Serbia: Media independence is an exception rather than the…

Serbia: Media independence is an exception rather than the rule

Increasing political and financial pressure threatens the independence and editorial autonomy of many media outlets in Serbia. We interviewed Irina Milutinović, Senior Research Associate at the Institute of European Studies in Belgrade and co-author of the Country Report on Serbia of the Media Pluralism Monitor 2023.

Interview conducted by OBCT and originally published here.

According to the Serbia Media Pluralism Monitor 2023, editorial independence is one of the areas in which Serbia registers high risks. What are the main threats to editorial autonomy in the country?

Journalists suffer various forms of pressure, mostly of a political and financial nature. Independent editors in Serbia are an exception, rather than the rule. They are usually appointed by their media owners, who choose from among their loyal so that they can control journalists’ work from the inside through soft censorship.

Some significant forms of pressure come from SLAPPs as well as from smear campaigns, often initiated by state authorities and public officials and mostly targeting investigative and critical journalists as enemies of the country.

Political pressure is also applied through financial blackmail: state advertising and direct state subsidies are often allocated through politically biased and non-transparent mechanisms. Pro-government media are the biggest beneficiaries of this type of support, including tabloid media, although they often disregard the journalistic ethical code.

Finally, most TV and radio stations, as well as print media outlets, belong to companies that are under direct or indirect control of subjects close to the ruling party.

What impact do these challenges have on journalists and the quality of their work?

First, I want to point out that the Serbian media market is highly concentrated and polarised, which means that pro-government media are larger, more numerous, and more influential, while more critical ones have smaller coverage and proportionally weaker public influence. Pro-government media tend to instrumentalise issues of public interest to foster a we vs them dialectic, where “us” are usually described as patriots, while “them” as traitors.

Another important feature of the media landscape is poor content pluralism, as most outlets tend to adopt and support the government’s political agenda without any critical approach. So critical voices remain marginalised and lose their capacity to contribute to democratic processes: there is zero debate and no bottom-up transfer of their proposals on government’s decisions.

Does this situation impact citizens’ trust in the sector?

In general, citizens show low levels of trust in the media. Media literacy in Serbia is not good. Most citizens who live in marginalised communities are under a very strong influence of pro-government media. The public service broadcaster RTS has the biggest influence and is perceived as the most trustworthy media in the country.

What we notice is an increase in the number of people getting news online. In this regard, it is important to note that the digital space in Serbia is characterised by aggressive communication, threats, and insults, and the number of online attacks on journalists has increased, especially through social networks.

In recent years new Internet portals were opened without being properly registered: most of them do not publish an impressum so we don’t know who finances and owns them. A big problem is that these portals act as main spreaders of disinformation and fake news.

On the other hand, some digital media have become the real drivers of alternative voices. These portals usually deal with investigative and analytical journalism, offer diversified views, and give space to voices and topics that we cannot find in the mainstream media, such as corruption and criminal affairs, local community problems, human rights, ecology, etc. They are less exposed to political interference, so they have a bigger potential to function as platforms for democratic debate.

As part of the EU integration process, Serbia has to align with the EU set of norms, including those on media freedom. How would you assess the country’s legal framework regarding the media sector?

In October of last year, the National Assembly of Serbia introduced two new media laws: the Law on Public Information and Media and the Law on Electronic Media, whose provisions aim at implementing the objectives of the Media Strategy adopted in 2020.

Some positive developments must be noted. For example, the Law on Public Information and Media regulates in more detail the process of media co-financing and state aid. When it comes to the Law on Electronic Media, it introduces some provisions that potentially strengthen the independence of the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM) and others that prescribe a more transparent process for the allocation of public funds.

However, not all the provisions of the new laws are harmonised with the Media Strategy and the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive.

Regarding editorial independence, for example, what is particularly worrisome is the return of the state to media ownership. According to the Law on Public Information and Media, state-owned companies can fund or own media outlets, a practice that is prohibited by the Media Strategy itself, which on the contrary recognises that the removal of every form of state participation in media ownership is a key factor for the improvement of media freedom in the country.

Do you think that the process of EU integration has an impact on the protection of press and media freedom in the country?

It is hard to say. It is true that the government occasionally undertakes some regulatory reforms as part of the EU accession process. But in practice, the adopted regulations are gradually ignored, so the ruling party manages to find ways to maintain and even increase their control over almost the entire media landscape.

Overall, I think the situation today is no better than, for example, ten years ago when the negotiation process formally began. I think the EU should honestly recognise that the Serbian government has reached the limits of its willingness to move Serbia forward along the path to EU membership.

Even if we don’t take into account Kosovo or the issue of sanctions on Russia, the rule of law and media freedom in Serbia are considered problematic areas that have blocked the opening of new negotiating clusters.

The institutional set-up has been further captured by the main governing party and the President himself. In this situation, the recognition that the current model is unsustainable if Serbia wants to move closer to EU membership seems to be the first step.

With this in mind, the EU should develop stronger relations with the main opposition parties in Serbia, sending a signal to Serbian citizens that there are other important political actors and partners in Serbia and that the ruling elite cannot claim that it is keeping Serbia on the EU membership path.

This interview was published by OBCT as part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) and within ATLIB – Transnational Advocacy for Freedom of Information in the Western Balkans, a project co-funded by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation. All opinions expressed represent the views of their author and not those of the co-funding institutions.

Library

The EU must do more to prioritise protecting media…

The EU must do more to prioritise protecting media freedom and human rights in Turkey

The undersigned media freedom, human rights and journalists’ groups call on the new European Commission and the new European Parliament to strengthen their commitment to protecting journalists’ rights and freedom of expression in their relations with Türkiye.

Turkish translation available here.

Relations between the European Union and Türkiye have been at an impasse for several years with Türkiye occupying the status of an applicant country in a process that has long since stalled. The EU institutions need to find a way to reinvigorate relations and ensure that the protection of human rights is front and centre of those relations.

Over the past two decades, Türkiye’s government has captured over 90% of the media landscape, including direct control over the country’s public media and indirect control over much of the mainstream media through party-aligned oligarchs. It has abused the power of state advertising to create compliant journalism and weaponized the broadcast regulator, RTÜK, to routinely target broadcasters with financial penalties for critical news reporting.

The capture of mainstream media has been backed by a mass crackdown on independent media, including the arrests of hundreds and prosecutions of thousands of journalists in the years since the failed coup of 2016. While the number of journalists behind bars has fallen dramatically, hundreds continue to face prosecution leading to ever growing levels of self-censorship. During 2023, at least 207 journalists faced trial and at least 22 of them were sentenced to prison or fined with 22 convictions.

Journalists face assaults, trolling and smear campaigns from government-aligned media. The police routinely arrest journalists at demonstrations and prevent them from reporting. According to the Mapping Media Freedom database, which documents media freedom violations across EU Member States and candidate countries, since July 2023, 168 alerts have been located in Türkiye.

The 2022 Disinformation Law has seen at least 30 legal actions taken against journalists in 2023 and pressured online platforms to readily self-censor content that the government deems to be disinformation or a threat to national security. Algorithmic bias already channels over 80% of news searchers on Google to pro-government media forcing independent media to exist in a restricted news bubble.

This hostile economic and judicial environment muzzles journalism and denies the public access to a plurality of media sources.

Meanwhile Turkish journalists face an increasingly restrictive process for obtaining visas to EU Member States with delays and some journalists being simply refused. This trend undermines the ability of Türkiye’s journalists to build and sustain links to their peers abroad.

During a high-level delegation visit to Brussels in June 2024, invited by the outgoing EU Ambassador to Türkiye, an experienced journalist was refused a visa by the Belgian Embassy, despite having an invitation from the European Commission. This and other examples of arbitrary visa denials creates another barrier to Turkish journalists’ reporting. EU Member States should immediately act to ease the process for journalists from Türkiye to obtain visas for professional purposes.

We urge European governments and policy makers to ensure media freedoms and fundamental rights are placed at the heart of future relations with Türkiye, and call for them to:

Facilitate the procedure for Turkish journalists to obtain Schengen visas;
Provide support, including direct financial grants, to media organisations in Türkiye;
React strongly to incidents of attacks on journalists and take concrete measures to support journalists, including emergency support;
Develop a clear, comprehensive and consistent relationship with Türkiye’s authorities in order to facilitate the review of policies and the repeal of legislation that is not compliant with international and European standards on the freedom of expression.

Signed by:

International Press Institute (IPI)
ARTICLE 19
Articolo 21
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
Danish PEN
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
IFEX
Index on Censorship
Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA)
Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa [OBCT]
PEN International
PEN Norway
Platform for Independent Journalism (P24)
Progressive Journalists Association (ÇGD)
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
Swedish PEN
The Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project (TLSP)

Avrupa Birliği (AB), Türkiye’de medya özgürlüğü ve insan haklarının korunmasını önceliklendirme yönünde daha fazlasını yapmalıdır

Aşağıda imzası bulunan medya özgürlüğü, insan hakları ve gazetecilik meslek kuruluşları; AB seçimlerinin ardından Avrupa Komisyonu ve Avrupa Parlamentosu’nu, Türkiye ile ilişkilerinde gazetecilerin haklarını ve ifade özgürlüğünü koruma taahhüdünü güçlendirmeye çağırmaktadır.

AB-Türkiye ilişkileri, Türkiye’nin uzun süredir aday üye ülke statüsünde olması nedeniyle son yıllarda çıkmaza girmiştir. AB kurumlarının, Türkiye ile ilişkilerini canlandırması ve bu süreçte insan haklarının korunmasının merkezi bir rol oynaması gerekmektedir.

Son 20 yılda, Türkiye hükümeti ulusal medyanın %90’ından fazlasını ele geçirmiştir. Bu, ülkedeki kamu medyasını doğrudan kontrol etmenin yanı sıra hükümete yakın iş insanları aracılığıyla ana akım medyanın büyük bir bölümünü dolaylı olarak kontrol etmeyi de içermektedir. Bu durum, resmi ilan ve reklamların kötüye kullanılması yoluyla itaatkâr tipte bir habercilik ortaya çıkarmış, radyo ve televizyon faaliyetlerini düzenleme ve denetlemeyle yükümlü RTÜK’ü araçsallaştırarak eleştirel haberleri rutin olarak hedef almıştır.

Ana akım medyanın ele geçirilmesi, bağımsız medyaya yönelik geniş çaplı bir baskı ile de desteklenmiştir. 2016’daki başarısız darbe girişiminden bu yana yüzlerce gazetecinin tutuklanması ve binlercesinin yargılanması buna dahildir. Hapisteki gazeteci sayısı önemli ölçüde azalmıştır, ancak yüzlerce gazeteci hâlâ yargılanmakta ve bu da gazeteciler arasında otosansürün artmasına yol açmaktadır. 2023 yılı boyunca, en az 207 gazeteci yargılanmış, en az 22’si hapse atılmış veya para cezasına çarptırılmıştır.

Gazeteciler hükümet yanlısı medya kuruluşlarının saldırıları, çevrimiçi troller ve karalama kampanyaları ile karşı karşıya kalmaktadır. Polis, toplumsal gösteriler sırasında gazetecileri sıklıkla göz altına almakta ve haber yapmalarını engellemektedir. AB Üye Devletler ve aday ülkeler düzeyinde medya özgürlüğü ihlallerini belgeleyen Medya Özgürlüğü Acil Müdahale (MFRR) veri tabanına göre Temmuz 2023’ten bu yana Türkiye’de gazetecilere yönelik en az 168 hak ihlâli kaydedilmiştir.

2022’de yürürlüğe giren Dezenformasyon Yasası, 2023 yılında en az 30 gazeteci hakkında soruşturma başlatılmasına yol açmış ve çevrimiçi platformları, hükümetin dezenformasyon ya da ulusal güvenliğe yönelik tehdit olarak gördüğü içerikleri sansürlemeye itmiştir. Google algoritmik yanlılık nedeniyle haber arayanların %80’inden fazlasını hükümet yanlısı medyaya yönlendirerek bağımsız medyanın son derece sınırlı bir çerçevede sıkışıp kalmasına sebep olmaktadır.

Gazetecilere yönelik bu düşmanca ekonomik ve hukuki ortam, gazeteciliği susturmakta ve halkın çeşitlilik içeren medya kaynaklarına erişimini engellemektedir.

Bununla birlikte, Türkiye’den AB Üye Devletlerine vize başvurusunda bulunan gazeteciler giderek daha kısıtlayıcı bir süreçle karşı karşıya kalmaktadır. Vizelerdeki gecikmeler ve bazı gazetecilerin başvurularının doğrudan reddedilmesi, Türkiye’deki gazetecilerin yurt dışındaki meslektaşlarıyla bağlantı kurma ve geliştirme imkânlarını baltalamaktadır.

Haziran 2024’te, görev süresi tamamlanan AB Türkiye Delegasyonu Başkanı Büyükelçi tarafından Brüksel’e davet edilen üst düzey bir heyet ziyareti sırasında deneyimli bir gazeteciye, Avrupa Komisyonu’ndan davet almış olmasına rağmen Belçika Büyükelçiliği tarafından vize verilmemiştir. Bu ve bunun gibi örnekler, Türkiye’den gazetecilerin haber yapmalarının önünde bir engel daha oluşturmaktadır. AB Üye Devletleri, Türkiye’deki gazetecilerin mesleki amaçlar için vize alma sürecini kolaylaştırmak için derhal harekete geçmelidir.

Avrupa hükümetlerini ve politika yapıcıları, yeni AB Dönem Başkanlığı süresince Türkiye ile yürütülecek ilişkilerin merkezine medya özgürlükleri ve temel hakların alınmasını sağlamaya çağırıyor ve;

Gazetecilerin Schengen vizesi alma süreçlerini kolaylaştırmaları;
Türkiye’deki medya kuruluşlarına mali hibeler dahil olmak üzere destek sağlamaları;
Gazetecileri hedef alan saldırılara güçlü bir şekilde tepki vermeleri ve acil destek de dahil olmak üzere gazetecileri desteklemek için somut önlemler almaları;
Türkiye makamları ile açık, kapsamlı ve tutarlı bir ilişki geliştirerek, Türkiye’nin ifade özgürlüğü konusunda uluslararası ve Avrupa düzeyindeki standartlara uymayan yasa ve politikalarını gözden geçirmesini kolaylaştıracak adımlar atmaları taleplerinde bulunuyoruz.

İmzalayanlar

Uluslararası Basın Enstitüsü (IPI)

ARTICLE 19

Articolo 21

Avrupa Basın ve Medya Özgürlüğü Merkezi (ECPMF)

Avrupa Gazeteciler Federasyonu (EFJ)

Bağımsız Gazetecilik Platformu (P24)

Çağdaş Gazeteciler Derneği (ÇGD)

Danimarka PEN

Gazetecileri Koruma Komitesi (CPJ)

Güney Doğu Avrupa Medya Örgütü (SEEMO)

IFEX

İsveç PEN

Medya ve Hukuk Çalışmaları Derneği (MLSA)

Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa [OBCT]

PEN Norveç

Sansür Endeksi (Index on Censorship)

Sınır Tanımayan Gazeteciler (RSF)

Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi (TLSP)

Uluslararası PEN

This statement was coordinated by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and candidate countries.

Library

Kosovo: Dangerous attack by MP Dimal Basha on ECPMF’S…

Kosovo: MP Dimal Basha’s Attack on ECPMF’s Flutura Kusari Condemned by MFRR

The Media Freedom Rapid Response Partners (MFRR) strongly condemn Lëvizja Vetëvendosje MP Dimal Basha’s abusive speech against ECPMF Senior legal advisor Flutura Kusari during a speech in the Kosovo parliament. Kusari, found herself singled out in a personal attack aimed at silencing the prominent activist, and resulting in a wave of online abuse and sex-based insults.

On 27 June 2024, Kosovo’s Vetëvendosje MP Dimal Basha delivered a speech in Parliament, during the second reading of Kosovo’s draft media law (IMC). This draft bill has been criticized for not taking into account recommendations from the Council of Europe, the European Commission and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

On 26 June, Flutura Kusari together with Xhemajl Rexha, Chair of the Association of Journalists of Kosovo (AJK), called on Lëvizja Vetëvendosje to improve the draft law: they emphasized the need for greater transparency and proposed establishing a broad working group, including local and international experts as well as civil society representatives. On 27 June, both of them reiterated their concerns in a press conference, before the Parliamentary session. In response, Dimal has misused the parliamentary plenary session to attack only Kusari, instead of using his speaking time to discuss the draft law on IMC

Among his comments, Basha stated: “For example, we have Flutura Kusari who wants to dictate the entire Kosovo Parliament on how we should draft the law on IMC, whereas she is the same person who, in the name of freedom of expression, goes into the streets to protect Devolli (referring to her participation in the protest against shutting down of Klan Kosova (TV) owned by Devolli family). One cannot defend oligarchs in the name of media freedom, and nor can it extort this Republic.”

Xhemajl Rexha, Chair of the Board of the Kosovo Association of Journalists (AJK), condemned the politician’s verbal attack on Kusari: “We strongly denounce the vicious attack of MP Basha against our colleague and partner, Kusari. This is clearly done with the aim of silencing her, and is very troubling when it comes from those in high offices, responsible to ensure media freedoms and freedom of expression for all.”

“The accusations by MP Dimal Basha against Flutura Kusari – ECPMF’s Senior Legal Advisor – are not just an attack on her individually, but a dangerous affront to media freedom and civil society in Kosovo. This rhetoric seeks to silence critical voices and undermines the pluralistic media environment that is crucial for democracy,” said Andreas Lamm, Interim Managing Director of ECPMF.

Kosovo is currently experiencing a worrying decline in media freedom. It is increasingly common for government members to openly criticize journalists and their critics. When a leading politician attacks a woman journalist or activist it will be quickly followed by a surge of online slurs and sexist insults. Dimal Basha misused the parliamentary plenary to attack Flutura instead of responding to the criticisms about the law.

MFRR members urge the authorities to refrain from such attacks, which can only exacerbate the sharp rise in online threats against women journalists and activists.

We stand firm in solidarity with our colleague, as well as all activists and journalists who strive to advocate for media freedom in Kosovo. The ongoing debate over the country’s draft media law underscores the critical need for transparent and inclusive legislative processes, to ensure democratic integrity. As Kosovo is actively working on implementing the European Reform Agenda, which includes reforms in the rule of law, our coalition stresses that upholding press freedom standards is essential for making progress towards EU integration.

Signed by:

ARTICLE 19 Europe
The European Center for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
International Press Institute (IPI)
OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)

Library

Media Freedom Mission to Romania questions fairness of electoral…

Media Freedom Mission to Romania questions fairness of electoral coverage

Urgent reform of political funding for ‘press and propaganda’ needed to end media dependency on political parties

Members of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), after completing a mission to Bucharest, concluded that much of the media coverage of Romania’s electoral campaigns is seriously compromised by political capture and that media are failing to provide the fair and balanced political reporting necessary for the public to make informed electoral choices.

Romania also boasts some highly professional media outlets providing excellent political coverage. Those that do, either refuse political funds completely, or ensure that when they do accept them, the content is clearly marked and fully transparent.

The MFRR’s two-day mission to Romania, 17-18 June, was held just one week after the European and local elections had been held. With presidential elections due in September and parliamentary elections in December this year, the MFRR calls for an urgent reform of the system of party funding to remove political money from the media system.

Any political expenditure that does exist must be restricted to clearly marked political advertising, with full disclosure of the budgets spent by each political party for each media. The overall level of state subsidies used for ‘press and propaganda’ must also be reduced.

The provision of annual state funding to political parties which are then used to pay media for ‘press and propaganda’ content is, currently, the biggest instrument of political capture of the Romanian media. The huge income it provides for media distorts political reporting creating an unfair electoral playing field. The sums used have risen rapidly in recent years with approximately 24 million euros in 2023 and with this set to rise significantly in 2024.

The problem is exacerbated by a lack of transparency over which parties fund which media, how much they fund and for what media content. Political parties are required to report their expenditure to the Permanent Electoral Authority on a monthly basis. While the PEA issued more detailed reports during the 2024 local and European campaign periods, which makes more transparent how much is spent in which media by which party, outside of the official campaign none of this detail is made public.

The mission’s key findings

Political Influence and Media Coverage:

The pervasive influence of political party funds on media results in biassed coverage primarily in favour of the governing coalition.
The political funding creates a pliant media that fails to hold government to account and undermines public trust in media.
The lack of transparency over the distribution of state advertising funds controlled by elected officials, further exacerbates the capture of media, particularly at the regional and local level.
The lack of transparency over other sources of funding, business ties and other conflicts of interests between media and politicians also compromise the capacity of media to serve the public.

Vexatious SLAPP Lawsuits:

Romanian media are targeted with an alarming number of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) aimed at silencing investigative journalism and critical reporting. These lawsuits, often initiated by powerful political figures and business interests, rarely win in court, but instead succeed in intimidating and financially draining media outlets.

Safety:

Online harassment and threats directed at journalists – particularly women journalists – create a growing climate of hostility designed to silence journalists. The authorities must do more to address this problem and protect journalists, particularly from online trolling and smear campaigns.

For the full mission set of findings and recommendations, see annex below.

The mission called for the government to swiftly implement new Europe-wide rules designed to improve media freedom including the European Media Freedom Act, the Anti-SLAPP Directive and the Regulation on the Transparency of Political Advertising as well as the European Commission’s recommendations on the safety of journalists. The EMFA, in particular, introduces new rules on transparency of ownership, conflicts of interest and the receipt and distribution of state advertising to media.

The mission welcomed commitments by the Ministry of Justice and the General Prosecutor to support training programmes for judges, prosecutors and policemen on SLAPPs, protection of sources and the safety of journalists.

The mission welcomed the High Court’s decision to instruct the re-opening of the investigation into possible political interference in the investigation into the smear campaign against investigative journalist, Emilia Sercan. The mission also welcomed the General Prosecutor’s assurances that Sercan’s case will be overseen by a highly competent and fully independent prosecutor with the resources to resolve the case before the end of the statute of limitations.

The mission also called for closer co-operation between the broadcast regulator (CNA) and the Permanent Electoral Authority (PEA) in verifying the expenditure of political funds in media to ensure its use does not breach either the electoral or broadcast law.

Finally the mission called on the parliamentary committees for mass media to conduct a public inquiry into the role of political funds and its impact on media independence and electoral fairness.

The mission confirmed findings set out by MFRR partners in their April report, Media freedom in Romania Ahead of Super Election Year.

The mission held meetings with Iulian Bulai, Chair of the Parliamentary Committee for Culture, Arts and Mass Information Means of the Chamber of Deputies; Alex Florin Florența, General Prosecutor; Mihai Pașca, Secretary of State for the Ministry of Justice; the Romanian Institute for Human Rights (IRDO); Dan Santa, Director of International Relations at Radio Romania; Constantin Rada, General Director at the Permanent Electoral Authority; Valentin Alexandru Jucan, Vice President of the National Audiovisual Council (CNA) and Mircea Toma, member of CNA and Council of Europe focal point for the safety of Journalists in Romania; and Renate Weber, Ombudsperson. The mission further met with leading journalists and media freedom groups, in a debate hosted by the Centre for Independent Journalism.

The mission was led by the International Press Institute and included the Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT), European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, Free Press Unlimited and the Romanian media freedom organisation, ActiveWatch.

The MFRR is particularly thankful for the support of the Centre for Independent Journalism and of ActiveWatch in organizing the mission.

Annex

Key Findings

Media Capture and Electoral Coverage

Romanian elections are compromised by the political capture of mainstream media, primarily through the use of political party funds expenditure on ‘press and propaganda’.

The main political parties spent in 2023 over 24 million euros on press and propaganda funds and this figure is set to rise significantly in 2024.

While the election campaign rules provide for detailed reports of all political party expenditure, which were made more transparent by the Permanent Electoral Authority (PEA) during the June 2024 electoral campaigns, the detail of expenditure between campaigns is withheld.

There is considerable evidence, unveiled by investigative journalists, of political funds being illegitimately used to buy media coverage between election periods, in breach of the legislation on financing the activity of political parties and electoral campaigns and broadcast laws.

Public funds are being spent by political parties on media content which is not properly marked, making it often impossible for audiences to distinguish between journalistic and paid-for content.

- The lack of transparency over the distribution of state funds controlled by elected officials, means that this is also likely to further exacerbate the capture of media, particularly at the regional and local level.

There is no obligation on either political candidates, or media, to make public any conflicts of interest such as candidates ownership, or influence over media, further compromising the fairness of electoral campaigns.

This has resulted in a distortion of the electoral coverage as parts of the mainstream national and local media provide pliant coverage of the big political parties and hostile coverage of other political candidates.

While the problem is particularly acute during elections, political money has become embedded in the media system creating an unhealthy interdependency between the media and political parties throughout the political cycle.

The electoral and media regulators and political parties have a democratic duty to ensure full transparency over their use of public, and private, political funds spent on media.

There is an equal obligation on the media companies to declare all sums received from political sources and to clearly label the content that has been paid for.

The problem is further exacerbated by a public broadcaster which lacks the independence to be able to hold government to account and is in urgent need of reform.

Media Capture Recommendations

Romania must prioritise the fight against media capture including the following actions:

The parliamentary committees for mass media, should organise a public inquiry into the impact of political money on media independence and electoral fairness.
Closer co-operation between the broadcast regulator (CNA) and the Permanent Electoral Authority (PEA) in verifying the expenditure of political funds in media to ensure its use does not breach either the electoral or broadcast law. If necessary, the regulatory framework should be changed to guarantee the role of CNA in verifying the use of political funds.
The obligations of the European Media Freedom Act should be swiftly implemented, particularly those related to media capture including independence of public service media, transparency of ownership and conflicts of interest, regulatory independence, guarantees of media pluralism and fair distribution of state advertising.
The Regulation on Political Advertising should also be swiftly implemented to ensure fully transparent labelling of all political advertising in the media and online.

Legal Obstacles

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs)

Romanian media are targeted with an alarming number of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) aimed at silencing investigative journalism and critical reporting. These lawsuits, often initiated by powerful political figures and business interests, rarely win in court, but instead succeed in intimidating and financially draining media outlets.

Freedom of Information

The Freedom of Information law is frequently ignored by Romanian authorities forcing media to appeal through the courts which can take several years to complete. By the time it is resolved the information is often no longer useful.
The mission heard of cases where political parties prefer to pay the fine and damages issued by the courts rather than give up the information. At that point the courts declared the case to be resolved despite the ongoing breach of the law, as the public interest information had not been disclosed.

Protection of Sources

Courts and the police have pressured journalists to reveal their sources against the provisions and case law of Article 10 of the European Court of Human Rights.

Legal Obstacles: Recommendations

Journalists and media support groups must do more to document and raise awareness about the threats posed by SLAPPs to the media’s ability to hold the powerful to account.
The government has an opportunity to reduce the threat of SLAPPs by ensuring that the European Union’s Anti-Slapp Directive is fully transposed into law and that the measures are extended to include domestic SLAPP cases as well as cross-border cases.
The Freedom of Information law must be fully implemented with clear consequences for individuals or institutions that are found by courts to have deliberately withheld information in breach of the law.
The rules and procedures for authorising surveillance of journalists must be updated to come into line with Article 4 of the European Media Freedom Act and of the ECHR which provide extensive safeguards against abuse of surveillance to target journalists.
Training should be provided to prosecutors and judges on SLAPP cases and the protection of sources and the protections offered by the European Convention of Human Rights.

Safety and protection of journalists

Online harassment and threats directed at journalists – particularly women journalists – create a growing climate of hostility designed to silence journalists. The authorities must do more to address this problem and protect journalists, particularly from online trolling and smear campaigns.
The mission welcomed the High Court’s decision to instruct the re-opening of the investigation of possible political interference in the investigation into the smear campaign against investigative journalist, Emilia Sercan.

Recommendations on the safety and protection of journalists

The General Prosecutor should organise a regular dialogue with journalists on how to reduce crimes against journalists. This should include trainings with the police and prosecutors on how to protect journalists from growing online and offline threats.
The new Prosecutor to be appointed to Emilia Sercan’s case must be highly competent, fully independent and provided with the resources to resolve the case before the end of the statute of limitations.

Local Journalism

Local journalists have seen a steep decline in professional standards, independence and public trust due in most part to the financial dependence – of the majority of local media to state and political advertising funds, enabling local politicians to buy the silence and loyalty of media. Furthermore, local journalists are far more vulnerable to vexatious lawsuits, threats and intimidation where political elites are able to apply influence on the judiciary, police and business communities with comparative ease.

Recommendations Local Journalism

The local government advertising budgets must be depoliticised to end the political capture of local media and ensure the fair distribution of funds. The rules for distribution and transparency outlined in the EMFA should apply to all local governments regardless of size.

Action should be taken to ensure the professional development of journalists, the promotion of sustainable business models, and the expansion of community audiences that help guarantee their independence and integrity.

Signed by:

International Press Institute (IPI)
The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
The European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)
Free Press Unlimited (FPU)

Text updated on 27 June 2024

Library

Lithuania: Joint letter from mediafreedom organisations

Draft amendment to Lithuanian law on national radio and television threatens public broadcaster’s funding model

Today OBCT joins the International and European Federation of journalists (IFJ-EFJ) and other mediafreedom organisations in writing to the authorities in Lithuania, urging them to open consultation and discussion with LRT and ensure that any changes to the funding model will maintain guarantees that LRT is fully funded and able to fulfil its mandate.

25 June 2024

To:

Office of the President of the Republic of Lithuania, kanceliarija@prezidentas.lt

Ms Vikorija Čmilytė-Nielsen, Speaker of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, pirmininko.sekretoriatas@lrs.lt

Members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, via Ms Vaida Servetkienė, Director of Document Department, Acting Secretary General of the Seimas

Members of the Committee on Culture of the Seimas, via Ms Agnė Jonaitienė, Head of the Committee Burau

Members of the Committee on Budget and Finance of the Seimas, via Committee Bureau

Mr Mindaugas Lingė, Chair of the Committee on Budget and Finance

Ms Ieva Ulčickaitė, Chief Advisor to the President

Mr Frederikas Jansonas, Chief Advisor to the to the President on Communications

Subject: Draft amendment to Lithuanian law on national radio and television threatens public broadcaster’s funding model

The International and European Federation of journalists (IFJ-EFJ), together with the International Press Institute (IPI) are concerned about the draft amendment to the Lithuanian Law on National Radio and Television (LRT) submitted by Mindaugas Lingė, Member of Parliament, on 14 June 2002. The draft seriously threatens the public broadcaster’s funding model.

The current LRT law guarantees that its budget should never fall below its 2019 level. The proposed amendment seeks to abandon this crucial provision and replace it with a mechanism that would limit the growth of LRT’s budget.

The draft was submitted without prior consultation with the public broadcaster. As stated in Article 5(3) of the newly adopted European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), funding procedures should be based on “transparent and objective criteria laid down in advance”. The submission of such changes without informing and consulting the public broadcaster reinforces our concerns about the future of the broadcaster.

The proposed abolition of the minimum funding threshold undermines the long term sustainability of LRT, compromising its independence and reducing its ability to fulfil its mandate.

The amendment is being justified as necessary in order to redirect funds to increase Lithuania’s defence spending. Raising a defence budget must not come at the cost of undermining institutions essential for the preservation of Lithuania’s democracy, including public broadcasting.

As a public media service, LRT must be adequately funded to fulfil its mission, to evolve in line with rapid technological and social change and to ensure adequate preparedness for uninterrupted broadcasting in times of emergency. Moreover, the public service media’s role in combatting disinformation is also vital for the protection against information warfare.

We urge the authorities to engage in open consultation and discussion with LRT to ensure that any changes to the funding model will maintain guarantees that LRT is fully funded and able to fulfil its public service remit.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue. We remain at your disposal for any further information or assistance.

Signed by:

Ricardo Gutiérrez, General Secretary of the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)

Anthony Bellanger, General Secretary of the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)

Chiara Sighele, Programme Manager, Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)

Scott Griffen, Interim Executive Director, International Press Institute (IPI)

Andreas Lamm, Interim Managing Director, European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)

Library

Solidarity with the Slavko Ćuruvija Foundation in their quest…

Solidarity with the Slavko Ćuruvija Foundation in their quest for justice

Lawsuits undermine efforts to fight impunity in journalist’s murder

The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) coalition partners stand firm in solidarity with the Slavko Ćuruvija Foundation, which has unwaveringly campaigned against the continued impunity for the 1999 murder of Serbian journalist Slavko Ćuruvija. New legal action brought by two of the individuals acquitted of Ćuruvija’s murder now threatens to undermine the foundation’s campaign for justice.

For over a decade, the Foundation has sought justice for Ćuruvija, an esteemed editor and publisher who was shot in front of his home in Belgrade in 1999. Twenty years later, four former state security officers were sentenced to a combined 100 years in prison for the murder. A 2021 retrial confirmed the guilty verdicts. However, in February 2024, the Belgrade Court of Appeal reversed course, acquitting the men of the murder charges – much to the shock of human rights defenders in Serbia and internationally.

The acquittal means that no one has been convicted for Ćuruvija’s murder, perpetuating a culture of failed accountability for journalists’ murders in Serbia, where other prominent cases, such as those of Milan Pantić and Dada Vujasinović, remain unresolved.

In February, the Slavko Ćuruvija Foundation published a press release in which they vigorously expressed disagreement with the verdict. Two of the four acquitted officers, Milan Radonjić and Miroslav Kurak, have since sued the Foundation, requesting damages for “violation of honour and reputation”. This legal action threatens the foundation’s work to fight impunity for the killing of journalists in Serbia and to preserve the legacy of Slavko Ćuruvija.

Our coalition unequivocally supports the foundation’s crucial mission, which must continue. We renew our call for further efforts internationally and in Serbia to combat impunity for the killing of journalists, including those of Ćuruvija, Pantić, and Vujasinović.

The press freedom situation in Serbia continues to decline, with vexatious lawsuits against the media and persistent threats to journalist safety. We pledge to continue spotlighting the pressing need for justice and accountability in Slavko Ćuruvija’s and similar cases, and ensuring that those who threaten press freedom and journalistic integrity face international scrutiny.

Signed by:

International Press Institute (IPI)
The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
ARTICLE 19 Europe
OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)
Free Press Unlimited (FPU)

Library

European Commission study on journalist safety lacks solutions while…

European Commission study on journalist safety lacks solutions while security deteriorates

Media freedom groups highlight disconnect between report findings and ground realities

The undersigned organisations welcome the recent study on the actions taken by Member States to implement the European Commission’s Recommendation on the protection and safety of journalists. However, our coalition finds that the report lacks a critical assessment of on-the-ground realities that reduce the effectiveness of initiatives that otherwise look good on paper. We stress therefore the need for more effective measures, and a deeper engagement with journalists and media freedom organisations, to build structures that can genuinely safeguard journalist safety in Europe.

The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) coalition reviewed the recently published Study on putting in practice by Member States of the Recommendation on the protection, safety and empowerment of journalists, commissioned by the European Commission and executed by Intellera Consulting, Open Evidence, and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC).

We welcome the report and efforts to monitor the record of Member States, in view of the persisting challenges to journalist safety. Nevertheless, given that the study presents an ostensibly positive view on the implementation of the 2021 Commission’s Recommendation 2021/1534, our coalition finds the report insufficiently reflects the real challenges faced by journalists and the overall failure of governments to guarantee a safe environment for media.

There is a disconnect between the report’s findings and on-the-ground realities created, in part, by a lack of effective political action for journalist protection.

Persistent hurdles to journalist safety: a reality check

According to the report, most EU Member states “show progress” in implementing the Recommendation, with 19 out of 27 Member States reportedly adopting dedicated action plans or structures. We welcome policy development and political steps taken around the recommendation.

At the same time, we argue that the report fails to critically assess the effectiveness of these measures, focusing purely on quantitative aspects.

To its credit, the study does highlight some critical gaps in journalists’ protection across Europe. It says, for instance, that there is a significant lack of dedicated training for police, judges, and prosecutors on journalist safety. About the pressing issue of impunity, it underscores the “lack of specific measures […] at national level to ensure investigation and prosecution of crimes specifically targeting journalists.” It further states that few Member States offer specific economic and social protections for journalists, and even fewer for freelancers. It admits that existing support mechanisms rarely address the growing threat of online harassment effectively.

In several countries cited as an example of good practice for their governance structures, we have consistently monitored and published evidence that these are often toothless tigers, lacking real political backing. For instance,

Greece: The report positively highlights formal mechanisms that, in their current design, are not responsive to ongoing issues for journalists. For example, while the existence of the Task Force is a positive development, following its mission to Greece this coalition continues to express its concerns that the Task Force has not yet proposed or planned strategies for several crucial components of safety of journalists – including monitoring of violent attacks and impunity (our consortium recorded 24 episodes of physical assault, one resulting in the death of the journalist, in the last four years), as well as improved investigations and prosecution. Moreover, the report states that holding a press card is sufficient for journalists to access events, while reports from journalists and press freedom organizations show that journalists are regularly refused access to press conferences and asylum sites. Similar disparities are observed with regards to the description of Greece’s facilities for economic protection and facilitation of communication between police and journalists.

France: The report’s positive description of French government measures, such as the National Law Enforcement Plan, which sets out the operational modalities for the maintenance of public order by all internal security forces, fails to take into account the continuing police violence against journalists, particularly during demonstrations. Revealingly, in all 32 cases of physical assaults against media workers recorded by our monitoring system since 2020, police forces were the source of the attack.

Italy: While the report commends Italy for establishing monitoring systems and a national coordination center, it overlooks its lack of independence, as the fact that it is established under the Ministry of Interior may expose it to political interferences and pressures. The Centre also fails to provide a comprehensive reporting of all types of violations, threats, and attacks against journalists and media workers, as it only collects data based on police reports. The report also overlooks that there is a critical need for more comprehensive strategies to address online threats and harassment, and the delay by Italian authorities in fully implementing Articles 19 to 23, which guarantees that journalists and other media professionals are able to operate safely and without restrictions during public protests and demonstrations. In many recent cases, journalists in Italy continue to be fined, arrested or worse – assaulted for doing their job. Troublingly, MFRR recorded 53 cases of physical assault in the last 4 years, 19 of which resulted in an injury. Authorities should provide additional training for law enforcement agencies to improve their capacity to protect journalists and not inhibit their ability to report.

Croatia: Despite commendation for cooperation agreements between the Croatian Ministry of the Interior, the Croatian Journalists’ Association (HND) and the Croatian Union of Journalists (SNH), recent violations on media and journalists perpetrated by public officials, ranging from legal harassment and editorial interference to verbal abuse, raise questions about the independence and effectiveness of these initiatives. Recent death threats against Nacional’s newsroom for alleged responsibility in the shooting of Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, for instance, illustrate growing risks for journalists and tension in the country.

Advocating for change: a call for inclusive engagement

While we warmly welcome the participation of several civil society and journalistic stakeholders, including the use of statistics and alerts documented by the MFRR’s Mapping Media Freedom platform, we urge the European Commission and Member States to more thoroughly engage with journalists, media freedom groups and media stakeholders nationally and across Europe in future studies and actions to safeguard press freedom and protect journalists.

Furthermore, we call for more comprehensive and relevant measures to prioritise journalist safety, address economic and social vulnerabilities, and effectively tackle online threats.

Signed by:

International Press Institute (IPI)
Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)

Library

MFRR partners call for lifting ban on journalists’ access…

MFRR partners call for lifting ban on journalists’ access to Georgian parliament

The partner organisations of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) condemn the barring of journalists from reporting within the Parliament of Georgia. We urge the Parliament to reinstate the accreditation of all journalists including online media.

Since the start of the debate on the foreign agent bill titled “Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence in Georgia,” journalists from online outlets have been barred from the Parliament. On May 27, Speaker of the Parliament Shalva Papuashvili signed a decree on “enhancing security levels,” indefinitely barring online media journalists and visitors from attending parliamentary sessions.

Since June 3, four journalists of government-critical television channels have also been barred. Nini Balanchivadze of Mtavari Arkhi was banned for one month at the request of ruling Georgian Dream MP Nino Tsilosani after Balanchivadze asked Tsilosani to comment on potential U.S. sanctions against Georgia’s authorities. Tsilosani refused to answer, stating she does not give interviews to Mtavari Arkhi journalists. When Balanchivadze repeated her question, Tsilosani threatened to issue a sanction against her.

On June 4, Sopho Gozalishvili of Formula TV was banned from Parliament for six months also after approaching Tsilosani for an interview. In the video released by Formula TV, Tsilosani accuses Formula TV of being a fascist television.

Nata Kajaia and Maka Chikhladze, working for TV Pirveli, had their accreditation suspended at the request of Sozar Subari and Guram Matcharashvili, MPs of People’s Power party, which is closely aligned with the Georgian Dream party.

All of the suspensions were based on a breach of the parliamentary code of conduct for journalists established by the Speaker, Papuashvili, in March 2023, which requires journalists to immediately terminate an interview if objected to by an MP, staff member, or guest.

Barring journalists from the Parliament represents yet another step by Georgia’s authorities in its crackdown on independent media. The barring of journalists from Parliament deprives the public of information on the activities of the legislative branch.

We urge the authorities to stop misusing the Speaker’s decree to silence journalists and to immediately lift the arbitrary ban on online media’s presence in Parliament.

Furthermore, we reiterate our call to authorities to guarantee the safety of journalists and to ensure that the country’s media can operate freely, without being subjected to derogatory or insulting comments from the authorities.

We also appeal to the Public Defender (Ombudsman) of Georgia Levan Ioseliani to investigate the issue and help end the practice of barring journalists from Parliament. The Public Defender must play a crucial role in safeguarding press freedom in Georgia and protecting its embattled independent media.

Signed by:

International Press Institute (IPI)
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
Free Press Unlimited (FPU)

Event

Germany’s Election Aftermath

Germany’s election aftermath

20 June, 15:00 CET.

In the wake of Germany’s recent European election results, this webinar will focus on the consequences of increased far-right representation for media freedom. Former MEP Rebecca Harms will guide the discussion on the potential threats and necessary safeguards for independent journalism in this new political era.

Moderator

Rebecca Harms

Vice Chair of the Executive Board at ECPMF, former MEP

Speakers

Yann P. M. Rees

Researcher at the Institute for Interdisciplinary Research on Conflict and Violence, Bielefeld University

Philippe Meistermann

Head of Brussels Office, Bundesverband Digitalpublisher und Zeitungsverleger e. V.

Alexander Matschke

Team Lead BMZ Relations, DW Akademie

Library

Media freedom groups call on Slovakia’s Parliament to reject…

Media freedom groups call on Slovakia’s Parliament to reject public broadcasting bill

Critics warn: proposed law could seriously undermine the independence of public media

Journalists and media freedom groups are urging Slovakia’s MPs to reject the proposed public service broadcasting bill scheduled for parliamentary review next week. Despite recent amendments to the bill, the new structure would lead to the politicisation of the broadcaster in breach of the European Media Freedom Act.

The public broadcasting bill aiming to replace Radio and Television of Slovakia (RTVS) with a new entity, Slovak Television and Radio (STVR), will be discussed by the Parliament next week after its finalisation by the government in May.

If passed into law, the governing coalition will also remove the current Director-General and supervisory board before the end of their legal mandates.

The new Director-General will be appointed by the new Board of STVR, which will consist of nine members, five appointed by the Parliament and four by the Ministry of Culture. All their mandates would start at the same time. This would hand the ruling majority effective control over the Board and, therefore, the Director General, leading to the likely rapid politicisation of the new public television and radio channels.

The ruling coalition has persistently accused the public media and its journalists of bias and political activism and has made no secret of its desire to assert control over it through this ‘reform’.

The initial bill, published in March, provoked a string of protests led by RTVS’s journalists who published a petition expressing fear that the new law will create “a tool for political control of RTVS for any government in power”, adding that “free and independent public media should serve all citizens of Slovakia, not the power ambitions of any parties.”

Slovakia’s President, Zuzana Čaputová, European Commission Vice-President Věra Jourová, as well as many international organisations also expressed concerns including that the law may breach provisions for independence laid out in the European Media Freedom Act.

As a result, the government has since withdrawn some of the more vexatious elements of the law, including a provision for a new politically appointed Programme Council to coordinate the programming.

Despite these modifications the bill still provides for the politicisation of the public broadcaster by the government that would fatally compromise its independence. It is therefore still contrary to the European Media Freedom Act’s provisions on the independence of the public media.

Moreover, the law has done nothing to secure sufficient, stable and independent funding which is essential to ensure STVR’s independence and fulfilment of its public service mission. In 2023 Slovakia replaced the licence fee model with direct state funding increasing its dependence on the government.

Our organisations have seen how easy it is for governments to undermine the independence of public broadcasters and how serious the effects of such a politicisation can be for society as a whole.

The tragic shooting of Prime Minister Robert Fico against the background of a polarised society shows that the need for pluralistic and independent public media, that can facilitate debate across the political spectrum in a time of crisis, has never been greater.