Greece: Answers needed over alleged state surveillance of journalist

Intelligence service leak reveals monitoring of investigative platform and journalist in Greece. The undersigned partners of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) today urge the Greek government to immediately provide clarity over allegations that a state intelligence agency conducted surveillance on journalist Stavros Malichudis and the investigative media organisation Solomon, which focuses on refugees and migration in Greece.

The revelations published by Greek newspaper Efimerida ton Syntakton (EFSYN), which indicated the government’s National Intelligence Service (EYP) had secretly been conducting monitoring of Malichudis, pose serious questions over journalistic source protection and the right to privacy in Greece, which is already facing growing questions over a decline in media freedom.

The November 14 report revealed that the EYP, which gathers intelligence on national security, had requested information on citizens, including a lawyer, a journalist, a worker for a United Nations agency focused on migration and protest organisers. The information was leaked to the newspaper by a whistle-blower. The newspaper redacted the names and private information of the journalist and others who were monitored. However, Malichudis recognised the description of events and identified himself as the journalist in the story.

The alleged surveillance relates to an article that Malichudis and the director of Solomon, Iliana Papangeli, had published in April 2021, seven months prior to the newspaper’s revelations. Their article had reported on a 12-year-old boy from Syria living in a refugee holding camp on the island of Kos, whose artwork was exhibited in a museum and then published on the website of the French newspaper Le Monde. In April, Malichudis, a freelance journalist who works for AFP, is a member of Solomon and collaborates with Investigate Europe and Reporters United, had tried to track down the boy to interview him about his artistic success and the experiences of his family reaching Europe. The journalists had not informed anyone outside Solomon of their plans.

A redacted file published by EFSYN showed that while Malichudis was researching the story, officials at EYP’s headquarters sent a request to colleagues based on Kos asking them to confirm whether the boy and his family were being held in the camp and to gather information. The request included Malichudis’s name and ID number and said the EYP had information “from a source of high reliability” that the journalist was planning to speak with the family. Solomon was also mentioned by name. It also requested information on an employee of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) in Greece, a source with whom Malichudis had spoken on the phone before the conversation switched to an encrypted messaging app.

#Greece: IPI is deeply concerned by reports that investigative journalism outlet @we_are_solomon & @AFP reporter @Malichudis were secretly monitored by the National Intelligence Service.@EFSYNTAKTON @reporters_gr @MediaFreedomEU https://t.co/t87XjpPXl4

— IPI-The Global Network for Independent Journalism (@globalfreemedia) November 16, 2021

The Greek authorities have yet to deny the alleged surveillance of the journalist. Given the seriousness of the allegations, and the paucity of information provided by authorities so far, our organisations urge the government to provide immediate answers to parliament as to why the National Intelligence Service had knowledge of Malichudis’s reporting before it was published. Information should also be made public about exactly how this information was gathered and the nature of the “reliable sources” the EYP had on his work. Details must also be provided about why a request was made to monitor the journalist’s confidential source, with whom he spoke only in a telephone call and an encrypted messaging app, and how the EYP had knowledge of these private communications.

The evidence provided so far indicates that Malichudis and possibly other members of the team at Solomon have had their communication illegally monitored without their knowledge and that this information was then shared with a state security agency tracking their work. In addition to raising serious privacy concerns, this surveillance would constitute a clear interference in the freedom of the press and a serious violation of the confidentiality of journalistic sources, which is protected under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. These rights are a fundamental element of media freedom, and confirmation of their violation would have a chilling effect on watchdog journalism and undermine transparency by discouraging whistle-blowers to come forward.

Given that the EYP’s mandate is to investigate threats to Greece’s national security, we also question why a journalist’s reporting on a refugee’s experience in a holding camp should even be justified as a legitimate target for intelligence gathering of any form. Immediate justification should be provided as to why this was the case. If such a human-interest story drew the attention of the EYP, it then begs the question to what extent the security services are monitoring the work of investigative journalists probing an issue such as illegal pushbacks. We hope this case is not the tip of the iceberg of wider surveillance of journalists by state authorities, which we have recently observed in other EU member states. The longer the Greek government remains silent or dodges questions, the longer it will invite scrutiny. The Special Standing Committee on Institutions and Transparency should examine this case as a matter of priority.

Our organisations stand in solidarity with Stavros Malichudis and the journalistic team at Solomon, which is a current grantee of the Investigative Journalism for Europe (IJ4EU) fund led by the International Press Institute (IPI), and whose work documenting the stories of unaccompanied minors in Moria’s refugee camp was nominated for a major European journalism award. Moving forward, we will continue to monitor this case closely and will demand concrete answers from the government on this issue during an MFRR media freedom mission to Greece later this year. In the meantime, we also urge the European Commission and European Parliament to seek immediate responses from the Greek government about these extremely serious allegations.

Signed by:

ARTICLE 19
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
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.

Dutch journalist forced to leave Greece after threats and…

Dutch journalist forced to leave Greece after threats and intimidation

The IPI global network today expresses regret over the involuntary departure of Dutch journalist Ingeborg Beugel from Greece, after she faced physical and online threats following a heated exchange with the Greek prime minister over refugee pushbacks in the Aegean Sea. IPI stands in full support and solidarity with Beugel and calls on Greece to provide a safe working environment for all journalists.

On 17 November 2021, Beugel, a Dutch freelance correspondent, revealed she planned to leave the country over fears for her safety after she experienced an aggressive smear campaign online and in pro government media following her questioning of PM Kyriakos Mitsotakis on 9 November over allegations of his country’s illegal pushbacks.

During the joint press conference with the Dutch PM Mark Rutte, Beugel openly asked the Greek PM when he would “stop lying” about the pushbacks, to which Mitsotakis responded: “Look, you will not come into this building and insult me. Am I very clear on this?” The exchange was shared widely on social media, garnering both praise and criticism.

Beugel was then targeted with insults and accused of spreading Turkish propaganda. She was also the focus of attempts to discredit her by numerous media in Greece, including comments which accused her of spreading lies and being a “pro-Turkish” agent. Other reports delved into her personal life. Recently, she was hit by a stone thrown at her by a man in a dark street, who called her a “Turkish spy”.

“The threats and violence against Beugel, as well as her involuntary departure from Greece, are unacceptable”, IPI Deputy Director Scott Griffen said. “Journalists fulfilling their watchdog role and asking uncomfortable questions – however pointedly – about a matter of clear public interest should never face such extreme intimidation. The shameful and coordinated attempt to discredit Beugel work and bully her out of the country raises yet more worrying questions about press freedom in Greece. IPI stands in full solidarity with the journalist and will offer practical assistance through the Media Freedom Rapid Response project.”

Since the press conference, the threats directed at her have become increasingly severe, Beugel told IPI. “I cannot return to the island of Hydra where I have a house, because people will throw stones and tomatoes at me, and I will be attacked. I cannot leave the house unaccompanied anymore. Some newspapers now write multiple negative stories about me each day. My life here has become very unsafe.”

Beugel, who is a permanent resident and has lived in Greece for 40 years, said that the online harassment and threats she was facing had made it impossible to remain in the country. “People write that my head should be shaved, that I should drown together with the refugees, that I deserve to be tarred and feathered. Many of the comments are very sexist. I cannot read it anymore.”

#Greece 🇬🇷: Attempts to discredit Dutch journalist @IBeugel after exchange with PM Mitsotakis

Read the alert 👉🏻https://t.co/64MoszJobL
Report new threats 👉🏻 https://t.co/t9qqwS3PAd
#MFRR #ReportIt pic.twitter.com/zyZQKDjeKm

— Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) (@MediaFreedomEU) November 10, 2021

Beugel said the harassment was part of a wider campaign to silence critics of Greece’s migration policies. “They intimidate, demonize and criminalize aid workers and NGOs that help refugees, and all those who question the policies and the pushback of migrants”, she said. “Many journalists on the Aegean islands are arrested and interrogated, their material is taken from them and from TV crews. Many get slapped with court cases. I have two court cases against me. The only goal is to make people afraid and to have a chilling effect on others to speak out.”

Beugel made the decision to leave the country after security advice from the Dutch Foreign Ministry and the Dutch embassy in Greece, as well as the Dutch Journalists’ Association NVJ. “They all told me my safety is not guaranteed here”, she said. “Then the only right decision is to come home for a while at this point.” She said she would return home for an “indefinite period” and one day wished to return to Greece.

The journalist will file a complaint with the Greek police over some of the threats she received. When exactly she will return to the Netherlands has been kept a secret for her safety. She was previously arrested in June 2021 and is currently facing trial in Greece on charges of illegally hosting an Afghan refugee in her house, which carries a 12-month prison sentence and fine of €5,000.

Despite the threats, her questions at the press conference have also led to some positive development, she added: “After my remarks, a fierce debate has finally exploded in Greek society about the close government involvement in the media”, she said. People tell me that I have brought both matters – lies about pushbacks and the quality of journalism – on the political agenda with just one question.”

IPI is concerned about Greece’s deteriorating state of press freedom, after multiple violations against journalists occurred this year. On April 9, the Greek journalist George Karaivaz was brutally murdered by unknown individuals in a suburb of Athens. More recently, parliament voted to approve a vaguely-worded legal amendment to the criminal code which allows journalists to be prosecuted and jailed for publishing “false news” deemed capable of causing “concern or fear to the public or undermining public confidence in the national economy, the country’s defense capacity or public health”. On November 15, the Greek journalist Stavros Malichudis was reported to have been secretly surveilled and monitored by the National Intelligence Service over a report about a refugee child from Syria.

This statement by IPI 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.

First published on IPI's website

SLAPP lawsuit in Greece underscores need for swift EU…

SLAPP lawsuit in Greece underscores need for swift EU directive

The undersigned partners of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) today express serious concern over a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) targeted against the small independent media outlet Alterthess and its journalist Stavroula Poulimeni by a Greek gold mining executive convicted of serious environmental crimes. Our organisations note that this case again underscores the need for a swift European Union directive and Council of Europe Recommendation to protect journalists and media outlets reporting in the public interest from this kind of abusive litigation.

On 19 October 2021, the cooperative journalistic website Alterthess in Thessaloniki received the lawsuit filed against them by Efstathios Lialios, an executive at the firm Hellas Gold. It demanded €100,000 in damages over an article the site had published on 27 October 2020, alleging it had illegally processed his “sensitive personal data” when it reported his criminal conviction. It argued the plaintiff’s names should not have been published and that Lialios’s reputation was damaged as a result, jeopardising his ability to find new work. The lawsuit also threatened Poulimeni with criminal sanctions.

The article, ‘Two high-ranking executives of Hellas Gold were convicted of water pollution in North Halkidiki’, reported the first instance conviction of Lialios and a colleague, the then CEO of Hellas Gold, for the company’s responsibility in the systematic pollution of the local water in Halkidiki with heavy toxic metals and liquid waste. The pair were accused of failing to monitor, control or report to authorities the pollution of surface water, which vastly exceeded the legal limit and caused serious environmental degradation. Hellas Gold is a subsidiary of the Canadian Eldorado Gold Corporation.

The article by Poulimeni reported the initial verdict, which was made by the Court of First Instance of Polygyros. The Court of Appeal of Thessaloniki later confirmed the verdict on 1 September 2021, with the two executives handed a suspended sentence. Shortly after this second decision, Lialios filed the lawsuit: a full year after the original article was written. The legal case against Alterthess and Poulimeni is due to be heard in court on 25 November 2021.

Rather than aimed at settling a legitimate legal dispute, our organisations believe it is clear that this lawsuit is aimed at silencing Alterthess and Poulimeni by forcing them into a time-consuming and costly legal battle, draining them financially and discouraging them from further reporting. For the last decade, Alterthess and Poulimeni have documented the impact of Hellas Gold’s mining operations on the environment and the local community. The extortionate financial demands seem to be an attempt to intimidate the publication and drive it to financial ruin. We therefore consider this a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP).

The grounds for the lawsuit are baseless. Court reporting by journalists and media is legally protected because of the importance of informing the public at large how justice is done. The trial was held in open court, without reporting restrictions, and the verdict was publicly available. Given the seriousness of the environmental crimes, publishing the names of the plaintiffs was both standard journalistic practice and overwhelmingly in the public interest. We cannot avoid the conclusion therefore that this lawsuit is an effort by Lialios to shield himself and Hellas Gold from critical coverage and punish Alterthess for its reporting.

This lawsuit is not a proportionate or principled attempt to seek legal redress. We therefore urge Mr. Lialios to withdraw the claim and refrain from trying to weaponise civil law in the future. If the case ends up before a court, our organisations hope that the court will take into consideration the European Court of Human Rights standards on article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Concerningly, this is not the first time that Hellas Gold has used the threat of legal action to bully those critical of its operations. This is, however, the first time that a media outlet has been the target.

This case is yet another reminder of the need for an EU Anti-SLAPP Directive that creates preventive measures and procedural safeguards to better protect journalists from abusive lawsuits by rich and powerful individuals. The overwhelming adoption by MEPs on 11 November of a report on SLAPPs was a timely reminder of the seriousness and urgency of this issue, one that sends a clear message to the European Commission that far-reaching legislation is needed. Our organisations stand by to assist the Commission and are preparing our submission to its public consultation on anti-SLAPP regulation.

With such a Directive in place and legislation implemented at the national level, we hope cases such as this involving Alterthess will be immediately dismissed or avoided altogether. Until then, the MFRR expresses our full support and solidarity with the affected journalists and all other battling abusive gag lawsuits. We will continue to monitor this case closely, have reported the lawsuit to the Council of Europe’s platform for the protection of journalism, and will provide immediate financial support to help fund Alterthess’ legal defence.

Signed by:

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

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)

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