of the media advertising market, an explosion of new media outlets, and an upsurge in the circulation and audience reach of minority media (Spanish language newspaper circulation in the US has quadrupled in just 13 years). But the overwhelming evidence from all sides is that journalism is in the midst of turbulent restructuring in which quality news and information is available, perhaps more than ever, but so is the trivial, the trite, the one-sided and the false. There has never been a more important moment for journalists to identify with quality, with standards and with sound ethical practice. At the same time, the first years of the 21st Century have seen renewed pressure from outside journalism. The so-called “war on terror” has led to the introduction of new rules in many countries of the world that chip away at freedom of expression and other civil liberties. Journalists feel theses pressures acutely. The rush to legislate and, particularly, the adoption of rules in the US and Europe that monitor the Internet and electronic communications, and increase surveillance of citizens, will inevitably have consequences for journalism. In many countries of the world, such as Zimbabwe, Russia, Ukraine and China, there is already undue pressure from politicians and state authorities, exercised either directly or indirectly. But while there needs to be a more robust and vigorous debate about how independent journalism survives the process of globalisation of the media economy and a resurgence of political authority over fundamental liberties, media do not play their role very well. The poor performance of many media outlets undermines the traditional watchdog role of media and weakens the credibility of journalism. But what role do ethics play in journalism today? The discussion about ethics centres on how the purposes and practices of journalism serve the public right to free expression and follows two traditional notions about how journalism should function in a democracy. One is the laissez-faire position of free-market media who keep to the doctrine that all must keep their hands off the press. Some libertarians resist any form of regulation – rejecting press cards, for instance, or registration of journalists, as forms of licencing that may permit governmental or other external “control” of journalism. Many argue that enforcement of professional codes of conduct or any state engagement in media – even public broadcasting – leads to unacceptable pressure and compromises the mission and values of independent journalism. On the other hand, there are those who favour a degree of social responsibility, urging that the media, government and the public must actively promote free expression through a free and responsible press, with respect for a codified set of standards. Most trade unions and associations of journalists do strive for social responsibility in journalism, believing that the wider mission of media – to provide the community, in all its complex forms, with a truthful and relevant account of current events, does call for the promotion of responsibility. However, There is much discussion about how this is done, not least of which concerns the limits to be set on what government can and cannot do. Over the years these ideas have been debated vigorously in the public policy arena, most notably during the late 20th Century when arguments over a New World Information and Communication Order split the United Nations. Twenty years on, with globalisation and corporate social responsibility high on the international agenda, the debate is back, but in a very different world of converging information systems, new online services that owe no allegiance to traditional values in media, muscular and intrusive political attitudes to the press, and a vigorous and volatile media market. For today’s journalists, the social environment in which they work – their employment status, the control they have over their intellectual property, their right to freely join an association or union, and their degree of editorial independence – defines the territory of responsible journalism. This has a direct impact on the quality of media. Arguments that freelance rights or copyright matters or wage issues are solely “labour issues” or “trade union matters” which are not relevant to the moral and philosophical debate about press responsibility, ethics and quality of media simply do not apply in the modern media world. Media organisations are increasingly international in nature. They are driven by the political and economic imperatives of a global market place in which the impulse to increase circulation or audience and to satisfy the needs of advertisers and sponsors is ever stronger. The resulting pressure on the quality of journalism is evident to all. There is a built-in pressure on journalists to reach for the attention-getting story, for sensationalism. Newsroom budgets around the world have been slashed, investment in journalism training has fallen and, in the age of rolling 24-hour news coverage, there is less time and less money for investigative journalism and effective background research. Pictures offend good taste, stories intrude upon privacy, and questionable methods are used to get information. Public confidence in the media’s traditional role as a guardian of the people’s right to know suffers because of “advertorials” that blur the division between marketing and journalism or because of “reality television” that elevates the trivial or because of “self-censorship,” when journalists fail to tackle hard stories or ask tough questions of their political leaders, as was the case in the United States in the run-up to the war in Iraq in 2003. Although it must be said that when they do ask the hard questions – as in the case of the controversial battle between the BBC and the British government over the reporting of the decision to go to war in Iraq – journalists are punished for their efforts. Media quality is not only for journalists to consider, but concerns everyone who works in the industry and is of direct interest to other groups in civil society. In the same way that the public broadcasting campaign seeks to embrace a wider audience, it will be important to ensure that the work focusing on quality should be taken beyond the territory of media into society at large. QUALITY ISSUE: UNION RIGHTS AND WORKING CONDITIONS The question of insecure employment and protection of the rights of freelances dominates the trade union agenda these days. There is no doubt that poor working conditions and the hostility faced by unions trying to organise in the newsroom are obstacles to creating the sort of confident, professional workforce able to push back against the pressures, internally and externally, which undermine quality journalism. Authors’ rights, the right to be included in the editing process, the establishment of internal structures for dialogue on standards, the promotion of and availability of training opportunities to all staff (including freelances), anti-discrimination policies, recruitment strategies, the right to free bargaining and union representation are some of the benchmarks that define the social and professional space needed by journalists. The modern newsroom is multi-media and traditional divisions are already a memory in most parts of the world. Journalists working on online editions and media web sites are an integral part of the media structure. There is a proliferation of new outlets for information, but whatever the mode of dissemination the obligation to respect standards of editorial independence (respect for codes of conduct, freedom to act according to conscience) in the provision of information remains a core element of journalism. Whether or not this should be the subject of agreements between unions and employers is a matter of debate given recent events in the United States where media employers have tried to turn the tide of public protest over quality in media against individual journalists. The importance of training cannot be underestimated. The need for mid-career training opportunities is well established as is the need for targeted awareness-raising on key questions – human rights reporting, tolerance and conflict issues, stereotyping, etc. Such training opportunities should be available to all staff, including freelance. QUALITY ISSUE: MEDIA PLURALISM AND DIVERSITY Quality means well-informed and empowered citizens, but the market makes it harder for news to be presented in a way that makes it useful to them. Despite emphatic statements from international organisations that media products are not like other economic products because they have a social, cultural and democratic value, the treatment of news and information as a commodity continues to override or interfere with the duty of journalists to inform their audience. A lot of the problem can be blamed on competition and heavy concentration within the industry. While most large countries jealously guard their national media treasures from undue concentration, many small countries – particularly in the transitional states of Europe – have seen their major newspapers and private electronic media bought up by a handful of major foreign media companies. The failure of European legislators to confront this challenge raises a serious question about the power of the modern corporate media lobby and political will. More than ten years ago the European Commission promised action in this field, but nothing has happened. Proposals to act were blocked by national governments after ferocious lobbying by media organisations and the situation is getting worse. This question of how concentration affects quality has been taken up vigorously in Canada where IFJ affiliates are using the issue to challenge the power of CanWest – a major player in the country’s media – that is squeezing editorial budgets and cutting back on regional editorial independence. In the United States the story is the same. Opponents of concentration point out that media giants Viacom and Clear Channel Communications, the country’s largest radio network with more than 1,250 stations, have been fined for indecent radio broadcasts much more than other networks. Since 1999, Clear Channel, which owns 11 per cent of America’s 11,000 commercial stations, has received around 52 percent of the fines imposed by regulators. Viacom's 180 Infinity stations, about 2 percent of all stations, have received 28 percent of the fines; all other stations account for the remaining 20 percent. In Europe, too, media concentration has undermined quality and independence of media. In Italy, the closeness of media with political power structures has reached its ultimate stage. The details are available in the report of the IFJ mission to Italy in January 2004. Remarkably, there has been no serious condemnation from political organisations like the Council of Europe or the European Union or from media professional associations, apart from the IFJ and the EFJ. One organisation that has spoken out is the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which has been criticised by the IFJ for its lack of concern for union rights. QUALITY ISSUE: ETHICS AND SELF-REGULATION Most media people remain convinced that self-regulation is key to the supervision of ethical conduct, even if it lacks the legal authority and hard edge of enforcement that comes with a legal code. Journalists’ groups argue that what journalists’ need, rather than blunt instruments of control, are better conditions in which to make their daily ethical judgements. This is best given by improving the social and professional environment in which they work. This can and should be done without interfering in the activity of journalism itself. But can we rely on journalists themselves and media organisations to set editorial standards and to create credible structures to protect the interests of citizens and consumers? It’s a tough question that needs to be answered by journalists, as there is growing pressure in the face of declining standards for stronger forms of regulation. New initiatives – codes of good practice, the introduction of readers’ editors and readers’ panels – are useful but there is no substitute for empowering journalists through editorial independence to confront internal as well as external pressures on their work. In the age of the Internet, Press Councils need to redefine their role in order to command the respect of both journalists and of citizens. The problem is that often they do not. But voluntary methods will never be as efficient, or as ruthless, as the alternative -- centralized, corporatist control backed up by the courts. We are against laws to regulate ethics, but there is a lively debate over co-regulation that permits self-regulation backed up by legal sanctions and this is something that the IFJ should discuss. The debate needs to be taken up by journalists themselves. Journalistic ethics boil down to three simple principles – respect for the truth, the need to be independent and the need to be aware of the consequences of what we publish. We need more professional solidarity and we need professional space in which to work so that we can resolve our ethical dilemmas ourselves. The clause of conscience is an important right in this area. There is a major problem with the mix of so-called entertainment media and news media. Popular journalism or tabloid journalism should not be dismissed as outside the parameters of professionalism merely because it has extensive entertainment coverage. One major challenge for a quality campaign is that journalism is divided: on the one hand editors and publishers are foolishly complacent. Their failure to confront public concerns over standards and actions that reinforce the image of commercial interest before quality only accelerates the cycle of decline. On the other hand too often journalists are divided themselves or lack the confidence to confront the internal threats to the profession. The challenge we face is to encourage unions towards professional solidarity and more direct action to defend standards. As some of the examples in the second part of this paper illustrate, there are many unions and journalists ready to take the fight to those who are running down the industry. QUALITY ISSUE: PROTECTION OF SOURCES AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION Journalism is only ever as good as the sources of information they have. That is why policies of open government, access to official information and freedom of information rights are fundamental to democratic society. Journalists, and citizens at large, need to have access to the information and policymakers that shape political life. Without this access, even basic information about the democratic process becomes distorted by rumor, speculation and political spin. At the same time, everyone wants to know who journalists are talking to -- the police, governments, corporations, and special interest groups. But journalists rely upon their sources and without respect for the right of confidentiality, these sources will disappear and the public scrutiny of the rich and powerful in society will suffer dramatically. In recent years pressures on journalists to reveal sources have increased, even though there have been landmark decisions to recognise the journalist’s right to confidentiality. In Europe, the European Court of Human Rights struck a major blow for journalists’ rights in the Goodwin case (1996), which established that protection of sources is an “integral part of freedom of expression” as set out in Article 10. But there are new problems: a) Demands for media to hand over film or pictures as evidence of serious crimes; b) Subpoenas on reporters to give testimony of what they have seen while in the exercise of journalism; c) Telephone tapping and surveillance of E-mail communications by police and security services. The controversies over giving evidence to The Hague War Crimes tribunal recently will grow, as the International Criminal Court becomes an established part of the international legal landscape. What does this mean for the status of journalists as independent neutral observers? And will it have the effect of further diminishing quality and standards? Recent battles over protection of sources in Belgium, Canada, United States, Great Britain, and Denmark and many other countries suggest that this core ethical standard will be increasingly tested. The first line of defence will continue to be the solidarity of journalists themselves. CONCLUSION: THE FRAMEWORK FOR A CAMPAIGN Despite all the problems, freedom of media has improved, but it’s not because traditional media have got better, but rather that new communication technologies see the introduction of new sources and dialogues, ideas and opinions that have been, until recently, outside the vision of traditional media. But this new landscape brings challenges to media old and new. In a world that wants news instantly and has dozens of places to look for it, public confidence in media may have fallen to dangerous levels, but people have not abandoned as futile the search for reliable, accurate reporting. Nevertheless, they are uneasy about the cash-driven imperatives that shape the news agenda and many have lost trust in the way media operate. The reality is that the more people go in their own direction and get the news in an unfiltered, and probably unreliable form, the more we need to reassert the traditional functions of quality journalism. Media consumers are, in fact, more directly engaged in the press freedom process than ever before. There are more on-line debates. Discussion fora on specialist topics or major news items are commonplace. E-mail messages from far beyond the newsroom percolate into mainstream news reporting in real time. It is an open question whether these changes are the beginnings of a genuine shift of power, but this process offers an opportunity to engage more groups directly in the debate over quality of information and journalism.
Appendix: The recommendations adopted by the Executive Committee of the IFJ in 2002 and submitted to the Athens Congress are the following: The Executive Committee agrees to establish a quality campaign covering the issues set out in this paper and based upon the following principles: 1. That falling quality is directly linked to poor employment and working conditions; Other actions: In early 2004 the IFJ asked its member unions for some examples of how reliability and quality of news and information is being compromised from within. Below are a few of the replies. They are very much samples of what, for many journalists, is part of the daily routine of their working life, the stifling pressure to perform according to political and commercial interests of owners and editors rather than respect for basic standards of their profession. At the end are the results of a recent national survey, carried out in Croatia.
Contents: United Kingdom: Journalists Condemn Boss Over Demand for ‘Race Hate’ News United States: Airport Disappears as Radio Sends Reporters Along Advertiser Alley United States: Media Giants Back “Advertorial Reporting” For Radio Marketing Deal Croatia: Boss Tells Journalists To Clean Toilets, Another Mocks Killing Of Serbs United States: NBC Was Ready to Axe News Documentary to Win Michael Jackson Deal Croatian Survey: Editorial Independence Exposes Weakness of “Independent” Media Canada: Angry Journalists Take On Media The collision of interests between independent journalism and powerful media corporations was dramatically exposed in Canada in 2001 when media conglomerate CanWest Global Communications Corporation tried to centralise its control of opinion journalism and then tried to gag reporters who objected over censorship. But journalists fought back and in a landmark arbitration settlement between the Montreal Gazette, the company's flagship title in Quebec, and the Montreal Newspaper Guild, a Local of TNG Canada/CWA, gag orders were lifted and the journalists’ right to defend their independence were reaffirmed. Jan Ravensbergen, president of the Montreal Guild, says the settlement, in February 2004 "reaffirms fundamental, bedrock principles and allows us to declare an end to more than two troubling years of newsroom chill." Subsequently, the company banned journalists in newspaper and television newsrooms across Canada from taking part in editorial protests at the Montreal Gazette and The Leader Post in Regina where four LeaderPost reporters were suspended for five days for talking to outside media and another six were given letters of reprimand after they withdrew their by-lines in protest over an incident of censorship at the newspaper. Management at the LeaderPost censored a story to tone down criticism of CanWest for pulling articles by some of its columnists who expressed views the company did not like. CanWest refused demands by The Newspaper Guild to withdraw the disciplinary action against the ten staff in Regina.
Greece: Strike Threats Win Reinstatement of Sacked In June 2003 the courts in Thessaloniki issued a remarkable ruling in favor of the IFJ-affiliated Editors Union of Macedonia and Thrace Daily Newspapers (ESIEMTH) in a landmark decision for Greek journalism. The case concerned a strike after journalist Charalambos Bikas, reporting from the Iraq conflict, was fired by the Makedonia newspaper in Thessaloniki because he protested over internal censorship by the newspaper’s manager, claiming that it was a breach of the code of ethics. Specifically, the court dismissed the complaint filed against the union by the publisher of Makedonia, by ruling on three issues: • That a strike called to reinstate an employee is an entrenched and legitimate right exercised for the collective good, Bikas served as the war correspondent of the paper, working in Baghdad during the Iraq war. He complained that many of his stories were changed by the newspaper director Lukas Katsonis altering the content and meaning of his reports. He and another correspondent, Marina Meidani, were so concerned at the way their stories were being treated they wrote a letter of complaint to their union complaining of censorship and made it public. As a result, Bikas, who returned ill from Iraq, was sacked at the end of April when he turned up for work after a few days off for illness. Meidani was told to withdraw the letter or face further action. The union threatened a strike and were taken to court by the employer who said the action was illegal, but the court strongly disagreed and found against the company and forced them to pay the union’s costs. United Kingdom: Journalists Condemn Newspaper Boss Who Demands ‘Race Hate’ News To Boost Circulation In January 2004 journalists at the Express group in London protested at the "confrontational racist hatred" in the paper's coverage of asylum seekers, which was being driven by the owner’s belief that these sensational stories were adding thousands to the newspaper’s daily circulation. The journalists, all members of the National Union of Journalists in Great Britain and Ireland, expressed their after the Express had splashed on asylum stories for six consecutive days. The journalists passed a resolution expressing "disapproval of the sustained campaign against asylum seekers…the media has an important role to play in a democratic society and should not distort or whip up confrontational racist hatred, in pursuit of increased circulation." But the day after the meeting, at proprietor Richard Desmond's insisted that the Express lead on a refugee story again. He claimed these stories had added 20,000 to the circulation. The union decided to complain about this interference to the Press Complaints Commission after a senior finance journalist at the group spoke out publicly against the editorial interference of Richard Desmond. City Correspondent David Hellier, who edits the Media Uncovered section and is a member of the Chapel Committee, said: "I'm sickened by the continual interference of the proprietor in allegedly objective reporting and above all in the inflammatory hate-stirring headlines on asylum seekers". Russia: A Catalogue of Owner Interference As The Russian Union of Journalists has over the past year been carrying out a survey of problems facing journalists in the newsroom under the title: Editorial independence: a myth or reality? The results of this monitoring so far portray a dismal picture of regular interference in the work of journalists by managements with little or no respect for the notion of editorial independence. 1. Fired for opposing censorship: In the Russian Federation Republic of Karelia, the editor of the daily newspaper Karelia, Alexandra Kuznetsova, was dismissed because she refused to comply with instructions from the newspaper’s owners -- the local government of Karelia -- to publish certain articles and not to publish reports critical of some officials. A representative of the owner, chief of Press service of the government, Alexander Meshkov constantly put pressure upon her, interfering directly into the newspaper editorial policy. A representative of the owner also demanded to have pages presented to him for reading before publication. The editor, supported by the union, wrote letters of protest over her case to the Head of the Republic of Karelia and the speakers of Legislative Assembly V. Shilnikov and N. Levin, but the paper’s owners won and she was fired. 2. Journalists Walk Out and Start Again: When the newspaper Novoe Delo (New Deal) in the town of Nizhni Novgorod, lost its founder and owner, editorial staff found themselves out of step with a new owner who demanded changes in the concept of the paper. The journalists quit and founded a new periodical publication, which the union reports has become quite a success. 3. Editor’s Job Saved After Journalists Protest: The editor-in-chief of the newspaper Omskoe Prikamie (in the Perm Region), A.P. Gusev, was removed from his job on May 12 last year under a pretext that his contract had expired. In fact, according to the relevant Media Law his dismissal was not allowed without the agreement of the editorial staff. The regional union of journalists intervened and set up a commission to investigate the case and launched a campaign with a blitz of letters and articles to the local press. Journalists protested strongly to the district administration. As a result, on September 17, 2003, a deal was reached in court and Gusev returned to his job. 4. Independence Cost Editor Her Job when Election Delivers New Owner: The problem of political ownership of the press was highlighted in the city of Belgorod in March 2002, when during a local election campaign the regional press service chief Lyudmila Sidorova provided the local press with “letters of citizens” in support of “ loyal candidates”. The editor-in-chief of one newspaper, Valentina Limokina, and some of her colleagues challenged the move and refused to publish the “letters,” and argued protection under the media law. However, after the election, the winner, who as part of the local administration was now owner of the newspaper, promptly forced the editor and her dissident colleagues to resign. 5. The Politics of Ownership Leads to a Newsroom Showdown: in the Russian Federation Republic of Komi in December 2003 a vigorous campaign was needed to save another editor who was threatened with the sack for publishing articles by Yuri Spiridonov a political rival of the owner. Tatiana Borisevich, editor of the newspaper Republica, had offended the owner Vladimir Torlopov – who is President of the Komi Republic – by carrying pieces by a candidate for a post of deputy of the State Duma who they did not support. Torpolov said he needed a “predictable editor”. Only the backing of the editorial staff saved the editor. The journalists appealed to the other co-owner of the paper for help and wrote reports about the case in other papers. They also enlisted the support of the journalists’ union and this collective action was enough to avert the dismissal. 6. Radio Journalists Sacked for Critical Journalism: Journalists in the Altai region tread carefully with their reports because interference in the newsroom is a regular practice there. As a rule, publication of reports criticising the local authorities are used as grounds for persecution of journalists and the union reports that last year two journalists of the local radio station Europe plus were dismissed because they offended local politicians. 7. Strike Story With the Wrong Angle Costs a Job: State broadcasters and state press in the Kemerov region suffer from much interference, says the Russian Union. One journalist covering a teachers’ strike was forced out for a news item that reported the event from a perspective that the owners found unfavourable. Kemerov journalists are not used to defend themselves against censorship. Practically all of them understand well what they can and cannot write about. 8. Ownership Change Leaves Journalists High and Dry: A sudden sale of media in the city of Novorossisk, during parliamentary elections last year, put journalists under intolerable pressure. Sergei Shishkarev sold out his holdings, including newspapers Novorossik Republic and Seven Days of Kuban and a television station to new owners – the Administration of Krasnodar, who put pressure on journalists to toe their political line. Salaries were not paid or were reduced and newsroom staffing levels were cut. More details of these cases and others in Russia are available from Alexander Kopeika, secretary at the Russian Union of Journalists at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . United States: Chicago Airport Off the Map as Radio The company is notorious for its “voice tracking”, the practice of creating brief, computer-assisted voice segments that attempt to fool the listener into thinking that a programme is locally produced, when in fact the same content is being broadcast to upwards of 100 stations nationwide from a central site. So you have one overworked 'radio personality' recording the phrases, "Hello Topeka!" "Hi Springfield!" "How you feeling Oakland?" all day long… Growing anger over the company’s tactics led in 2002 to the coordination of actions against its policies and nationally recognized organizations such as FAIR, the Democratic Media Legal Project, Media Alliance, and Prometheus Radio Project launched a campaign to mobilize public pressure around media policy issues and Clear Channel in particular. Croatia: Boss Orders Journalists To Clean Toilets, In April 2001 the boss at a local station TV Moslavina in Kutina forced all employees, journalists included, to clean the premises, including the toilet, or face pay cuts. Later that year young journalist Zdravka Sever, newly-elected shop steward of the Trade Union of Croatian Journalists objected and was promptly victimised. She was sent to a district office 50 km distant and a campaign of intimidation began against journalists who wanted to stick to journalism. The case is still being fought in the courts. Meanwhile, the owner continues to put pressure on the journalists’ code of conduct. News is often treated like advertising and journalists are expected to collect money from persons presented in the news program. No cash, no appearance is the rule. In the late 1990s Kutina hosted World Fishing Championship in Still Waters, but the local TV station did not carry any news coverage, because the organizers would not pay up. In another case, Marija Molnar, journalist and music editor at Croatian Radio Vukovar in Vukovar, a town near the Serbian border which was totally destroyed by Serb forces during the Balkan war of the 1990s, was sacked just days after refusing an editorial order. She was told by the editor in April 1999 – on a day NATO bombed Belgrade with a number of casualties – to broadcast a mocking song from a famous Serb movie Who Is Singing Over There entitled Bombs Will Be Falling on Belgrade. She refused and a few days later was sacked for "financial reasons". She sued the company for illegal dismissal and her case, fully supported by the union, is finally coming to a conclusions. United States: Media Giants Linked to “Advertorial United States: NBC Was Ready to Axe News A revealing survey on editorial independence in September 2003 has been completed in Croatia that sparked enormous controversy, itself evidence of sensitivity over journalists’ rights in one of Europe’s new democracies. A total of 1,200 questionnaires with 28 questions were sent to 49 major media by the journalists’ trade union, the TUCJ. The union found that in some media people dared not distribute polling papers. After three months of polling, 234 answers were collected. Polling was anonymous and names of the media were not mentioned in the questionnaires but controversy raged early in 2004 over the poll and leaked information about criticism of some media. The daily paper Slobodna Dalmacija from Split published an article about it on January 16, 2003 with some internal data concerning results per media, which leaked unintentionally. Especially fierce attacks came from media, which are well-recognised internationally as independent titles – Globus weekly and Feral Tribune and Radio 101 – but where the managements oppose union organisation and do not have collective agreements. These attacks on the union reveal intolerance over the capacity for professional reflection on quality issues. In the end the Croatian union has not disclosed any names of participants in the polling, although some editors did get the names of some journalists from union representatives who were put under pressure to disclose the names. The main results of the survey reveal that: • Croatian journalists are split over how they see their profession. Some 55 per cent say yes they have full freedom while 45 per cent say they do not. In general, journalists feel free. Some 90 per cent say they have a great deal of freedom or an “average” amount of freedom. • Where problems do exist it is editing, where headlines, suppression of material and cuts that change the meaning of texts are mostly to blame for undermining quality and in almost half these cases the journalists are never or only occasionally consulted by editors. • Despite the anger that this survey generated among some editors, there is generally newsroom confidence in the role of editors. Almost 80 per cent of respondents said the competence of the editor was a vital factor in ensuring quality and independence. • While journalists do have some influence on editorial policy control rests squarely with the editor and 31 per cent of journalists responded that at some time the editor had overruled their opinion. More than 80 per cent reported that there was some influence from owners in their work. When it comes to who most influences the editor, some 45 per cent say it is the owner, while politicians, usually through political parties and government at 27 per cent exercise twice as much influence as advertisers (almost 14 per cent). • Many of the journalists polled said they look to the editor or their union to protect their rights, although a telling 30 per cent say they look to no one. The majority, almost 70 per cent, said that they had no internal editorial statute to protect them. • Most journalists are covered by collective agreements, which also protects professional rights.
|
©Copyright 2003-2012
The Media and Society Foundation | PO Box 28, 1232 Confignon/Geneva, Switzerland
Phone/Fax: +41 (0)22 757 15 34 | E-mail: info@media-society.org