Poland: Access to public information must not be constrained

The undersigned partners of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) are highly concerned about new possible restrictions on the right to information in Poland that could further erode press freedom in the country. On 17 November 2021, the Constitutional Tribunal will hold a hearing on the constitutionality of core provisions of the bill that regulates access to public information.

The right to information is a vital right of the public for holding governments to account and vital to the work of journalists who investigate abuse of power. We believe that imposing extensive constraints on existing legislation would undermine public transparency and thereby impede media outlets from duly fulfilling their role of watchdogs.

On 16 February 2021, the First President of the Supreme Court, Małgorzata Manowska submitted an application to Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal requesting that several essential provisions of the Act of 6 September 2001 on Access to Public Information (AAPI) be ruled as inconsistent with the respective articles of the Polish constitution. Her statement consists of six allegations concerning the elementary provisions of the AAPI.

The First President argues that several core provisions of the AAPI lack clarity and precision and contravene the right to privacy and to the protection of personal data. Małgorzata Manowska requested to find certain articles of the bill unconstitutional as they allegedly do not unequivocally regulate the relationship between them and the respected provisions on access or limitation on access to data written in the Constitution and the other legal acts.

This is not the first attempt to constrain access to public information in Poland. Małgorzata Gersdorf, Manowska’s predecessor, also sought to find certain provisions of the AAPI unconstitutional, although in a much narrower scope. In an interview with Gazeta Wyborcza, Mirosław Wróblewski, attorney at law from the Polish Ombudsman’s office, notes that his office believes that the law in force adequately balances the public and private interests, including the right to privacy. In Mr. Wróblewski’s opinion, voiding the aforementioned provision would damage the foundation of the law on access to public information in Poland: “It would not be clear what to share and who is supposed to share anything”, he stresses.

If the Constitutional Tribunal rules in favour of Manowska’s claim it may greatly impair the possibility, let alone efficiency of monitoring and controlling the activities of state institutions or state-owned enterprises. This may lead to a situation in which solely public officials (not only high-ranking politicians but all of the entities that have public funds at their disposal) arbitrarily decide which information may be disclosed. Hence, the transparency of public life would be seriously damaged. Wróblewski notes that the request of the First President could violate the right to freedom of speech guaranteed in the Constitution and directly affect press freedom in the country. The MFRR finds such a scenario dangerous as it would deprive journalists of their basic right of using the official route to obtain information on public institutions or public spending. The checks and balances mechanism that enables civil society to have control over the activities of state institutions may thus be disrupted.

Contesting the key elements of Polish legislation on access to public information would violate international law and standards, including Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as elucidated by the Human Rights Committee in its General Comment No. 34, and Council of Europe standards on right to information, in particular those specified in Recommendation Rec(2002)2 on access to official documents, as well as in the recently entered into force Tromso Convention.

The MFRR is monitoring the ongoing erosion of media freedom in Poland with great concern. The government continues to wage a multi-pronged attack on independent media to muzzle critical reporting and to discredit journalists by fostering a hostile working environment. These potentially grave restrictions of access to information would blaze the trail to blatant lack of accountability of public officials. We urge the Government to ensure this scenario will not materialise and reiterate how vital unrestrained access to information is for democracy and press freedom. If difficult questions are asked by citizens or journalists, public institutions should answer in a transparent manner rather than change the law as a remedy to avoid similar situations in the future. Journalists must be able to conduct their investigations and raise critical issues freely in order to fulfil their role of a primal, unbiased source of information for civil society.

Signed by:

ARTICLE 19
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
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 in Focus News Webinar — Episode 4

MFRR in Focus news webinar November episode

Media Freedom Rapid Response’s MFRR in Focus News Webinar focuses on November 2, International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists this month.

In this month’s episode you may find the monthly and annual media freedom alerts, as reported on MappingMediaFreedom.org and presented by ECPMF’s Antje Schlaf.

Among the updates of the month are listed the cases of impunity and trials concerning journalist-murders in Europe, namely those of Peter R. de Vries in the Netherlands, Georgios Karaivaz in Greece and the ongoing calls for justice for the investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia in Malta.

The guests of the webinar include Head of Europe and Central Asia team at Article 19, Sarah Clarke who talked about the Malta Mission and the battle for justice for Daphne Caruana Galizia; as well as OBCT’s Coordinator of the Resource Centre on Media Freedom in Europe Paola Rosa who talked about the increasing number of physical attacks and intimidation targeting journalists in Italy in recent weeks. IPI’s Jamie Wiseman as part of MFRR in Focus interviewed Georgios Karaivaz’s son Dimitris Karaivaz.

The panel discussion this month was led by EFJ’s Communications and Project Officer Camille Petit who also is doing monitoring as part of the MFRR, and she was joined by guest speakers David Bevan -a media specific risk consultant- and Stefan Bentele -a freelance journalist from Germany who specializes on extremism.

The webinar is presented by Gürkan Özturan, the MFRR Coordinator. The MFRR is organised by an alliance led by the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) including ARTICLE 19, the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), Free Press Unlimited (FPU), the Institute for Applied Informatics at the University of Leipzig (InfAI), International Press Institute (IPI) and CCI/Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT).

The MFRR offers tangible and frontline support to journalists and media workers in EU member states and candidate countries who are at risk from their work. The existence of this mechanism enables the MFRR to react to changing situations and offer all necessary protections against a range of threats. Opportunities offered by the MFRR includes support for legal defence and opinion, emergency support such as covering travel, psychological support and family costs, offering residencies in Germany and Italy, and delivering and supporting training sessions across the continent. This support is in place to ensure that journalists and media workers can continue their work and be protected from harm.

You may find more on MFRR support covering practical support, legal support, training sessions, residency programmes on MFRR.eu; and do not forget to follow us on Twitter.

Watch on Youtube

Slovenia: MFRR welcomes end to STA funding crisis

The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) today welcomes the signing of a contract which ends the immediate financial crisis at the Slovenian Press Agency (STA). However, the MFRR also raises concerns that the current conditions of the deal could leave the agency in a financially weaker position in the long term as it carries out its vital public service mission.

On 8 November, the new acting director of the STA, Igor Kadunc, and the director of the Government Communication Office (UKOM), Uroš Urbanija, signed an agreement on the STA’s public service for November and December 2021. The deal restored state funding to the agency for the rest of the year and agreed to a court settlement on overdue back payments from UKOM.

It brings to a close a gruelling 10-month crisis, during which time the STA was forced to operate without legally-mandated state funding for 312 days and narrowly avoided bankruptcy. During this time, the MFRR repeatedly appealed to UKOM to reinstate the financing, raising the issue at the EU level and visiting Ljubljana in mid-October to meet with representatives from the STA.

While our organisations welcome the end of the immediate crisis, the issues for the STA are far from over. Ultimately, these payments were always due to the agency under two separate laws. We note that the agreement came shortly before a court was due to rule on the STA’s lawsuit over unpaid compensation, which should now be resolved via settlement. Moreover, the fact that the contract was concluded under the conditions of a legally dubious government decree rather than a solid legal foundation is regrettable. Meanwhile, several outstanding issues in the contract need to be resolved and a new business plan and agreement for 2022 need to be approved.

Moving forward, based on UKOM’s handling of this dispute, we also retain concerns that its new oversight of STA’s financial activities could infringe on editorial independence. Observation must not morph into interference. We also share the concerns of journalist groups that the commercial aspects of the deal could, if not addressed next year, weaken the sustainability of the STA’s business model in the long term. Under the conditions of the current contract, the agency will see an overall drop in monthly funding for the rest of the year. In the next agreement for 2022, a careful balance must be struck to safeguard its financial viability.

This crisis has left the STA drained psychologically as well as financially. Numerous staff and some of its most experienced journalists have left. As the MFRR heard during our mission, some of its workforce is suffering from mental health problems as a result of stress and anxiety. Despite these pressures and smears from top government officials, its newsroom has continued to work with great professionalism and dignity. While the STA draws up a fresh business plan for 2022, a period of stability and fresh recruitment is now required to rejuvenate the agency for the future.

We also take this moment to pay tribute to the indefatigable work of the Association of Slovenian Journalists (DNS) and the Slovenian Journalists’ Union (SNS), whose crowdfunding campaign for the STA has raised a total of €385,000 to keep the STA afloat. The phenomenal support displayed by individual citizens and the solidarity expressed by the wider media community both acted as a timely reminder of the extent of the support for independent journalism in Slovenia.

However, the unavoidable conclusion is that this funding crisis should never have reached this point. The STA was financially drained over many months to the point where it had little choice but to accept UKOM’s terms or face liquidation. We maintain that this manufactured dispute was driven primarily by an effort by the government to try and exert greater control over the STA and its reporting. The effects on media freedom have been significant and concerns remain over recent politicised changes at the public broadcaster RTVS.

The STA has been the lifeblood of the Slovenian media ecosystem for the last thirty years. As we move forward it is vital that it continues to carry out its important public mission free from political pressure or further financial coercion. Adequate and fair funding for the STA and the guarantee of its editorial autonomy, as prescribed by law, will be vital. Looking ahead, greater safeguards must be put in place to stop this kind of crisis from happening again. The MFRR will continue to monitor the situation moving forward.

Signed by:

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

MFRR in Focus News Webinar — Episode 2

The second episode of the MFRR in Focus News Webinar focuses on International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists.

In this month’s episode you may find the monthly and annual media freedom alerts, as reported on MappingMediaFreedom.org and presented by ECPMF’s Antje Schlaf.

IPI’s Jamie Wiseman as part of MFRR in Focus interviewed Georgios Karaivaz’s son Dimitris Karaivaz.

This webinar 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.

Austria: Election of new ORF head shines spotlight on…

Austria: Election of new ORF head shines spotlight on selection process

Appointment raises recurring question over politicization of oversight bodies. On 10 August, the Austrian public service broadcasting company ORF (Österreichischer Rundfunk) elected a new head. Roland Weissmann will become its new director general on January 1, 2022, for a five-year term.

Jonas Vogt, IPI Contributor

The conservative Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) had a majority in the Stiftungsrat (foundation board), the body that elects the director general. That was an unusual situation. Normally political parties need to form coalitions to get a candidate for the head of ORF elected. Political observers described Weissmann as the “ÖVP’s candidate“.

The election drew criticism for the way one of the most important positions in the Austrian media landscape is assigned, especially as regards the role that political parties play in the process.

“In Austria, active politicians are not allowed to be member of the body electing the director general”, said Leonard Dobusch, an organizational researcher from the University of Innsbruck and an expert on public broadcasting who also sits in the board of the RBB, the public broadcasting company of Berlin and Brandenburg in Germany. “But 30 of the 35 members of the (ORF) Stiftungsrat can be attributed to political parties, directly or indirectly”.

The seats in the Stiftungsrat are distributed in a complex way. Some members are sent by the federal government, some by the state governments and some directly by political parties. Others come from the ORF workers‘ council or are so-called “Publikumsräte“ (representatives of the audience).

Every five years, the candidates for the post of director general announce their interest and an election campaign takes place. In previous elections, there were actions to get some kind of publicity in the process. In 2016 there were public hearings, and this year most of the candidates published their proposed programme for the ORF’s next five years.

But in rare cases when a political party had strong results in recent elections at federal and state level – like the ÖVP – they can essentially determine the election of the director general alone. The party in this case usually makes some deals nonetheless, to save its candidate from the impression of being too partisan. Roland Weissmann was elected with the votes of the parties forming the coalition on the federal level (ÖVP and Greens) and the delegates of the workers’ council.

Design flaws

Dobusch identifies another problem in the way the Stiftungsrat actually votes. “The vote is conducted openly”, he says. “That makes it easy for political parties to put pressure on ‘their‘ board members and difficult for the board members to step out of line.” The open election is a relatively recent element. The coalition between the ÖVP and the far-right FPÖ under former Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel (ÖVP) passed a new law regarding the ORF in 2001. Before that, there was a secret ballot.

The combination of the importance of the majority party in the Stiftungsrat and the openly conducted election doesn’t mean that there are no surprises at all. Alexander Wrabetz, Weissmann’s predecessor, had three terms in office. When the SPÖ-affiliated candidate was elected for the first time in 2006, he managed to form a broad coalition with some of the ÖVP-affiliated board members and get elected twice after that, under different majorities in the Stiftungsrat. But the chances for such constellations are slim. Because of the circumstances, Weissmann has been seen as the most promising candidate for months, long before he announced his candidacy. It turned out as everybody expected.

Weissmann is seen as a fitting candidate for the role as director general. He has worked at the ORF his whole life. He started in the ORF Niederösterreich (Lower Austria), an important state body of the public broadcasting company, where he established contacts to the ÖVP. Before his election he was vice director of finance in the ORF. But critics question his independence.

In 2020, when Weissmann was director of the news portal orf.at, an already-published article about a raid in the home of Gernot Blümel, the federal minister of finance (ÖVP), was changed, reportedly after an intervention from Weissmann. The editorial board of the ORF wrote a letter reminding Weissmann that it’s “not his job to intervene for political parties”. Weissmann emphasized the importance of editorial independence in his election campaign. This has been seen as a reaction to his critics.

Even so, the mere perception of a lack of independence is problematic enough, as it can damage the public’s trust in the news that the broadcaster produces. An appointment process that hinges too heavily on political parties is apt to create such a perception.

Independence questions

There are a lot of proposals to change the process of the election of the director general. Usually they involve “de-politicization”. Nearly all experts emphasize that the main criteria for a head of a public broadcasting company like the ORF should be competence and a commitment to independent news in the public interest, serving all citizens. But Dobusch also points out that political parties get their legitimacy from democratic elections, and the process of choosing a new head of the ORF should enjoy the perception of democratic legitimacy as well. A process completely without politics is neither realistic nor desirable, he says.

“A good thing would be to change the structure of the Stiftungsrat: A third of the members could be sent be political parties; a third by organizations like unions or churches; another third could be citizens selected by a draw”, he said. An even easier move, according to Dobusch, would be to revert to the election process prior to 2001: the director general would need a two-thirds majority via secret ballot again, which would dramatically increase the need for coalition-building.

Even if there are doubts about the independence of Weissmann, there is also an argument for staying calm. “In big organizations like the ORF, there are always several important centers of power”, Dobusch said. “A new director general usually can’t carry out all of his ideas, especially if those require bigger changes in the organization. The ’lethargy’ of a big organization ensures a certain continuity. It’s too early to judge whether a director general appointed by a political party means more political influence in the editorial process.”

First published on IPI's website

This article is part of IPI’s reporting series “Media freedom in Europe in the shadow of Covid”, which comprises news and analysis from IPI’s network of correspondents throughout the EU. Articles do not necessarily reflect the views of IPI or MFRR. This reporting series is supported by funding from the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom and by the European Commission (DG Connect) as part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response, a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and Candidate Countries.

The struggles of Albania’s 30-year-old media landscape

Anti-defamation package and new information agency pose fresh challenges

Alice Taylor, IPI member & co-editor of exit.al

For almost 50 years, Albania was in the grips of a brutal Communist regime. After it fell in 1990, the first independent media began to navigate a complex social and democratic situation. Over the past 30 years, the sector has grown to include hundreds of online portals and tens of TV stations. Despite this, Albania is still struggling to break free from some constraints of its past, and its media environment is plagued with obstacles and pressures.

Last December, I conducted a poll amongst my peers and found that almost 100% said they’d experienced political pressure while performing their work. This included threats not to publish a story, demands to take down articles, and even threats against safety. While this is a reality for many journalists and can come from every side of the political spectrum, it’s exacerbated by the behaviour of Prime Minister Edi Rama.

An artist-turned-politician, Rama is creative with his insults and has publicly called journalists parasites, ignorant, trash, dogs, human rights abusers, and poison. During the first weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, his voice played on people’s mobiles before they made a phone call. He reminded them to wash their hands, wear masks, and protect themselves from the media.

He and his cabinet have also filed a concerning number of libel lawsuits against journalists- 34 lawsuits in just two years. Not only does this intimidate the plaintiff, but it also has a chilling impact on reporting from other journalists. But the government hasn’t stopped there.

In 2018, Rama announced the so-called “anti-defamation package” that would bring all online media under the control of a parliament-appointed board. This board could block, fine, close, and enforce corrections on any site that it believes publishes ‘defamation’ or ‘fake news.’ His reasoning for introducing the law was to combat fake news, though many think it will be weaponised to silence critics.

The package was widely condemned, and the Venice Commission issued an opinion on the draft, noting it would have a “chilling effect” and should essentially be scrapped.

While this law sits in parliament, the government changed provisions in the electoral code, allowing them to shut any TV station for 48 hours if they breached certain conditions during electoral periods. They also proposed increases to criminal defamation penalties, including fines of up to EUR 36,000 (the average Albanian salary is EUR 350 per month), and that punishments should be increased by half if people insult a politician, judge, or administration employee. This runs directly counter to long-standing European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence that public officials must accept a higher degree of criticism than ordinary citizens.

Tightening control

Just before the elections, in the absence of parliamentary opposition, the Socialist Party voted to install Armela Krasniqi, a former party communications aide, as the head of the agency that would supervise all online media. The EU delegation in Tirana, and various international organisations, including IPI, asked the parliament to wait until September when the opposition would be present, but they refused.

After Rama’s party secured a third mandate to rule in April 2021, their first decision was to create the Media and Information Agency, which would prevent individual ministries from communicating with the media. Instead, all communications, plus statements, information, and comments would come from a centralised agency, under the control of Rama’s right-hand communication aide Endri Fuga. This agency would also monitor local media and mass media to gauge public opinion of the government.

The news sparked outrage amongst local and international media stakeholders, who called on the EU to intervene. They asked for improvements in media freedom and for the withdrawal of the draft law and media agency to be conditions for continued EU accession talks. The EU refused.

Then in October, at the OSCE South Eastern Europe Media Freedom Conference, Rama compared the online media to “Nazis” and “paedophiles”, adding that regulating them was necessary, even if wanting to do so made him unpopular.

Concerns abound that through a series of stealthy legal and administrative changes, the government is moving to assume total control of the media. This, combined with an increasingly hostile environment which includes police violence against media workers, and impunity for attacks, causes journalists to worry.

All of these complexities take place in a country where independent journalists struggle to be heard. Most mainstream media is owned by a handful of wealthy businesspeople with political connections. With interests in construction, real estate, and private schools, they use their media to win favourable treatment from the government, including tenders and funding.

This means that the editorial line of the main media is controlled by a need to remain on the good side of the state. Fake news, propaganda, and smear campaigns are common. Simply put, the vast majority of Albanian media can be weaponized by political figures at a moment’s notice, vastly impacting the information that the general public receives.

Those journalists that do speak up are at risk of being targeted via smear campaigns. I was branded a Russian spy and had my residence permit revoked while six-months pregnant, all because I reported on corruption and anti-government protests. This is a common occurrence and more often than not, the targets are women.

To write about the intricacies of the Albanian media environment would take up many thousands of words. But amid all these issues, there is growing resistance. Solidarity, self-regulation, and possible EU accession all present hope for Albania’s journalists. Furthermore, a desire for change, fuelled by accountability and transparency creates a new generation of journalists who are not so easily controlled.

This is a guest post. Any views expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily of IPI, or other MFRR partners.

First published on IPI's website

Finland: EFJ reacts to three journalists being accused of…

Finland: three journalists face jail term for allegedly “disclosing state secrets”

Three journalists from Finland’s largest national daily Helsingin Sanomat were charged on 29 October 2021 with “attempted disclosure of a security secret” and face jail term. The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) joined its affiliates in Finland, the Finnish Journalists’ Union (UJF), in expressing solidarity with the journalists and condemning Finland’s deputy prosecutor general’s decision to prosecute them.

Laura Halminen, Tuomo Pietiläinen and Kalle Silfverberg face four months to four years in prison for publishing in December 2017 an article about the Finnish Defence Intelligence Agency (VKoeL), at a time when a constitutional change gave the Finnish security services increased surveillance powers.

Following publication of the story, authorities opened an investigation into the newspaper for allegedly disclosing “state secrets” that would endanger national security. On 17 December 2017, police raided the apartment of Laura Halminen, seizing her computer as well as flash drives.

Pre-trial investigation found out that the editorial team did not obtain information through illegal means. According to Helsingin Sanomat, all information made public was available in public sources.

Following a four-year investigation, Finland’s prosecutor decided to prosecute three of the five journalists involved and to hold most of the trial – whose date is not yet known – behind closed doors.

In an editorial, Helsingin Sanomat editor-in-chief Kaius Niemi warned that the threat of imprisonment for investigative journalists is “conducive to creating fear and self-censorship” throughout the Finnish media field.

“This is unique in the history of Finland and even highly exceptional in Western democracies,” said UJF president Hanne Aho. “The prosecutor has so far been very tight-lipped in explaining the grounds for the charges. This is a matter of such international importance for freedom of expression that the trial must be public. This will also allow the journalists to prove their innocence not only to the court but to the public”, added Aho.

EFJ President Mogens Blicher Bjerregard said: “Journalists should be rewarded, not prosecuted, for doing investigative journalism for citizens, in the public interest. It is shocking to see now that Finland attacks press freedom and thereby sends a wrong signal to all Finnish journalists doing investigation.”

First published on EFJ's website

Finland: IPI criticizes Finland for charging three journalists with…

Finland: IPI criticizes Finland for charging three journalists with ‘disclosing state secrets’

IPI strongly criticizes decision to prosecute Helsingin Sanomat journalists following four-year investigation

The International Press Institute (IPI), the global network of editors, publishers, and leading journalists for press freedom, today expressed grave alarm over the decision by Finland’s deputy prosecutor general to charge three Helsingin Sanomat journalists with disclosing state secrets.

Helsingin Sanomat, Finland’s leading daily newspaper, started to publish a series of articles beginning on December 16, 2017, on plans – which required a constitutional amendment – to give Finland’s security services greater powers to carry out surveillance and covert operations domestically and abroad. The articles shed light in particular on the operations of the Finnish Defence Intelligence Agency (VKoeL).

Following publication of the story, authorities opened an investigation into the newspaper for allegedly divulging “state secrets”. Five Helsingin Sanomat employees were named as suspects in the investigation, including Editor-in-Chief Kaius Niemi. On December 17, 2017, police raided the apartment of journalist Laura Halminen, seizing her computer as well as flash drives.

Today, on October 29, 2021, nearly four years after the publication of the story, prosecutors announced charges for disclosure and attempted disclosure of state secrets against Halminen and journalist Tuomo Pietiläinen as well as Kalle Silfverberg, who was head of Helsingin Sanomat’s political news department at the time. Niemi as well as managing editor Esa Mäkinen were not charged. The three charged journalists face four months to four years in prison.

Helsingin Sanomat has said that the articles did not contain any state secrets and emphasized that all information that was published in the story was available in public sources. It has also underscored that the story was in the public interest. Finnish news reports said that investigators previously determined that the newspaper had not acquired the information illegally. Authorities opened a separate investigation into the source of the leak.

IPI Executive Director Barbara Trionfi expressed dismay over the decision to file charges.

“IPI is deeply alarmed by today’s decision, which poses a serious threat to the ability of journalists in Finland to work freely”, Trionfi said. “It is unacceptable and absurd that journalists in a European democracy like Finland are facing imprisonment for doing their job and reporting on an issue of massive public interest, which the discussion about the activities and powers of Finland’s security agencies undoubtedly was.

“This investigation itself – which has dragged on for years – had already cast a shadow over Finnish reporting on national security issues. These charges will now worsen this chilling effect, jeoparadizing the public’s right to be informed on issues of tremendous importance to society. IPI calls on Finnish authorities to swiftly drop all charges against the journalists in this case, and offer reassurance that upholding press freedom remains a priority in Finland.”

Khadija Patel, the chair of IPI’s global Executive Board, also criticized the move by prosecutors.

“This case undermines Finland’s reputation as a global safe haven for press freedom. At a moment in which governments around the world are ramping up pressure on independent media, to see a country like Finland take steps to punish journalists for public-interest reporting is disturbing and disheartening. Unfortunately, cases like this can inadvertently give cover to authoritarian states, and they undermine the ability of Finland and other democratic countries to defend independent journalism across the globe.”

Helsingin Sanomat has gained widespread recognition as a leading voice in the defence of independent journalism. During the 2018 summit in Helsinki between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the newspaper published ads across the city with messages in support of press freedom. It has also launched initiatives to support media working in restricted environments, such as the Hungarian online news website Telex.

First published on IPI's website

Greece: Probe into killing of Giorgos Karaivaz remains in…

Greece: Probe into killing of Giorgos Karaivaz remains in “darkness”

Authorities remain tight lipped on status of investigation into murder six months on

By IPI contributor Stavros Malichudis

“The chain is tightening around his killers” ― that’s what Greek media reported back in early May.

This is what was reported in July, too. But fast forward to early November and no light has yet been shed into the assassination of prominent 52-year-old journalist Giorgos Karaivaz on April 9, 2021. No suspects have been publicly identified and no arrests have been made, while public information about the status of the investigation remains scarce.

“For the moment, we remain in darkness. After all these months, we have received no update whatsoever on the case”, Apostolos Lytras, the family’s lawyer who was also a friend of Karaivaz, told the International Press Institute (IPI).

On the day of the murder, Lytras had met with Karaivaz. It was approximately half an hour after they said goodbye that the experienced crime reporter was gunned down outside his house in Alimos, a southern suburb of Athens.

His execution in broad daylight with ten bullets ― two of which struck Karaivaz in the head, to “finish the job” ― was quickly deemed a “mafia-like death contract” killing by police experts. Karaivaz, after all, had covered extensively the so-called “Greek mafia” and their operations in drug dealing, money laundering and selling ‘protection’ to businesses.

Karaivaz’s assassination is believed to be the 45th killing in Greece between 2009 and 2021 linked to the country’s different organized crime groups, which are currently locked in an ongoing battle for battle for supremacy. Over the last four years, approximately one assassination has occurred every two months.

Reporting on crime

Karaivaz was raised in the wider area of Drama, a city with a rough 45,000 inhabitants, not far from the northern land borders with Bulgaria. At age 21 he left his hometown to seek a career in journalism in the capital.

In a career spanning over three decades, he mainly worked for national TV channels ― the biggest part of his career for ANT1, the last four years for Alpha ― and newspapers, always on the crime beat. His most in-depth reporting, though, was published on bloko.gr, a website he ran, which specializes in the coverage of issues related to law enforcement. It is in these articles that the police have reportedly been looking into for leads that could explain the apparent contract killing.

Karaivaz’s website didn’t seek glory in its design. What mattered was the reporter’s unparalleled access to information. In a simplistic, WordPress-style setting, Karaivaz used a personal tone to write about police corruption. His articles aimed to shed into light onto connections between “four sides”, namely, “police and organized crime, businessmen and politicians”.

Karaivaz highlighted the involvement of top ―serving and ex― police officers in organized crime, and their decisive role in keeping the balance among different interests. He wrote about officers on duty who simultaneously worked as personal security for top mafia leaders. And he insisted on the role of National Intelligence Service agents, who, according to his reporting, carried out illegal phone tracking, spread false information to discredit honourable officers who were their targets, and went as far as to plot murders to protect the mafia’s interests.

For this access to information, Karaivaz had been criticized for getting too close with his sources in the world of organized crime. Writing at bloko.gr, where he allowed himself to refer by first name to a former criminal who had become his source, after the latter was assassinated, he didn’t try to hide these personal connections. After all, it was through them, he wrote, that he had been granted the opportunity to realize the real depth of corruption in the top police ranks.

Greek crime reporter Giorgos Karaivaz

Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Case is “absolute priority”

Responding to IPI’s request for an update on the case, a representative of the Greek police said no update could be given as the case is still at the preliminary examination stage.

“My personal estimation is that the police might not want to leak information on the case, even if their investigation has in fact progressed”, lawyer Apostolos Lytras commented.

On October 7, 2021, the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued an alert with regards to the case, according to which “the search for the perpetrators of the assassination of George Karaivaz has been and still remains an absolute priority for the Hellenic Police and its various Agencies.

“The competent investigative authority is conducting a systematic and in-depth investigation of this crime”, the alert said, adding that new information gathered can’t be disclosed, as “under Greek relevant legal framework (the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure), preliminary investigation is confidential”.

The alert also quotes the Greek Prime Minister, Kiriakos Mitsotakis, as having requested from the minister of citizen protection that relevant procedures for solving this case proceed quickly. However, back in April, Mitsotakis had been criticized for taking over 24 hours to make a public statement on Karaivaz’s murder.

Media freedom challenged in Greece

In the board of the Journalists’ Union of the Athens Daily Newspapers (ESIEA), the largest trade union for journalists employed in Greece, sit members who were friends with Karaivaz. They worked with him and, although they asked not to comment on the case for the moment, as the investigation is ongoing, they state that he had been beloved among his colleagues. “So, this is also personal”, a representative said.

Following Karaivaz’s assassination, ESIEA’s president, Maria Antoniadou, said that “those that think that they can close the journalist’s mouth with such actions are wrong. We are 6,099 more and we will reveal, altogether, who the perpetrators were and those who hid behind them”.

Karaivaz’s murder was the second journalist assassination since 2010, after the killing of Socrates Gkiolias.

But “apart from cases of brutal violence resulting in the murder of journalists, reporters in Greece face a wide range of pressures aimed at killing either their stories or themselves as journalistic entities”, Thodoris Chondrogiannos, a prominent investigative journalist, told IPI.

“There are lawsuits from large corporations, anonymous threats against them and their families, the warning of violence and damage to property in order to intimidate, the risk of dismissal by a publisher who wants to get rid of a ‘troublesome’ reporter, character assassination operations by armies of trolls and anonymous accounts operating on social networks”, he added. “All of these”, he concluded, “are ways to silence journalists, often leading them to self-censor themselves, before they can even be possibly censored by their editor”.

Solving the Karaivaz murder, on its own, will not end these others threats to journalism. But not solving it – and sending the message that those who attack journalists can get away with it – will undoubtedly put Greek journalists at even greater risk.

Click here to read more from IPI’s reporting series Media Freedom in Europe in the Shadow of Covid

First published on IPI's website

Italy: Journalists face fresh violence covering ‘green pass’ protests

The undersigned partners of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) are highly concerned about yet another series of violent attacks and threats to journalists and media workers covering protests against the government’s pandemic-related measures across Italy.

Several incidents of hostility and violence towards media were reported in Rome on 9 October, when journalists and photojournalists were attacked while reporting on a protest by anti-vaccine and far-right groups against government measures to require all workers to carry the EU Digital COVID Certificate.

Photojournalist Francesco Cocco, a contributor to daily newspaper Il Foglio, said he was deliberately kicked in the groin and injured by a uniformed police officer while documenting the street protest near via Largo Chigi in the capital. Video footage captures Cocco being hit off-camera and dropping to the floor, almost dropping the equipment.

That same afternoon, Flavia Amabile, a journalist with daily newspaper La Stampa, was hit with batons by police while covering the protest near the Piazza del Popolo. First, a police officer in riot gear hit her and another photojournalist with a truncheon despite being made aware they were journalists. In a second incident, Amabile was amidst a group of protesters filming on her mobile phone when the police moved forward and began hitting people violently with truncheons.

On the same day, la Repubblica photojournalist Alessandro Serranò was also attacked with a shovel by a protester who had broken into a construction site and armed himself. Video footage shows Serranò holding a makeshift shield as a man violently swings the shovel at him. He was taken to the emergency room with minor injuries. Journalist Sara Giudice and colleagues from La7 Piazzapulita were also attacked by protesters. Police confirmed that a 52-year-old man was charged with causing aggravated injuries. A trial hearing is set for 10 December.

Two days later, on 11 October, a crew from the public broadcaster Tgr Rai in the region of Friuli Venezia Giulia was threatened and had their equipment damaged as they were covering anti-green-pass protests near the port in Trieste. Journalist Alessandra Zigaina had a microphone snatched out of her hand and thrown away into the crowd. A camera was also ripped out of the operator’s hand and dropped. The crew were also pushed and insulted. During the protest march, the demonstrators stopped outside the Rai headquarters to chant anti-media slogans and shout insults.

Our organisations join Italian journalists’ rights groups in strongly condemning all these incidents of violence against the media. Concerningly, these kinds of attacks have underscored the consistent threats that journalists in Italy face while reporting on anti-lockdown and anti-vaccine pass protests. During the pandemic, MFRR monitoring organisations have documented dozens of attacks and threats against journalists and media workers by protesters in various parts of the country, both during protests and against journalists investigating or reporting on anti-vaccine and conspiracy theory groups. Abuse of journalists covering demonstrations is becoming the norm rather than an anomaly.

We call on the Italian government to urgently take action to improve the safety of journalists covering protests. There is clearly a need for improving the public’s media literacy, so they better understand the press’ role, while also duly investigating and prosecuting acts of violence and harassment. Furthermore, any acts of police brutality must be swiftly and adequately investigated through an appropriate disciplinary process. This must be paired with improved capacity-building among law enforcement personnel in coordination with representatives of the journalistic profession to generate a better understanding of journalists’ and media workers’ protection needs during demonstrations.