Blog

RTUK Turkey Elections Library

Turkey: Broadcast regulator must stop punishing critical reporting ahead…

Turkey: Broadcast regulator must stop punishing critical reporting ahead of elections

The partners of the MFRR have joined 20 press freedom, freedom of expression and human rights organisations to call on Turkey’s broadcast regulator (RTÜK) to immediately stop fining broadcasters for their critical reporting. Journalists and broadcasters must be allowed to do their jobs of informing the public over critical issues and holding the government to account.

 

Available in Turkish here.

Instead of upholding freedom of expression and media pluralism in the country, RTÜK is being weaponised by the governing parties to silence legitimate criticism and provide them with an unfair advantage in the May 2023 elections. This suppression of public debate is undermining the electoral process.

 

On April 5, 2023, İlhan Taşcı, a CHP-nominated member of the Radio and Television High Council (RTÜK), reported on Twitter that RTÜK had once again fined several news channels over critical content.

 

FOX TV was fined three percent of its monthly ad revenue after news anchor Gülbin Tosun criticized the government’s approach to women’s rights by saying “the ruling alliance does not want you to work or study, but to have babies and stay at home” during a live broadcast. Tosun had been targeted by members of the ruling AKP party, following her comments.

 

RTÜK imposed the same penalty on Halk TV for “preventing the free formation of opinion” after a presenter and her guest cited a news article claiming that Turkey’s Disaster Management Authority (AFAD) had charged earthquake survivors to hire out its machinery to help rescue their relatives from the rubble.

 

TELE1 was also fined three percent of its monthly ad revenue for “humiliating a municipality” after the hosts of “18 Dakika” program criticized the AKP-ruled Şanlıurfa Municipality and cited allegations that the municipality had transferred funds, provided by foreign governments to Turkey, to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

 

These fines come on the back of a series of penalties already issued in February 2023 imposed on Halk TV, TELE1, and FOX TV and in March 2023 against Halk TV, TELE1, FOX TV, Show TV, and Yıldız EN TV. RTÜK also imposed temporary bans on numerous programs because of their critical coverage.

 

In 2022 RTÜK issued 54 penalties to five independent broadcasters totalling 17.335.000 Turkish Lira (approximately 823.000 Euros) of fines. By contrast, pro-government channels received a total of four penalties totalling 1.674.000 TL (approximately 80.000 Euros).

 

The government’s censorship is not limited to domestic news channels as, earlier in March 2023, the Ministry of Industry and Technology did not renew the operating license of German broadcaster Deutsche Welle’s (DW) Turkish service after it was blocked in June 2022 at the request of RTÜK. DW is no longer able to operate in Turkey as a legal entity, forcing its reporters and editors to continue working as freelancers, deprived of stable work contracts and social security benefits.

 

We view these incidents as part of the Turkish government’s systematic attempt to stifle critical reporting and to control the information flow ahead of Turkey’s presidential and parliamentary elections on May 14, 2023.

 

We call on the Turkish broadcast regulator, RTÜK, to immediately end the persecution of independent broadcasters and act according to its mandate to secure freedom of expression and media pluralism in the country.

Signed by:

  • Association of European Journalists
  • ARTICLE 19
  • Articolo 21
  • Coalition For Women In Journalism (CFWIJ)
  • Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
  • Danish PEN
  • English PEN
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • Freedom House
  • International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA)
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • PEN International
  • Platform for Independent Journalism (P24)
  • Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
  • South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
  • Swedish PEN
  • World Association of News Publishers (WAN-IFRA)

Türkiye: Uluslararası gruplar, seçim öncesinde eleştirel haberlerin cezalandırılması nedeniyle RTÜK’ü kınadı

 

Medyanın baskı altına alınması toplumun bilgiye erişimini engellemekte ve seçim sürecinin meşruiyetini zayıflatmaktadır 

 

Uluslararası Basın Enstitüsü (IPI) ve 19 medya özgürlüğü, ifade hürriyeti ve insan hakları alanında faaliyet gösteren örgütler, Türkiye’nin yayın düzenleyici kurumu Radyo ve Televizyon Üst Kurulu’na (RTÜK), eleştirel haberlerinden dolayı yayıncılara para cezası vermeyi derhal durdurması çağrısında bulunmaktadır. Gazetecilerin ve yayıncıların eleştirel konularda kamuoyunu bilgilendirme ve hükümetten hesap sorma yükümlülüklerini yerine getirmelerine izin verilmelidir. 

 

RTÜK, ülkede ifade hürriyeti ve medya çoğulculuğunu desteklemek yerine, meşru eleştirileri susturmak ve 14 Mayıs 2023 seçimlerinde kendilerine haksız bir avantaj sağlamak için iktidar ittifakı tarafından bir araç olarak kullanılıyor. Kamusal tartışmanın bu şekilde bastırılması seçim sürecini baltalamaktadır.

 

Radyo ve Televizyon Üst Kurulu’nun (RTÜK) CHP’li üyesi İlhan Taşçı, 5 Nisan 2023 tarihinde Twitter‘da RTÜK’ün eleştirel içerikler nedeniyle bazı haber kanallarına bir kez daha ceza verdiğini bildirdi.

 

FOX TV, haber sunucusu Gülbin Tosun’un canlı yayında “iktidar ittifakı çalışmanızı, okumanızı değil, çocuk doğurup evde oturmanızı istiyor” diyerek hükümetin kadın haklarına yaklaşımını eleştirmesinin ardından aylık reklam gelirinin yüzde üçü oranında para cezasına çarptırıldı. Tosun, yorumlarının ardından iktidardaki AKP üyeleri tarafından hedef gösterilmişti.

 

RTÜK, bir sunucu ve konuğunun, Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı’nın (AFAD) depremzedelerden yakınlarını enkaz altından kurtarmak için iş makinelerini kiraladığını iddia eden bir habere atıfta bulunmasının ardından Halk TV’ye de “kanaatlerin serbestçe oluşmasını engellediği” gerekçesiyle aynı cezayı verdi.

 

TELE1 ayrıca, “18 Dakika” programının sunucularının AKP’li Şanlıurfa Belediyesi’ni eleştirmesi ve belediyenin yabancı hükümetler tarafından deprem yardımı için Türkiye’ye sağlanan fonları Afganistan’daki Taliban’a aktardığı iddialarını dile getirmesi üzerine “belediyeyi küçük düşürmek” suçundan aylık reklam gelirinin yüzde üçü oranında para cezasına çarptırıldı.

 

Bu cezalar, Şubat 2023’te Halk TV, TELE1 ve FOX TV’ye ve Mart 2023’te Halk TV, TELE1, FOX TV, Show TV ve Yıldız EN TV’ye verilen bir dizi cezanın ardından geldi. RTÜK ayrıca, eleştirel yayınları nedeniyle çok sayıda programa geçici yasaklar getirmiştir.

 

RTÜK 2022 yılında beş bağımsız yayıncıya toplam 17.335.000 Türk Lirası (yaklaşık 823.000 Avro) para cezası olmak üzere 54 ayrı ceza vermiştir. Buna karşılık, iktidara yakın kanallara toplamda 1.674.000 TL (yaklaşık 80.000 Avro) tutarında dört ceza almıştır.

 

İktidar sansürü yerel haber kanallarıyla sınırlı değil; Sanayi ve Teknoloji Bakanlığı, RTÜK’ün talebi üzerine Haziran 2022’de yayını engellenen Alman yayın kuruluşu Deutsche Welle’nin (DW) Türkçe servisinin lisansını Mart 2023’te yenilemedi. DW artık Türkiye’de tüzel kişilik olarak faaliyet gösteremeyecek ve muhabirleri ile editörleri, istikrarlı iş sözleşmelerinden ve sosyal güvenlik yardımlarından mahrum olarak serbest çalışmaya devam etmek zorunda kalacak.

 

Bu olayları, Türkiye’de 14 Mayıs 2023 tarihinde yapılacak cumhurbaşkanlığı ve milletvekili seçimleri öncesinde, iktidarın eleştirel haberciliği engellemeye ve bilgi akışını kontrol etmeye yönelik sistematik girişiminin bir parçası olarak görüyoruz.

 

Yayın düzenleyici rolünü yürüten RTÜK’ü, bağımsız yayıncılara yönelik baskıya derhal son vermeye ve ülkede ifade hürriyeti ve medya çoğulculuğunu güvence altına alma vazifesine uygun davranmaya çağırıyoruz.

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. 

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Slavko Ćuruvija. Photo by Slavko Ćuruvija Foundation / Predrag Mitić Library

Serbia: Press freedom groups mark anniversary of Slavko Ćuruvija…

Press freedom groups visit Serbia to mark Slavko Ćuruvija murder anniversary

The MFRR (Media Freedom Rapid Response) partners, alongside other international press freedom organisations, are currently in Belgrade to mark the 24th anniversary of the murder of Serbian editor and publisher Slavko Ćuruvija. Their visit aims to renew calls for justice and draw attention to the unsafe conditions that journalists face in Serbia today.

To mark the twenty-fourth anniversary of the murder of Serbian editor and publisher Slavko Ćuruvija, international press freedom organisations are today visiting Belgrade to renew our calls for justice and issue fresh warnings about the current climate for the safety of journalists.

 

The mission to Belgrade comes 24 years after Ćuruvija was shot dead in cold blood outside his apartment on 11 April 1999, and a matter of weeks after the final hearings began in the retrial of four state security officials accused of planning and executing his assassination. With justice almost within reach, this year’s anniversary offers a timely opportunity to consider the past, the present and the future.

 

First and foremost, our organisations today pay our respects to the work and life of Slavko Ćuruvija, who was killed for upholding the highest of journalistic values: the unwavering quest to hold power to account through fiercely independent reporting. Despite repeated attempts by the Milošević regime to shut down his newspapers, the journalist refused to be cowed into silence and paid the ultimate price for his bravery.

 

Secondly, we will stand in solidarity with his loved ones, former colleagues, and all those who continue the more than two-decade fight to ensure those responsible for this crime cannot act with impunity. This includes journalist and media associations, the Commission to Investigate the Murder of Journalists and the Slavko Ćuruvija Foundation – whose tireless efforts have been so crucial for the slow push towards accountability.

 

Thirdly, we will renew our hopes for the upcoming ruling, which will either confirm or dismiss the two previous guilty verdicts. The Court of Appeal’s ruling will be the most consequential for media freedom and journalism in Serbia’s modern history, and will act as a litmus test for the rule of law and democracy more widely.

 

Fourthly, we will meet editors, civil society groups and the government’s Working Group to review the current situation regarding the safety of journalists in Serbia. Our visit comes amidst a spate of recent death threats and pressure, which reflect a wider toxic climate for independent and investigative journalism. It is alarming that leading journalists are still receiving death threats and being branded with the same dangerous labels of “traitors” and “foreign mercenaries” that were used to lay the groundwork for Ćuruvija’s assassination. 

 

This hostility against the press has been emboldened by the behavior of high-level political figures, who continue to demonstrate little will to condemn attacks against journalists and in many cases initiate verbal attacks themselves. In addition, Serbia provides one of the most fertile grounds in Europe for abusive lawsuits against public watchdogs. A handful of public officials routinely sue journalists over their critical reporting – including filing multiple cases for the same publication. 

 

While some progress in punishing crimes against journalists has been achieved in recent months and the authorities appear to prosecute new attacks on journalists with greater efficiency, Serbia remains one of the most dangerous places to work as a journalist in Europe. Looking ahead, we will renew our calls to the current government and state authorities to uphold their international commitments to protect journalists’ safety now to ensure that such an appalling crime can never be committed again in the future.

 

Almost a quarter of a century after Curuvija’s murder, the pending appeal verdict represents a moment of possible transition for media freedom in Serbia. So much will depend on the upcoming verdict and political will to turn this possible legal milestone into a catalyst for meaningful change. As we honour Curuvija and the principles he fought to uphold, our organisations hope that in the coming months the vicious cycle of impunity for the murder of journalists in Serbia will be broken, and that justice will, finally, be secured.

Signed by:

  • ARTICLE 19 Europe
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa
  • Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
  • The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation
  • Safejournalists Network

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, Candidate Countries and Ukraine.

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Library

Italy: Thorough investigation required after arson attack on car…

Italy: Thorough investigation required after arson attack on car of journalist Rossella Puccio

The partners of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) today denounce the arson attack on the family car of Italian freelance journalist Rossella Puccio in the city of Palermo and express solidarity with the reporter as police work to identify the perpetrators and their motive.

The targeted attack happened during the night of April 3, while the journalist’s family car was parked in a public area in the Sferracavallo district of the city. Footage captured by a nearby CCTV camera showed a man approach the vehicle, pour liquid from a bottle over the car and light it on fire.

 

The car was completely destroyed in the blaze. No one claimed responsibility for the attack and the motive is currently unclear. Puccio is a freelance journalist who collaborates with several news outlets, including Palermo Today and Quotidiano di Sicilia.

 

Our organisations welcome the swift action of police to open a criminal investigation and urge local law enforcement and judicial authorities, working in tandem with the government’s national Coordination Centre, to treat this case as a matter of urgency. All those responsible for carrying out or planning this clear act of intimidation must be swiftly identified and held accountable.

 

We have reported this case to the Council of Europe Platform for the safety of journalists, and hope to see a swift response from Italian authorities to provide updates on the details of the criminal investigation. This is the fifth physical attack on journalists in Italy so far in 2023, as recorded on the Mapping Media Freedom platform.

 

Moreover, we note with concern that this is not the first time that Puccio has faced threats due to her work. In August 2020, she was violently assaulted by a group of people while documenting an intervention by the carabinieri to clear a tent city in the Barcarello area of Palermo. Seven attackers were later identified, and their trial began in January 2023, with the next hearing scheduled for May.

 

Ten years ago, in 2013, the same car was vandalised and had its wheels damaged, according to media reports. No one claimed responsibility for that incident and no one was arrested or charged. It is unclear whether any of these incidents are connected.

 

Our organisations join local and national journalist unions and organisations in Italy in expressing our support and solidarity with Puccio, and all journalists in Italy who face physical threats and intimidation due to their work. We will continue to monitor the situation closely in the coming weeks. We also urge relevant authorities to make sure that journalists in Italy are not subject to physical attacks and intimidations, and are free and safe to carry out their work.

Signed by:

  • ARTICLE 19 Europe
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)

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. 

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Library

Urgent action needed by the Netherlands to protect civic…

Urgent action needed by the Netherlands to protect civic space against SLAPPs and other forms of legal intimidation

Legal intimidation and SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) are attempts to intimidate and silence public watchdogs through lengthy and expensive litigation proceedings by starting meritless lawsuits.

These threats mostly target civil society actors participating in public debates, including human rights advocates, whistle-blowers, climate activists and even academics more broadly. Under the pretext of seeking justice or protecting their rights, those who start these actions only seek to drain them from their resources (time and money) and force them to self-censor.

 

These abusive tactics have become a very effective way to repress dissent and limit the public’s access to truthful information. Perhaps the most famous example of SLAPPs is the case of the Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, who at the time of her death had 47 defamation cases pending against her. Similar intimidatory tactics are also taking place closer to home. Dutch journalist Okke Ornstein was an exemplary case in 2016, when he was imprisoned for criminal defamation for exposing corruption in Panama; the lawsuits filed by Pretium Telecom against several journalists like Peter Olsthoorn for publishing about their seemingly unethical practices; the legal actions started by different dairy companies to stop the public campaign of Dier&Recht bringing attention to the animal cruelty that is part of the industry; among many others. As such, SLAPPs are a growing threat to freedom of speech, press freedom, civil society, and democracies all over the world. The Netherlands is no exception.

 

Due to these mounting concerns, countries such as the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and the Philippines have been taking firm steps to stop legal intimidation via laws or their judiciaries. For example, the UK both set out a Call for Evidence to collect as much SLAPPs data as possible in a short period of time as well as adopt a criteria-test to define and recognize SLAPPs cases. In 2010, The Supreme Court of the Philippines introduced limited anti-SLAPP protections in the cases related to environmental protection in its Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. In 2021, in South Africa, the Western Cape High Court established an Anti-SLAPP defence available for defendants who believe that a lawsuit is brought with the intention of silencing them (Case Number 7595/2017). We believe that the Netherlands (and the European Union, and all its member states) cannot lag behind in putting a stop to SLAPPs and other forms of legal intimidation against public watchdogs.Therefore, we call on the Dutch authorities to: 

 

Establish a systematic and coordinated mechanism to monitor these forms of intimidation.

The Netherlands should systematically monitor SLAPPs and other forms of legal intimidation against journalists, climate activists, human rights defenders, and other public watchdogs. The current cabinet’s position as expressed in the BNC fiche from June 3rd, 2022 is that there are few to no SLAPPs in the Netherlands. We believe this is not necessarily accurate and it is not a reason to refrain from preventative measures, given the proliferation of SLAPPs across Europe and the absence of adequate monitoring of SLAPPs. For example, recent data collected by the NVJ shows that legal intimidation against journalists in the Netherlands is very real: 1 out of 10 journalists have faced legal action(s) in connection with a publication; 25% of journalists are more cautious with publishing their work due to the legal risks related to journalism; and 10% even adjusts their publication or refrains from publishing completely. It is vital that from now on, these forms of legal harassment are monitored, not only against journalists but against civil society more broadly. Moreover, such monitoring must be systematic and coordinated. Besides quantitative monitoring, more background research is needed to better understand the source and rationale behind these threats.

 

Next to obtaining a better understanding of the level and scope of legal intimidation against civil society actors in the Netherlands, it is crucial that the Netherlands supports the EU regulatory proposals to protect journalists, climate activists, human rights defenders, and other public watchdogs, including our own organizations, against such harassment, including suits abroad that might lead to enforcement proceedings in the Netherlands. Therefore the undersigned organizations call on the Netherlands, as a global champion of freedom of expression and human rights more broadly, in particular to: 

 

Take a leading role in ensuring ambitious and robust legislative measures are adopted to address SLAPPs across Europe.
We urgently need legislation and regulatory action to protect these vital actors in society who serve the public interest. The EU anti-SLAPP Directive and the accompanying Recommendation as proposed by the European Commission, currently being debated in the EU member states, provide a solid foundation. However, the recently leaked version of the Anti-SLAPP Directive as coordinated by the Swedish Presidency of the European Council has immensely watered-down the provisions of the EU Commission’s initial proposal. We strongly believe that in order for any legislation to effectively protect those affected by SLAPPs and other forms of legal intimidation, the Netherlands should commit to ensuring that  the provisions of the initial SLAPPs Directive are preserved as much as possible. 

 

The Netherlands should take a frontrunning role by promoting progressive anti-SLAPP protections within its borders and more widely in Europe by supporting the EU Anti-SLAPPs Directive. Adopting robust legislative and regulatory measures to protect against SLAPPs is not only important in terms of preventing these forms of intimidation from taking place, but also to maintain the Netherlands’ longstanding reputation as a champion of freedom of expression and human rights globally. 

Signed by:

  • Article 19
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • Free Press Unlimited
  • Greenpeace International
  • International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), National
  • Committee of the Netherlands
  • Nederlandse Vereniging van Journalisten (NVJ)
  • Netherlands Helsinki Committee (NHC)
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • Oxfam Novib
  • Otto Volgenant, lawyer (independent) 
  • Tarlach McGonagle, academic (independent)

This statement was coordinated by the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe and 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, candidate countries, and Ukraine.

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Top Channel Albania Library

Albania: Press freedom organisations and journalist associations call for…

Albania: Press freedom organisations and journalist associations call for swift justice following deadly attack on Top Channel

Today, 27 March 2023, security guard Pal Kola, 60, was shot dead by unknown assailants on the premises of the leading national TV station Top Channel, where he was stationed in a booth outside the building​​.

Today, 27 March 2023, security guard Pal Kola, 60, was shot dead by unknown assailants on the premises of the leading national TV station Top Channel, where he was stationed in a booth outside the building​​. The heinous attack took place around one o’clock in the morning. State police have since established a dedicated investigative team and are working closely with the Prosecutor’s Office to actively pursue the perpetrators. A car suspected to have been used in the crime was found burned out a few kilometres away from the crime, together with two Kalashnikov rifles. 

 

The undersigned partners in the Media Freedom Rapid Response and the Safe Journalists Network are deeply saddened to learn about this shocking attack. Our thoughts are with Pal Kola’s family, friends and co-workers. We call on the police and prosecutorial services to conduct a prompt, effective, independent and transparent investigation to establish the motive and circumstances of the shooting. We will follow the case closely until all perpetrators and masterminds have been brought to justice. 

 

Our organisations welcome that the Professional Association of Journalists, President Bajram Begaj, Prime Minister Edi Rama and many other public figures from across the political spectrum have also denounced the attack and called for a decisive response from law enforcement. The killing of Kola is set against a background of unacceptable, frequent violence against media professionals in Albania. Mere weeks before the shooting, a crew from Top Channel’s investigative TV show Fiks Fare were threatened at gunpoint while filming a report about the illegal extraction of inert materials from a river bank outside Tirana. 

 

The recent cases of violence against journalists underscore the threats media professionals face in their work. Delays in efforts to hold those responsible accountable result in impunity. We also urge the authorities to take all necessary measures to prevent future attacks. We will continue to advocate for journalists’ and media workers’ safety and security, including through better implementation of international and regional standards developed within the Council of Europe, European Union and United Nations.

Signed by:

  • ARTICLE 19 Europe
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • Safe Journalists Network

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. 

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Library

Ireland: How the wealthy and powerful abuse legal system…

Ireland: How the wealthy and powerful abuse legal system to silence reporting

Inside story of the impact on journalists in Ireland awaiting long-delayed SLAPPs reform

 

By IPI contributor Naomi O’Leary

It was a scoop that packed a punch. As Ireland struggles with a grinding housing crisis that has made record numbers of people homeless, a young newspaper reporter discovered a landlord was planning a mass eviction – of an entire apartment block.

The reporter spoke to the landlord’s public relations representative, asking for a comment, as is standard reporting practice. Half an hour later, the threat to sue for defamation arrived.

“It was addressed to me by name. It seemed he would sue me personally,” the reporter told the International Press Institute (IPI). How much does it cost to hire a solicitor, the reporter remembers wondering. Would my salary stretch that far?

Not only that, but tenants of the landlord had also received legal threats, warning them against speaking to the press.

“That scared the crap out of them. I lost a lot of sources that way,” the reporter recalls. “They thought even if they were anonymous in the story, he’d still know and would still sue them – that’s what the tenants believed.”

The story was ultimately published, though with the name of the landlord omitted, to be on the safe side. But for the reporter, there was no going back.

“This was the point I decided to leave journalism. I was battling with a PR paid three to four times my salary,” the reporter recalls. “As much as I want to do it, if you get anything wrong, a small mistake, you can be financially ruined. I quit the next week.”

Interviews with journalists and civil society organisations in Ireland on behalf of IPI have revealed how the wealthy and powerful systematically abuse Ireland’s legal system to influence reporting about them, to keep unflattering information out of the public domain.

The journalists interviewed included freelancers, local news reporters, and staff at top national publications. They disclosed how legal intimidation affects the full range of Irish media, from the smallest shoestring podcasts and magazines to major broadcasters.

The threat of defamation proceedings has muzzled the reporting of stories of public interest on topics as varied as the housing crisis, concussion in sport, local community tragedies, sexual abuse, and day-to-day political reporting, the interviews revealed. As a result, the public is prevented from finding out about matters of public interest concerning wealthy individuals, and some of the politicians they elect.

Journalists are also told by their employers and by lawyers not to discuss lawsuits publicly for fear of escalating legal intimidation, preventing the scale of the issue from being widely known.


Cases disclosed to the International Press Institute:

For the purposes of breaking the silence around the abuse of defamation proceedings in Ireland, journalists and civil society actors disclosed defamation cases or threats they were subject to on the condition their names were protected due to concerns about further legal or professional risk.

  • One small publisher shared images of a selection of four recent solicitors letters they had received warning of defamation proceedings in response to their coverage of Ireland’s housing crisis. Most represented people with commercial interests in the housing sector.
  • A survivor of sexual abuse said they had received a letter warning of potential defamation proceedings in advance of speaking at a public event.
  • Plans to report on a sexual harassment suit against a company were shelved after the complainant received a legal threat from company lawyers and withdrew from plans to speak to the press, according to the journalist who wanted to report on the story.
  • One small local newspaper was forced to pay solicitors and barristers a sum that could have hired an extra reporter for a year after being accused of defamation by a politician, according to a journalist at the outlet. The article concerned was a summary of previously reported news about the individual. The matter was ultimately settled by the newspaper issuing a clarification. The effect of Ireland’s current defamation law was described as “extremely crippling” and having a “very serious chilling effect”, meaning that if a story carried any risk of triggering a complaint it would likely not be run, unless it was worthy of the front page.
  • A local news reporter estimated they had received 20 legal threats in their 25-year career.
  • One national reporter described being sued by a property developer for reporting on safety defects in buildings. The case was never concluded, and the journalist concerned believes it was not taken to win, but as a tactic to help the developer to continue to secure business deals as he could downplay the allegations as being contested in legal proceedings. “Naturally it never went anywhere, because he didn’t have a leg to stand on,” the journalist said. “He was using the system to deflect from the fact he’d built appalling apartments at the start of the boom. This is typical – you issue proceedings and you let the thing sit there, with the hope the newspaper will settle, and you can claim a victory one way or another.”
  • In one case, a civil society organisation was threatened with a defamation suit for highlighting privatisation in medical care by a business with interests in the sector. It never went to court and the complaints were considered legally doubtful, but due to the threat of the costs involved in defending a case the organisation was forced to delete communications, shut down campaigning on this issue, and keep the whole matter a secret.
  • One freelance journalist disclosed they were currently subject to two defamation proceedings, describing them as “expensive” to defend against. Regarding the effect on reporting, the reporter said “we all have to be more careful” due to the increased litigiousness of certain parts of society.
  • A political party was said to have sent defamation threats to two different media organisations in response to their press office being contacted with a request for comment about a story.
  • Documentary footage of personal interviews about a tragic news event was radically cut due to legal pressure, leaving the parts that were left in “pointless”, according to a filmmaker. “Viewing of the finished film was agreed – and within hours we were threatened with legal action. Five whole minutes were cut out from different places leaving a huge hole,” the filmmaker said. “It stopped people being themselves, saying how it made them feel. Not true to the tragedy either.”
  • One author described receiving a letter from a politician after publishing a book in which the politician was mentioned, demanding monetary compensation and that copies be immediately removed from the shelves. “I can still relate to the feeling when I got that letter about the book,” the author said. “For a day I was in a state. It’s very stressful. It’s particularly stressful when you know you didn’t do anything wrong.”
  • In one case, a then-member of the government was given a payout of several thousands by a newspaper because it had made a mistake with their name in copy, mixing them up with someone else with a similar name, according to a journalist familiar with the incident. The amount given to the politician would have paid for 20 freelance articles.
  • One major media organisation changed plans to cover the issue of concussion in sport after receiving legal threats, according to the journalist who wanted to report on the story.
  • One broadcaster chose to cover a story about a politician through a pre-recorded interview, rather than their usual live debate panel format, because the politician concerned is reputed to be litigious. The decision was taken to reduce the risk that any stray remarks live on air could trigger a defamation threat, journalists were told.
  • One organisation chose not to publish a story about politicians threatening media organisations with defamation proceedings, because the subject was deemed legally risky, a journalist involved with the story said.
  • One major news organisation has stopped almost all reporting about certain politicians due to legal threats, two journalists said.
  • In one case, a state contractor threatened to sue a reporter if a story involving them was published, according to the journalist concerned.
  • One civil society organisation working on accountability was threatened with defamation proceedings by a commercial interest over a report they had published. Years later the case has yet to reach court, but the organisation has lost its professional indemnity insurance as a result. The case was taken “to mess with us”, rather than with the hopes of succeeding in court, an employee at the NGO said, adding that they believed the process was being deliberately drawn out. “We spent a lot of time doing this, instead of what we should be doing.”
  • One person who had wished to speak to journalists about a story involving a politician said that aggressive threats of legal proceedings had repeatedly been sent to the home of their elderly parents. They believe this was done deliberately “to humiliate and embarrass me” and “to scare” other people away from speaking to the press. The costs of responding to the letters have been roughly €1,000 a month for six months.

The playbook

The legal threat typically arrives by letter or email. The wording can be highly aggressive, often instructing the receiver that the contents of the letter must be kept confidential, or there will be further repercussions.

This goes against advice issued by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in the United Kingdom, which has warned solicitors against getting involved in so-called strategic lawsuits against public participation or SLAPPs, which involves abusive litigation that is aimed to silence critics.

The SRA warned solicitors against using excessively intimidating language, issuing far-fetched threats about fines or imprisonment, or sending such letters as part of a “public relations” strategy as a way to stop journalists from reporting a true story. The body has reminded law firms that solicitors have a duty to act with honesty and integrity.

The body also warned against sending correspondence that is marked as “confidential” or similar when this has no legal foundation, against sending excessive numbers of letters, and against pursuing “unnecessary and onerous procedural applications, intended to waste time or increase costs”.

Research for this report revealed that all these tactics are used in Ireland to prevent the publication of information of public importance, the hallmark of a SLAPP. Some interviewees called for the Law Society of Ireland to issue similar guidance as the SRA.

The interviews indicated this is an all-island issue, with some solicitors appearing to specialise in selecting the most favourable jurisdiction between London, Belfast, and Dublin, or threatening their targets with multiple proceedings in different jurisdictions at once.

Those who tend to take aggressive defamation proceedings are most commonly business owners or politicians, according to interviews for this report. The politicians who have launched or threatened defamation proceedings against Irish journalists and news outlets span the political spectrum.

But what unites the people who do this is that they have the monetary means, and that they tend to use legal intimidation repeatedly. Some business leaders and politicians have gained a reputation for being particularly litigious, which can make newsrooms more hesitant to report about them.

Journalists described solicitors’ letters arriving in a predictable pattern, with some politicians seeming to keep lawyers on retainer for the purposes of aggressive reputation management.

During the past year a series of defamation cases taken by politicians against journalists and media organisations on the island of Ireland – including by Sinn Féin MLA Gerry Kelly, Left independent MEPs Mick Wallace and Clare Daly, and Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald – have been flagged for press freedom concerns.

The interviews revealed that such cases are the tip of the iceberg. Only a fraction of the defamation threats received by media organisations and journalists go to court, or even go beyond an initial warning letter. But each letter received, regardless of the merits of its complaints, imposes onerous costs on already thinly-stretched media organisations.

National reporter:

I think journalists who say that legal actions don’t affect their future behaviour aren’t being honest. If you get a legal letter from someone, the very fact of its existence will determine how and in some cases if, you write about that person again. A positive effect could be that you will research a piece even more thoroughly, upping your number of sources for example. But a negative is that you may censor yourself or not even write a piece at all.

Some people are serial litigants and that makes people wary of going near them in terms of media coverage. This is particularly problematic if the people concerned are politicians which has been the case with me. It is undemocratic not to report on certain politicians because you are fearful of legal action even when you know a story is true and in the public interest.

In my experience, some people including Irish politicians send legal letters even when they are aware the story is accurate just as a shot across the bows. And some newspapers issue an apology or clarification even when none is warranted, just to avoid costly litigation. Needless to say, this is disastrous for a free press.

The fact that politicians are so well paid and resourced compared to journalists (in an Irish context anyway) adds to the pressure. In the case of two politicians I have experience of litigation with, they appear to keep a solicitor on retainer. Still I like to think myself and my immediate colleagues ultimately remain undaunted in our bid to give fair, accurate and informative coverage.

‘Getting it legalled’

Significant day-to-day costs are imposed on newsrooms by the administrative burden and legal fees required to pay solicitors to systematically check articles for potential legal risks and to respond to continual threats to sue.

A baseless accusation of defamation that may have no chance in court nevertheless may therefore still cost hundreds of euros an hour in solicitors’ fees to respond to, while sucking up time for thinly-resourced newsrooms.

The process of having an article checked by a solicitor for legal risk has been adopted as routine practice in many Irish news organisations, imposing steep costs on a struggling industry. It’s known as “getting it legalled”.

The practice of “legalling” shapes reporting, as reporters learn how to craft articles that won’t be flagged as risky by lawyers. Public interest vies with legal risk as a consideration for publication. Reporters said this can muffle the clarity of the information conveyed and commonly leads to details being pre-emptively watered down to avoid a complaint, even when the facts of the story are demonstrable and clear.

An editor at one local newspaper apologised for being exhausted when contacted for an interview. The editor said they had had to work well past midnight the previous night to “legal” articles in time for their print deadline, and had been up early the next morning to care for children, a small illustration of the daily burden imposed on journalists by the stringent defamation environment.

The outlet had explored the possibility of getting insurance against defamation, the editor said, but was told that this was subject to conditions that were impossible to accept. These included getting each contributor to agree to indemnify the outlet, and being prepared to settle rather than fight any claim, regardless of its merits.

The very largest organisations may have an in-house lawyer employed on staff. Smaller news organisations often rely on the legal training of their journalists. Some staff at smaller magazines either have law degrees or are qualified lawyers themselves as well as journalists, something that can be important for smaller outlets to keep going as it reduces the initial upfront costs of responding to defamation threats.

Editor at a small publication:

We obviously try not to let the fear of being sued change what we cover, but it’s there hanging over us all the time. We know that even if we get everything right, a person could sue us, and we’d have to defend the case, which would cost a minimum of tens of thousands of euro, and could easily reach into six or seven figures if it goes to trial. We don’t have insurance and don’t have the money to pay for that up front, even with the prospect of recouping it if we won and costs were awarded to us — we’d have to either get pro bono representation or concede the case and grovel for mercy. It’s very stressful. Sometimes people threaten to sue us if we publish anything about them at all… we just have to guess whether they are serious or bluffing, and decide whether the story is important enough to be worth taking the risk of publishing it in these circumstances.

National reporter:

I’ve probably received around a dozen legal letters threatening defamation action in response to reporting on organisations or individuals over the last five years. In many cases we have been able to publish despite the threats, but in some cases, even where our story is backed up by solid documentation and proof, the threat of a costly legal case (even one which our media organisation might eventually win) has meant a number of stories have been spiked, sometimes meaning information that would be in the public interest is kept from the public. Ireland’s defamation laws are overwhelmingly weighted towards protecting the powerful, and against journalists doing their job.

The costs

It’s typical for news organisations to pay a solicitor to respond to each defamation threat they receive, with rates said to start from €350 an hour. These fees escalate the further a legal complaint goes, with costs rapidly rising into the thousands and tens of thousands once barristers or senior counsel are involved.

One small outlet with limited resources described securing a ‘mates rates’ arrangement with a lawyer to help respond to the frequent defamation threats they receive. Another small publication, which is loss-making, spent €10,000 defending one case before it was dropped.

A journalist at a national publication said that the legal advice they received was to settle any complaint with compensation as a default, because even in the case of victory with full costs awarded to the media organisation, the complaining party would delay or avoid paying out the money owed.

“You’ll have spent fifty grand defending a story that is absolutely true,” the journalist said. “The legal advice is: give them ten grand and get them to go away. Cut your losses.”

“In 80 or 90 percent of cases you’re talking about a mistake, not something malicious,” the journalist continued. “Stuff I do gets legalled any time there’s a hint of anything – the newspaper does it routinely, every day. If they think there’s an issue they’ll refer it to a solicitor.”

Apart from the direct monetary cost involved, the process of referring articles for checking by a solicitor, responding to the solicitors’ questions and reviewing their advice takes up working hours of editors and reporters in newsrooms that are already thinly staffed.

One small publication said they did not have the money to fight objections. “We’ve fought and won a few [cases]. But usually we just delete or take down, as our resources aren’t able for a prolonged scrap,” the founder said.

In response to a query from this author, Tom Lyons of business publication The Currency said he had received legal threats “at least 30 times”. He shared an image from a legal firm representing an Irish businessman. An objection that a number written as €2.88 billion instead of €3 billion in the article “was used to undermine the entire story”, he said.

Fears within media organisations that publicly disclosing a threat could escalate the dispute means that media organisations and journalists participate in keeping the scale of the issue unknown to the public.

But there is one major media organisation for which figures are available. Because it is a public body, national broadcaster RTÉ is required to disclose data about the cost of its legal proceedings under Freedom of Information requests.

RTÉ has been hit with 29 sets of legal proceedings over the six years to 2022, according to data released to the Irish Examiner. These cumulatively cost RTÉ €4.7 million, with some costs still accruing as proceedings are not concluded – an average of €160,000 per case.

National reporter:

It had a huge impact on my own confidence and my own career. It was my biggest story to date, and it was canned because of a solicitor’s letter.

Video reporter:

I was threatened by a state representative and was called, emailed, with veiled threats to not cover the story. I immediately reduced editorial risk. They knew where I lived. The effect is absolute. It waters down, it hides facts… It suppresses free speech about your own personal experience.

Why is it like this?

Ireland’s defamation laws are considered to be among the harshest in Europe and have been criticised as excessive by the European Court of Human Rights, the Council of Europe, the European Commission, and various media freedom organisations. The International Press Institute has previously described Irish defamation trials as “wildly unpredictable”.

As IPI previously reported, a history of juries awarding vast damages to complainants is considered to have had a chilling effect on journalists’ ability to freely report, and the lack of transparency about how the level of compensation is determined has been criticised by Ireland’s Supreme Court.

The prominent left-wing politician Proinsias De Rossa was awarded €380,000 in 1999, a communications consultant was awarded €1.25 million in 2014, and an initial award of €10 million to a former company executive was reduced on appeal to €250,000 in 2019. These are a level of damages that could bankrupt some media organisations at a stroke.

In contrast, Austria caps damages at €50,000 for the worst cases, while typical damages in the Netherlands range from €1,000 to €5,000.

Aside from the well-known stringency of Irish defamation law and the history of large payouts, interviewees for this article revealed a number of indirect factors that restrict how free journalists feel to report facts that are in the public interest.

These include the high fees required by solicitors to reply to threats of legal action – a cost imposed regardless of the merits of the initial complaint or its likelihood of succeeding in court – as well as the long length of proceedings, which can drag on for years without conclusion.

Some journalists believed that complainants seek to draw their cases out as long as possible deliberately, potentially never intending to bring the issue to court. This means that the defamation threat ‘hangs over’ the reporter or media organisation for years without conclusion. Litigants use this as leverage over the media organisations, the journalists said, because a pending and unresolved legal case can persuade editors to smother further reporting on the individual concerned.

In addition, some journalists also spoke of a risk-averse culture among management and the solicitors that advise media organisations, which they say leads to a conservative approach to publishing and a self-imposed silence about defamation cases, keeping the scale of the problem from being publicly known.

Two interviewees said insurance companies were imposing difficult conditions as a condition for providing indemnity cover, such as that media organisations commit to settling complaints with out-of-court payouts as a default, something they warned could be incentivising further complaints.

National reporter:

I have been subject to several threats of litigation over the years. The cases where media organisations have gotten something wrong are probably those easiest dealt with, as when there is a genuine mistake it can be dealt with quickly. But it is those where powerful individuals in politics or business want to stifle debate which can have the most chilling effect. These individuals just allow the “proceedings” to sit there for months and years without taking any real steps to go to court where costs and legal determination might become involved. In a legal system such as Ireland’s, with its draconian defamation laws, this can have the effect of stopping all reporting on the individual concerned. The [media] organisation takes the view that they will defend the initial threat in court if needs be, but then becomes paranoid that any subsequent coverage could cause them to lose that case. The result is that in my organisation, all reportage of the doings of that powerful individual or anything associated with them, goes through such a restrictive legal review that in most cases subsequent stories are dropped. The SLAPP in action.

What can be done?

government review of defamation law recommended last year that defamation trials should no longer have juries, which is an unusual practice in Europe.

The government has proposed a reform of the law to protect “responsible public interest journalism”, to encourage corrections and apologies as a remedy where possible, and to take measures to reduce legal costs and delays.

However, the government stopped short of proposing a cap on damages, arguing that this would be too rigid. The promised legislative reform has yet to be carried out.

The European Commission has proposed introducing a directive with the aim to “protect targets of SLAPPs and prevent the phenomenon from further expanding in the EU”. The scope is limited to cases with cross-border implications, because defamation falls under the competence of national law.

The Commission proposal would encourage member states to include safeguards in their national laws to address “manifestly unfounded or abusive cases for civil matters” with cross-border implications.

This would mean allowing courts to dismiss “manifestly unfounded” cases at an early stage, with the burden of proof falling to the claimant. Claimants would have to shoulder all legal costs if cases are dismissed as abusive, and courts would have the power to impose penalties for the taking of abusive cases. Targets of SLAPPs could also claim compensation. EU countries should also refuse to recognise a judgement from a non-EU country if the case is abusive or “manifestly unfounded” under national law.

The Commission has also encouraged the abolishment of prison sentences for defamation, the use of civil law rather than criminal law, and training of both legal professionals and potential targets of SLAPPs to encourage better recognition of the phenomenon.

The Irish government has expressed support for the Commission’s proposal. However, there are now concerns that the draft is being significantly watered down as it is negotiated with EU member states.

In March, members of the Ireland Anti-SLAPP Network wrote to the Irish government expressing its concern at a newly published compromise version of the directive. The letter accused the new draft of “watering down crucial protections and radically narrowing the scope of the procedural safeguards”, including by making the bar for pre-trial dismissal of cases so high it would “render the proposed early dismissal mechanism entirely redundant”.

“It is difficult to see how the mechanisms proposed in the compromise proposals would make any material difference to those targeted by SLAPPs. It is therefore crucial that the Department of Justice acts now to ensure that the European Council does not water down the provisions in the EC’s proposed directive, but rather builds on them to ensure robust protections are in place against SLAPPs in Europe.”

This article was comissioned by IPI as part of its work in 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. The project is co-funded by the European Commission.

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Feindbild Journalist 7 Library

Feindbild Journalist 7: Berufsrisiko Nähe

Feindbild Journalist 7: Berufsrisiko Nähe

After setting two negative records in a row, the number of attacks on media professionals in Germany fell in 2022. The European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) recorded 56 assaults throughout the year; 27 fewer than in 2021.

After setting two negative records in a row, the number of attacks on media professionals in Germany fell in 2022. The European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) recorded 56 assaults throughout the year; 27 fewer than in 2021.

According to the analysis of the researchers, the decline in attacks is largely due to the marginalisation of the lateral thinking movement protests. In the previous year, the largest proportion of assaults (77 percent) had taken place around demonstrations against COVID-19 measures. In 2022, that proportion dropped to 48 percent. However, the decline cannot be read as an indication that the security situation is easing. At 56 verified attacks, the attacks are four times that of the pre-pandemic level of 2019, when there were 14 attacks.

Outrage movements such as lateral thinking or previously Pegida are catalysts of press hostility. How high the number of attacked journalists in Germany is, depends largely on the mobilisation ability of these protestors. Hatred of the press serves them as an ideological clasp to keep their heterogeneous followers together,” says Martin Hoffmann, co-author of the study.

In a comparison of the German states, Saxony recorded the most assaults with eleven cases. This is the fifth time since 2015 that the Free State has recorded the most annual assaults. In 2022, Berlin followed with nine registered assaults. Bavaria and Thuringia had eight each. An increased spread of assaults to the western German states, which was first observed in 2021, did not continue last year, according to the ECPMF analysis.

 

Focus on local journalism: When proximity becomes a security problem

Compared to the previous year, the number of physical attacks on local journalists increased threefold. A total of twelve physical attacks were verified; in the previous year, four local media professionals were affected. According to the analysis, local media workers are exposed to a particular threat because they cannot disappear into anonymity like their colleagues in larger cities. In some cases, anti-press citizens demonstrated directly in front of editorial offices or tried to intimidate journalists in front of their private homes.

The ‘lying press’ accusations that have persisted for years have led to the current level of threats. We heard in many interviews that media professionals take security precautions when reporting on demos or that they avoid potentially dangerous situations altogether,” says Annkathrin Pohl, co-author of the study. “What is frightening to note, however, is that for some, the hostility has not only changed the way they work, but their own attitude toward the job: from what used to be their dream job to the ‘shittiest job’.

 

Focus on countermeasures

Journalists, associations, and media companies, as well as many state institutions, have now developed countermeasures. The initiative of some interior ministries is a positive development. In Saxony and several other German states, increasingly comprehensive media protection concepts are being implemented to better protect media professionals from attacks at gatherings. In addition, public broadcasters in particular, as well as larger private media companies, have taken a whole range of protective measures for their employees, such as escorts, de-escalation seminars, or legal support services. However, Jessica Jana Dutz, co-author of the study, still sees many gaps:

Freelance journalists in particular are still not adequately protected in Germany. There are too few low-threshold, low-cost offers of protection for them. Journalists’ unions and initiatives are trying to fill this gap but even they have limited resources and cannot reach everyone.

Feindbild Journalist 7

Key findings

  • No new negative record: with 56 attacks, the number of cases in 2022 declined since the previous year.
  • Demonstrations – the most dangerous workplace: 80 percent of all cases occurred at protests (45 of 56 cases), of which 60 percent (27 of 45 cases) occurred at protests related to COVID.
  • Trend stopped: the spread of attacks to the western German states has been interrupted (for now).
  • Focus on Saxony: with eleven cases, the Free State is again the most frequently affected federal state.
  • Assaults in the local area: with 12 assaults in 2022, three times as many local journalists were assaulted as in 2021.
  • Record month: 23 cases were recorded in January 2022 alone (41 percent of total cases), more than any other month.
  • 2015-2022 total: ECPMF documented 321 cases.
MFRR 3 consortium logos
Serb Member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina Milorad Dodik Library

Bosnia and Herzegovina: Call on the National Assembly to…

Bosnia and Herzegovina: Call on the National Assembly to reject defamation law amendments

The Media Freedom Rapid Response is concerned by the recent developments in Republika Srpska, one of the two entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the government has introduced amendments to the Criminal Code that would re-criminalise defamation.

In the discussions around the proposal, entity President Milorad Dodik accused journalists of lying, using strong derogatory language. Ahead of the session on 21 March, the undersigned partners urge members of the Republika Srpska National Assembly to reject the amendments.

 

On 31 October 2022, President Dodik published a thread on Twitter calling for the Minister of Justice to prepare new, and amend existing laws, with the goal to re-introduce defamation and insults as “criminal offences” in the Criminal Code of the Republika Srpska. This news was followed on 2 March 2023 by the National Assembly’ announcements that Republika Srpska had introduced draft amendments to the Criminal Code to re-criminalise defamation.

 

If approved by the National Assembly, the draft law would give way to arbitrary interpretation of what constitutes an insult or a degrading comment, and would allow for unjustified prosecution of journalists, members of civil society or organisations reporting on corruption and other public interest matters, and anyone writing publicly on social media. Republika Srpska had decriminalised defamation in 1999 in line with developing international standards and practices. Making defamation a crime again would be a direct hindrance to the principles of freedom of the press, and a conviction would lead to fines of between 3,000 and more than 50,000 euros.

 

The bill was strongly criticised by media workers and journalists’ organisations. On 14 March, journalists gathered in front of the National Assembly of Republika Srpska to protest the bill on criminal defamation, and appeal to the people’s deputies to dismiss the proposed amendments. The Parliament has postponed the discussion to debate the amendments to 21 March.

 

The discussions around the re-introduction of criminal defamation sparked unacceptable comments directed at journalists and media organisations during press conferences, often televised. Dodik on several occasions accused journalists of lying, while using strong derogatory language. This comes at a time when journalists in this entity are coming under increasing attacks and pressure: the recent interrogation of Nikola Morača, who works for the newspaper EuroBlic and the portal SrpskaInfo, and several editors and journalists, pressured by the police to reveal their sources; and the vandalism of the cars belonging to Morača and editor of Buka news portal Aleksandar Trifunović, are further concerning examples. Even before the beginning of the investigation Dodik accused the journalists of orchestrating the attack themselves.

 

Another worrying announcement by President Dodik is the introduction of the so-called “foreign agent law” on the activities of non-governmental organisations and associations – a copycat move from Georgia, whose bill was eventually withdrawn after being heavily criticised for its incompatibility with the laws protecting freedom of expression and freedom of association.

 

Our organisations strongly disagree with the proposed amendments and criminalisation of defamation and denounce any attempt to undermine, denigrate or hinder journalistic work. We will continue to closely monitor the situation in Republika Srpska in particular, and will respond to all threats to media freedom in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This includes the documentation of cases on the Mapping Media Freedom and the Council of Europe’s Safety of Journalists platforms.

Signed by:

  • ARTICLE 19 Europe 
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) 
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) 
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU) 
  • International Press Institute (IPI) 
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)

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. 

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Andrej Babiš Library

Czech Republic: What Andrej Babiš’s potential sale of Mafra…

Czech Republic: What Andrej Babiš’s potential sale of Mafra could mean for the media landscape

Reports of negotiations stir speculation about potential buyers for influential publishing group

 

By IPI contributor Vojtěch Berger

Andrej Babiš, the former Czech prime minister and oligarch, will probably offload his media. Paradoxically, not because he is withdrawing from politics, but so that he can stay in it.

 

This year it will be ten years since Babiš sent out what is probably his most famous tweet. The simple message set off wild speculation in mid-2013. A number of insiders were presuming the businessman, billionaire oligarch and then fledgling politician was going to acquire Ringier media outlets for his portfolio, including Blesk, the most widely read tabloid in the Czech Republic. In the end, it turned out it was the publishing house Mafra that became part of Babiš’s Agrofert conglomerate.

 

This controversial acquisition fired the starting gun on a decade of major changes in the Czech media market, as major media houses moved from foreign owners into the hands of Czech oligarchs. After ten years of Babiš‘ ownership Mafra is likely to be sold. The question is to whom and for how much.

 

From speculations about several potential bidders, the names of two big players in the energy business – Pavel Tykač and Daniel Křetínský – finally crystallized. In the case of Křetínský, the purchase of Mafra would significantly expand his already extensive media empire. In addition to the Czech market, Křetínský owns shares in several French print titles such as Le Monde, Marianne and Elle. He is also interested in investing in podcast platforms in France. Tykač does not own any media and would be a newcomer to the club of “media oligarchs”.

 

Oligarchization of the Czech media landscape

Babiš bought Mafra in 2013 from the German company Rheinisch-Bergische Verlagsgesellschaft. Over the next few years, other billionaires followed suit and snapped up legacy media as a means of strengthening influence alongside their core businesses.

 

The Czech portfolio of Swiss Ringier was bought by energy tycoon Daniel Křetínský. Dozens of regional daily newspapers and other magazines were bought from the German group Verlagsgruppe Passau by the financial group Penta. Under this growing media capture, different owners began to interfere in the editorial independence of their media to different degrees. In some, critical or investigative reporting on certain topics quietly became off limits.

 

As this oligarchization and its implications for media freedom continued, smaller independent projects popped up, often founded by journalists who quit after threats were made to their media’s editorial independence.

 

Babiš also soon added the commercial radio station Impuls to his media portfolio, followed by about 30 lifestyle magazines acquired from another German publisher, Bauer Media, in 2018. For years, these media were essentially used as promotional platforms for his election campaign.

 

When Babiš was running for president in January 2023, these magazines published a series of articles showing him as a great father and an ordinary and smiling man. There were also interviews with his wife and glimpses behind the scenes of the Babiš family.

 

Overall, the texts seemed like PR materials written on demand, but they pretended to be editorial content. The subliminal message to the readers – mainly to the female readers – was obvious: vote for Babiš. Similar texts in support of Babiš were published in the same lifestyle magazines in previous years. Previously, these titles did not focus on politics at all, but that changed when Babiš became their owner.

 

The Czech press law does not require newspapers and magazines to have a balance of opinion, so such texts are not in breach of the law, but undoubtedly highly problematic in terms of journalistic ethics.

 

Election defeat

This aggressive campaign and the support of his own media proved insufficient for  Babiš in the end, and his failure in the presidential election fueled speculation that he would sell Mafra.

 

Rumours that the publishing house might change hands appeared last autumn, and the new year brought a new name of a possible buyer. Previously, there was speculation about the aforementioned Daniel Křetínský. But in February, another billionaire with an energy business, Pavel Tykač, confirmed his interest in Mafra and that he had started ongoing negotiations. He told Czech Radio that one of his motivations to purchase the media was “so that it does not fall into some hands that will use it in a way that would not be in the interest of this country”.

 

Mafra’s economic results have not been impressive in recent years. The daily newspapers led by Mlada fronta Dnes and Lidove noviny are losing money, with operating losses are in the tens of millions, according to the magazine Reporter. However, the company’s lifestyle magazines are economically stable and the internet portals with radio Impuls are profitable. Overall, the Mafra media group has repeatedly made losses over the past three years.

 

This suggests that interest in the media house is not so much motivated by profit as by the potential influence that Mafra offers its owner. The business of both Pavel Tykač (Sev.en Energy) and Daniel Křetínský (EPH holding) is not based on media, but primarily on coal mining, electricity and heat production and distribution. From there, they can subsidize any losses of their media holdings.

 

However, it would be a mistake to say that the whole transaction is not about profit at all. The energy business is inherently dependent on good relations with the state and municipalities, and the Czech state has so far generously subsidized the oligarchs with state advertising, which has almost exclusively ended up with the big media houses, like Mafra or Křetínský’s CNC. This fragile symbiosis is likely to continue, despite promises by the government of Petr Fiala to change the state advertising system in order to support smaller independent media. After the government abolished the media and disinformation commissioner in mid-February, the media appears to have fallen off the cabinet’s agenda.

 

Together, the titles of the Mafra publishing house have a reach of 3.23 million readers, according to last year’s figures, while Daniel Křetínský’s second CNC reaches 3.08 million readers. This shows how much Křetínský would strengthen his market position by buying Mafra.

 

Tightening controls on media ownership

The question is why Andrej Babiš wants to get rid of this influence and why he wants to do it now. The answer may sound paradoxical: because of politics.

 

Ten years ago Babiš bought Mafra precisely to strengthen his political clout. But today the ownership of Mafra may make it more difficult for him to remain in politics. After losing the presidential election, Babiš has already announced that he wants to remain a member of parliament.

 

However, a government amendment to the Conflict of Interest Act that is currently making its way through the legislative process would hit his media business hard.

 

The new rules, if passed, would ban public officials from owning or publishing media. Crucially, this ban would apply to the ultimate owner of the media company, not just the controlling person or entity. It would include members of the government and serving MPs.

 

According to the authors of the bill, the amendment will prevent circumvention of the conflict of interest law and should stop efforts by politicians to influence media houses through their ownership, or to make money from public contracts, subsidies or investment incentives. This would be a major issue for Babiš.

 

According to the register of beneficial owners, the real owner of Agrofert holding, which includes the media house Mafra, is Babiš. So far, it has been enough for him to transfer his assets to trust funds in 2017, thus complying with the current, more lenient law. During this time, however, he has faced criticism that he continues to control his companies.

 

In his media, this was proven by the positive writings in his magazines and obvious PR for Babiš before this year’s presidential campaign and in previous years. The Mafra daily newspapers were under permanent suspicion of favouring Babiš when they reported less extensively or with different accents on his affairs and conflicts of interest than other media. In other cases, they completely ignored corruption scandals involving Babiš.

 

It is to be expected that the next owner of Mafra will not abuse these media in such a blatant way, if only because neither Tykač nor Křetínský (if one of them is indeed the buyer) is directly involved in politics.

 

However, both could undoubtedly use the group’s media influence to benefit their other business. Even after the sale of Mafra, most of the Czech media will remain firmly in the hands of oligarchs.

This article is part of 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.

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Malta PM Residence Library

Malta: Lack of proper public consultation affects the quality…

Malta: Lack of proper public consultation affects the quality of media laws

Seemingly indifferent attitude of government towards consultation has resulted in weak draft media laws

 

By IPI contributor Elizabeth De Gaetano, The Shift News

The 2018 assassination of Ján Kuciak and his fiancée Martina Kušnírová in Slovakia occurred just months after that of Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, in October 2017, raising urgent questions about the state of press freedom in both countries. However, the outcomes could not be more different.

 

While Kuciak’s death brought investigative journalism to the forefront of public debate and led to legislation to better protect journalists, the same cannot be said for Malta, where justice for Caruana Galizia remains elusive as the government resists much-needed reforms.

 

In Malta, a lack of political will and differing interpretations of what constitutes public engagement has resulted in a public consultation process on proposed media legislation that produced no significant outcome. It also means that several laws affecting press freedom in Malta are flawed in their current form.

 

On February 15, the government-appointed Committee of Media Experts held a half-day conference as part of a public consultation on the proposed legislation to protect journalism in Malta. The Minister of Justice, Jonathan Attard, responsible for the proposed legislation, had been invited to speak at the conference. However, he did not attend or send a representative in his stead.

 

The chairman of the committee, retired judge Michael Mallia, who also chaired the Daphne Caruana Galizia public inquiry, told the audience. “Where it [the exercise] goes from here, I cannot say,” but not before noting that the government appeared to be ignoring the committee’s most significant recommendations.

 

Public consultation as a box-ticking exercise

This lack of progress on the government’s proposed changes to Malta’s media laws is unsurprising, given how fraught the entire process has been.

 

In July 2021, an independent public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Caruana Galizia’s murder concluded that the state “should bear responsibility for the murder”. Although Prime Minister Robert Abela called an extraordinary parliamentary session to discuss the inquiry’s report, he never committed to a timetable for implementing the inquiry’s recommendations.

 

The board’s recommendations for journalism include various laws and constitutional changes, including a law to ensure journalism is self-regulated and a constitutional amendment recognising an individual’s right to receive information from the state. The board also recommended a revision of Malta’s Freedom of Information Act (FOI) and a revision of the constitutional provisions of Malta’s Broadcasting Authority.

 

To date, Malta’s government has only fully implemented one of the 28 key recommendations made by the board of inquiry.

 

When the opposition later tabled several bills in parliament based on the public inquiry’s recommendations, the government shot them down.

 

Instead, it hastily set up a Committee of Media Experts who were given three months to submit their comments and suggestions on the draft laws already prepared by the government but who were never consulted during the drafting process. Furthermore, the government demanded that the committee keep its discussions confidential, excluding many media and journalism stakeholders.

 

The Committee of Media Experts then submitted its recommendations and proposals in June. But nothing was heard until late September when Justice Minister Jonathan Attard made the government’s proposals public at a press conference.

 

As a result, the committee’s main recommendations were ignored, and the draft law was submitted to parliament in early October. These included proposed amendments to the law on the safety of journalists and on Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), which, however, did not meet international standards.

 

More than a hundred Maltese journalists, academics and artists then wrote to Prime Minister Robert Abela, urging him to hold a public consultation on the proposed legislation.

 

The prime minister initially resisted, but after two members of the Institute of Maltese Journalists (IĠM) threatened to withdraw from the committee of experts, he finally halted the parliamentary process and promised to open the legislation to public scrutiny.

 

In practice, all the government did was delegate the public consultation process to the Media Experts Committee. The same committee, whose main recommendations had already been ignored and which the government blamed for the lack of consultation, was tasked with consulting the public and returning with a revised set of recommendations.

 

Differing views on what constitutes public consultation

When the media community wrote to the prime minister asking him to open the proposed legislation to wider scrutiny, he insisted that the committee could have consulted with whomever it wished – although the published correspondence by the committee shows this was not the case.

 

Similarly, in an official response to an alert from the Council of Europe’s Platform for the Safety of Journalists, Minister of Justice Jonathan Attard repeatedly insisted that the government had held broad public consultations with various stakeholders on its proposed media bills.

 

His response also stated that the bills tabled in the House of Representatives on January 27, 2022 were available to the public and “open for scrutiny and review by the public at large”.

 

The minister was referring to a document containing an early draft of the legislative proposals for the media that the prime minister presented in parliament following a parliamentary debate in which he claimed the opposition had been consulted about the draft media proposals.

 

Legal experts pointed out that tabling a document in the House of Representatives because it was mentioned in a speech in Parliament does not amount to public consultation.

 

Legislation without consultation

These loose notions of what constitutes public consultation by Malta’s top officials point to a wider problem in the government’s approach when drafting legislation.

 

The European Commission’s 2022 Rule of Law Report noted with concern that Malta has no rules or guidelines on public participation in the drafting of legislation. There are, however, various channels for consulting the public, but these are subject to the discretion of the Ministry preparing the initiative. Nor is the government bound or required to publish the feedback it receives.

 

This discretion may explain why ministers in Malta have such a poor grasp of what a full public consultation should entail and why the government often chooses not to consult at all. This has affected several laws related to media freedom in Malta.

 

For example, the amendment of Malta’s Protection of Whistleblowers Act was passed without any public consultation and is considered inadequate. The law reform was passed just in time to meet the deadline for implementing the EU directive on improving the protection of whistleblowers.

 

According to Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) rapporteur Pieter Omtzigt, the reform does not provide any real protection for whistleblowers and “ignores the Directive’s requirements for transparency, including regular monitoring of the impact of the legislation”, adding that the law was “rushed through without any meaningful consultation”.

 

recent report by the civil society group Reppublika also outlined how the amended law failed to address a fundamental flaw, namely the extent of government influence over whether a potential witness is granted whistleblower status.

 

In another instance, the government issued a legal notice empowering the director general of the court – a state official who reports directly to the Ministry of Justice – to decide which court judgments can be removed from the online database of judgements available to the public, without any criteria or controls to ensure that the system is not abused. Media organisations and legal experts strongly opposed the move.

 

The same can be said of the legislative reform of Malta’s Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Not only has there been no public consultation, but the government is refusing to publish the report it commissioned to review the law.

 

The report was commissioned following pressure by the Council of Europe because the current law cannot guarantee its stated aim. But despite its completion two years ago with an accompanying bill to be presented to Parliament, the report is being kept under wraps. A Freedom of Information request by The Shift to see the report was also refused.

 

Malta and Slovakia – same problem, different results

In Slovakia, the assassinations of Ján Kuciak and Martina Kušnírová led to far-reaching changes, including progress on press freedom. In Malta, the fifth anniversary of Caruana Galizia’s killing was marked by a lack of significant reform.

 

While in Malta, the independent media community struggles to make headway with the government, in Slovakia, legislative reforms adopted by the current government were approved after regular consultations with its journalistic stakeholders. These included important bills strengthening the legal protection of the confidentiality of journalistic sources and increasing the transparency of media ownership and funding.

 

In Malta, the government refuses to publish its report on amendments to its FOI laws. In Slovakia, freedom of information and government transparency rules have improved significantly, and the country now has one of the best FOI laws in Europe.

 

This is not to say that there are no challenges to media freedom in Slovakia, and the fight against impunity is not over.  But if the quality of legislation can also be judged by the level of consultation that precedes it, Slovakia and Malta have respectively illustrated what the resulting legislation looks like with and without broad consultation.

This article was commissioned is part of 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. The project is co-funded by the European Commission.

MFRR 3 consortium logos